'Stupid Woman'

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Citation needed.

The person from TX was clearly mistaken to say you’re racist for saying there’s only one race, humans... but I’d like you to please share with all of us what UC ACTUALLY said... in context. 

Yiu said they labeled it racist. Elaborate. 

https://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf

There's a whole list.

By saying "There is only one race, the human race." you are: "Saying assimilate to the dominant culture. Denying the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history. Denying the individual as a racial/cultural being."

 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

By saying "There is only one race, the human race." you are: "Saying assimilate to the dominant culture. Denying the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history. Denying the individual as a racial/cultural being."

Thank you. I can now see the problem with your reading comprehension. 

None of that speaks about a person being racist for saying that. 

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The word genius carries assumptions about gender, according to the Cambridge University. 

Where? Here’s a link. Show us: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/genius

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

But then let's say I leaked that to the news. Then, I took your words and I portrayed it in the worst possible context, and then organized protests to label you as an ignorant bigot.

At some point, wouldn't you say that what I'm doing is wrong?

Sure I would make the case for myself in whatever way I thought was most effective. What else would there be to do? I don't understand where you are going with this. I can't stop people from think bad things about me or prevent them from voicing their thoughts. 

[Raider5678]

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thank you. I can now see the problem with your reading comprehension. 

None of that speaks about a person being racist for saying that. 

Ignoring your snark, I very clearly said: "the University of California is the one who labeled it racist."

Not a person being racist, the statement being racist. Don't put words in my mouth that I never said.

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Ignoring your snark, I very clearly said: "the University of California is the one who labeled it racist."

Not a person being racist, the statement being racist. Don't put words in my mouth that I never said.

 

I honestly don’t even know what you’re talking about right now.

As Zap shared, you seem so busy defending yourself that you’ve become seemingly incapable of accurately comprehending what others are posting. 

The quote you shared accuses nobody of and no statement as being racist, yet that’s the heart