GirlWritesWhat: "even when you behave perfectly, if you're an MRA, feminists and others will talk **** about how you're a misogynist, hateful violent terrorist. It really doesn't matter what we do. I'm not careful about what I say and how I say it anymore, because people will believe what they want"

No you don't, your only aim is to create drama. That's what gives you your emotional high. If you're honest and not a troll, you'll do a little introspection on this topic. The post doesn't advocate domestic violence, it's an analysis by FB of the dynamic of certain people (very much like you) who thrive on conflict, and actually are pushing for violence. And guess what, stats show that kind of dynamic is really widespread, but hey, human beings can be shitty.

If you don't understand the difference between sadomasochistic dynamics (one person being dominant and getting kicks out of inflicting pain, the other having a learned helplessness that prevents them from seeking help) and the conflict seeking dynamics that were discussed (one person seeking attention through conflict escalation as a replacement for romantic escalation), then I'm not sure even an intro psych course can help you.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToraZalinto 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZorbaTHut 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Octagonecologyst -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]A_Nihilist 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BrSy 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hach8 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually, I think MRA is about advocating on behalf of men's rights. It doesn't need a label or to be split up into conservative or liberal.

If you're arguing for traditional gender roles, though, I have trouble seeing how you are for men's rights. You likely are not opposed to the fact that men get less health care. You are likely not opposed to the fact that men tend to have more dangerous jobs. You are likely not opposed to the fact that men traditionally never get custody of their children. Because these things are the "traditional" male gender roles. If that is one's ideology, I don't see how they can honestly call themselves an MRA.

The worst thing that could happen would be for the MRM to be split into conservative / liberal. Not only because it would fracture the MRM, but more importantly because neither conservatives nor liberals are particular "friends" to men's rights. It would be making meaningless alliances that would only weaken the movement altogether.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You likely are not opposed to the fact that men get less health care.

Most traditionalist are against government health care in the first place.

You are likely not opposed to the fact that men tend to have more dangerous jobs.

And how do you plan to fix this? Shall we start drafting women into more dangerous jobs so the gender split is 50/50? Shall we make these jobs "safe" at the expense that will make those jobs obsolete?

You are likely not opposed to the fact that men traditionally never get custody of their children.

Traditionally, marriage was a contract, and under that traditional contract, the children belonged to the father. As such, traditionally it was mothers who never got custody of their children.

The worst thing that could happen would be for the MRM to be split into conservative / liberal.

No, the worst thing that could happen is to not have this discussion. Because these conflicting viewpoints are keeping the MRM in a deadlock that cannot be resolved.

If all you want to do is bitch that men have it bad, fine. But I want to do more than just bitch and complain, so we need a solution. A solution requires a path, and there is no compromise path between liberal and conservative.

[–]Manatee7474 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 21 points22 points23 points 13 years ago* (75 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mayonesa 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]cthulufunk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000[S] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

First step is to recognize it as an ad hominem. Basically any statement that attacks the speaker and not the message/idea the speaker (or writer) is producing is an ad hominem. Most opponents to the MRM will not use overt adhoms and will instead, usually, weave them in with weak arguments against the message/idea. The second argument could also be a fallacy, just a different one.

I learned this years ago and regularly read through it to stay fresh.

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

The Rational Wiki also has a more updated glossary of "debating traps" usually tied to core fallacies themselves, but not always. My favorite is Gish Gallop. Now the difference between a logical fallacy and the above example of a debating trap, a logical fallacy is, at its core, incorrect. Simply pointing it out should be enough to shift the burden of proof or argument back onto the opponent. (unless they are idiots.). The latter isn't necessarily wrong at its core, but those who employ it themselves probably know they are trying to hide a weak argument.

Also, with both Feminism as well as "arguing online" there is a metric shit ton of appeals to emotion, and while in formal debate it is often dismissed completely or frowned upon, in the online world is the ultimate trump card that is almost never dismissed. I bring that up to illustrate a point that, some logical fallacies are perceived (through mass ignorance) as being correct to the point of dogma.

That is why the accusation of rape, or rather, the appeal to the victims of rape is such a strong battlecry for feminism, it is also why they fight hard to suppress, ignore, or trivialize men as rape victims, despite being the majority (U.S).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Two more links, the first is a quick visual diagram, the second is essentially a breakdown of the concepts of the first.

http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2011/08/the-argument-pyramid.html

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/refuting_argument.htm

I could go on and on, but that's a ton of info to absorb. Believe me, even if you have to keep going back to the list of fallacies link, over time it will save you a lot of headache and time itself. If you really want to play the long-game, simply ignore any fallacy when you respond to an opponent, (simply ignore it), and wait for them to call you on on not responding. It doubly commits them to their false comment.

Also, when I debate someone who is being purposely obtuse (ignoring the obvious), quotations of what they said and leading questions as responses tend to solve that problem. It's easy for an opponent to dismiss a statements as it does not require a response, it is exceptionally hard for an opponent to ignore a question that is directly posed.

One last last last thing. And this is probably the most important lesson.

When you debate someone online, in an essay, or at a podium, it isn't about convincing that person they are wrong, it's seems obvious to state it, but the purpose of a debate is for the audience reading or hearing the exchange. I see a lot of people get frustrated because they cannot flip their target at that moment, it rarely ever happens anyway, most humans need at least a day to process information that challenges their paradigm, usually much longer.

In all my years I have never seen an opponent go "Oh wow, I didn't know that, I was wrong." When they are wrong beyond refutation they will simply change the subject, move a goal post, or "disappear".

And.. the greatest feat is to debate someone to the point of them deleting their own account, kudos to it being an established account.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]girlwriteswhat 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

I'll be doing a vid on this in the near future. The phenomenon of, "Of course they have valid causes, but I HATE MRAs because [they don't actually do anything about them other than complain on the internet; are violent; hate women].

Haven't come across a lot of actual violent rhetoric, other than from sites that are not well respected in the movement. Many MRAs are active in their communities and jurisdictions (Marc Angelucci has won some significant lawsuits in the US, for instance). And criticism of a biased system or even women's behavior is not hate.

No one wants to hear our message because it defies what their instincts and the culture tell them. It makes them viscerally uncomfortable to hear it. They want us to tone it down, because if we do, they can ignore us the way they'd prefer to.

The choice seems to be, "be hated and feared and smeared, or be ignored." Not great choices, but what are you gonna do?

[–]ThomasJeffersonJr 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious as to what motivates you to fight for men's rights. My motivation is kind of a selfish one in that, as a male, it helps me to vent the pressure of the constant hypocrisy I see coming from feminism as well as the dismissed inequality that many men face. I have to say that you give us enormous legitimacy and that I am grateful for that.

I've been an MRA for the past 5 or 6 years and I've been on this board for a great portion of that time (different username), and I've noticed a recent pattern that a lot of MRA's are afraid of being labelled as misogynistic. However, I, as with you, noticed a long time ago that the criticism that we receive from feminists comes regardless of our message, and that's because our entire existence is antithetical to their belief in a patriarchy and that all men benefit from such patriarchy. This seems to be a simple extension of their own internal bias against men in combination with the widespread victim complex that so many of them have. We can scream statistics at them all day as to how so many men are dying on the job, receiving disproportionate amounts of healthcare from the gov't, living homeless on the streets, being disadvantaged at work simply for not fitting into a "protected class," falling behind in school, etc.

I have to wonder, as a white person, if I'd be fighting for the black civil rights causes if I were alive 60 years ago. That is how I think of you. While I don't think that the men's rights struggle is as severe as the struggle that blacks faced, I do think your participation in the men's rights struggle is analogous to if a white person were a leading voice in the black struggle. I understand the courage that this takes and the dissent that you probably receive from so many people, including other MRA's that disagree with your style for some reason or another. I feel that there is a general lack of gratefulness coming from MRA's in regard to your involvement in the cause, and I wish that there was something that I could do to fix that.

[–]chavelah 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]chavelah -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure how this switched to me, but okay. I don't see myself as having that big of a role in the movement, to be honest. I don't have enough time and I've got a lot on my plate right now.

What I see myself doing is adding a woman's voice to the call for sanity. I hope to change the minds, at least a little, of the people around me. The blog is mostly for me to get my ideas together and if someone wants to talk to me about it, cool.

As far as the future of the movement, I'd like to see men being really stubborn about being heard, not quieting down. Not accepting the "rules" of dating and so forth. Just stop the bullshit. On a political level there needs to be a men's rights lobby, men's rights marches and protests. Places to get information on men's issues that don't say a lot about feminism or MGTOW or any of the groups we seen to be at least loosely affiliated with. DV shelters for men need to be a big priority and I think it's one of the "easy" topics. Everyone I talk to seems to understand that there's a problem.

As far as what I can do politically, I'm having a hard time with that. There are some father's rights organizations that I could get involved with but we don't have much of a MR community in Germany and I don't feel comfortable being the one who initiates that. I can speak German but not at the level that I would need to be to speak to politicians, newspapers, etc, and I also feel like men should be the ones to do it. All I can do in the US is vote and write letters which I have done.

Did I answer the question?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Not really. I meant how do you get people to pay attention, to care, to actually DO something about it all?

For example, Governments the world over have known about the 'boy crisis' since the 80's. Yet they haven't done anything in all that time...hell, they haven't even really acknowledged it's a 'boy' problem even now.

Or DV...how do you get people who have known for 40 years that DV is bi-directional and yet have knowingly perpetuated a lie that DV is male on female (primarily, or even predominantly), to stop smearing men and listen, or better yet do something positive? "nice" them into it?

You make great noise about the 'tone' of the movement, the strategy employed, and the 'extreme nutcases' like me...so I think I am entitled to ask what you would have us do differently, in detail, and your reasoning for said actions.

In short, if we are doing it 'wrong', exactly why is it wrong, and more to the point what is a better course of action, and WHY do you think it would work?

[–]mayonesa 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not stupid, inexperienced. Debating for men's rights seems very different to me than debating most other topics. People are more likely to get into actual discussions on most topics (yes, even on the internet!), but on the topic of men's rights, they go on the attack. Even someone experienced otherwise is debate is likely to have a harder time when debating men's rights with someone who goes on the attack.

I don't consider myself inexperienced with life, or debating topics, but I still often have a hard time responding to accusations of sexism and misogyny. Not because I'm stupid, but because it's a shock to have an argument twisted that way.

Your life experience may have taught you all these debating skills, including when someone immediately attacks your character, but I doubt that is average. Of course, I only have my own life experience to go by.

I wonder, why are you so angry about this? Nobody was called stupid, merely inexperienced, and frightened due to that inexperience. I'd hardly call that insulting. If it doesn't apply to you, that's great, but why the outrage for a simple, even if wrong, statement?

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mayonesa -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]alaysian 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]VerySpecialSnowflake -25 points-24 points-23 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]VerySpecialSnowflake -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pandadrake 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]VerySpecialSnowflake -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]VerySpecialSnowflake -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I just read through that thread. Your entire argument is based on the idea that a post in a subreddit means that subreddit supports the content of that post. That is a very fallacious argument.

Specifically:

If someone presents an argument and you find it offensive, deal with it. All arguments will be argued on their rational merits--if you don't have a rational counter argument then you lose. Rational counter arguments do not come in the form of 'that is badthought and you're not allowed to think it!'

and:

This sub will be lightly moderated. The only moderator actions(delete/ban) will be against obvious trolls, spam, and anything that breaks the global reddit rules. The rest is up to you and your downvotes.

Not deleting this post and advocating for discussion is specifically what that subreddit was designed for. When GWW is effectively defending that decision, you repeatedly accuse her of tacit approval of the subject matter.

Approval and support of debate on a topic is not approval of that topic's subject matter.

GWW and that subreddit never advocated that radical ideal. I just read through the thread, and the only one who seemed to actually support this idea was the original submitter. Others supported the idea of finding some recourse for dealing with "nagging" behavior, while at the same time saying violence wasn't the answer.

Just because a topic is one you don't like doesn't mean that those who discuss it or allow discussion of it are approving of it.

[+]VerySpecialSnowflake -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I just read through that thread. Your entire argument is based on the idea that a post in a subreddit means that subreddit supports the content of that post. That is a very fallacious argument.

Nope. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_tacit_approval

Not deleting this post and advocating for discussion is specifically what that subreddit was designed for. When GWW is effectively defending that decision, you repeatedly accuse her of tacit approval of the subject matter.

She does tacitly approve of the subject matter. I'm not "offended" by the submission. It is an outright advocation of and excuse of violence.

Others supported the idea of finding some recourse for dealing with "nagging" behavior, while at the same time saying violence wasn't the answer.

Yeah and the one who keeps asking me, "Well how would you punish the bitch, then?"

Just because a topic is one you don't like doesn't mean that those who discuss it or allow discussion of it are approving of it.

Oh, it's not "approval of it" because it's a "topic I don't like." It's an approval of it because it was posted, it is obvious trolling, and in the interest of "free speech" (i.e., not even bothering doing the bare minimum it takes to be a decent person) it is left, when it is very well known that were the genders reveresed, it would be called out as the horse shit it is and removed.

GWW and that subreddit never advocated that radical ideal.

It's existence is an advocation. Sorry. Those are the breaks.

[–]mythin 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's existence is an advocation. Sorry. Those are the breaks.

No, it really isn't. Do you honestly believe that a person allowing something to be put in a place they control is approval of the topic? Were I a mod there, I would also allow it to stand. I would probably, at the same time, be speaking out more strongly against the subject matter, but I wouldn't delete it.

See, that's the thing about free speech. When someone supports it as strongly as I do, or seemingly as strongly as GWW and the other mods there do, it becomes a greater evil to remove speech you disagree with than to allow hateful topics to exist.

Obviously you don't understand free speech if you actually believe allowing discussion on a topic is the same as tacit approval. And I don't need a dictionary, I'm well aware of what tacit approval is. This isn't it. Tacit approval is allowing an act to occur, knowing it is going to occur. Tacit approval is not allowing discussion of an act, even if that discussion is in a positive light.

You know what is being approved of here? Discussion. Explicitly, not tacitly. Discussion of uncomfortable, possibly even hateful, topics.

Yeah and the one who keeps asking me, "Well how would you punish the bitch, then?"

Hell, I'm not denying the ignorance displayed by some in that thread. In fact, I happen to agree with you 100% on how ridiculous the whole original article is. I explicitly do not approve in any way of domestic violence. I still find the discussion interesting, if not entirely worthwhile. I would let it exist were I a mod.

Does that make me tacitly approving of domestic violence?

[+]VerySpecialSnowflake -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you honestly believe that a person allowing something to be put in a place they control is approval of the topic?

Yes. Particularly when it is posted by a troll who his banned from its "brother" sub dozens of times.

See, that's the thing about free speech. When someone supports it as strongly as I do, or seemingly as strongly as GWW and the other mods there do, it becomes a greater evil to remove speech you disagree with than to allow hateful topics to exist.

That's cool. It's just that evidently neither you nor GWW have any actual concept of what "free speech" means, and would rather support a nonexistence concept in the private realm than be decent human beings.

Obviously you don't understand free speech if you actually believe allowing discussion on a topic is the same as tacit approval. And I don't need a dictionary, I'm well aware of what tacit approval is. This isn't it. Tacit approval is allowing an act to occur, knowing it is going to occur. Tacit approval is not allowing discussion of an act, even if that discussion is in a positive light.

Yeah, dude, I think you do need a dictionary.

Does that make me tacitly approving of domestic violence?

Yup.

[–]Hach8 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cthulufunk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Boss_Monkey 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RonPaul1488 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism isn't the absolute only issue where you get that level of shit thrown at you for dissenting but it is in the top rank. There's still an argument to be made for trying to remain polite a la Warren Farrel type of approach but it would be based on how third parties react to these debates not how the opponent reacts.

I would actually say that politeness would be better regardless of how much shit gets thrown at you. In fact you just look better and better if you can hold your tongue while your opponent is losing it, BUT the real problem with trying to stay polite is that some things are just impossible to say in a nice way.

I actually think GWW is very good at staying polite while communicating ideas that are not very nice, so I'd take her remarks here with a pinch of salt. It's not advise about how to talk and I think she takes a lot of care over what she says.

[–]kronox 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Knight_of_Malta 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]VerySpecialSnowflake -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]VerySpecialSnowflake -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For the gazillionth time...discussing an article saying x is good doesn't automatically mean that the people discussing it all think x is good as well.

Your problem is that you want so badly for one of us to slip up and say that domestic violence is a good thing and that men should be allowed to beat their women so you can say "AHA! I knew you were woman beating, violence advocating, misogynists all along!". Sorry, not gonna happen. The great majority of us here don't advocate violence. We do however realize that it exists and that so far it's been the only solution suggested to the problem that is "women behaving badly". The reason we're discussing the article, well me at least, is because most of us don't want a violent solution.

Maybe, just maybe if you can see past your inclination to believe we're all violent misogynist woman-beaters, you may just see the value in coming together to find non-violent solutions to problems like this. Then again I may as well just be talking to a brick wall while you're plugging a finger in each ear (or covering your eyes in this case) going "LA-LA-LA I can't hear you!".

Comments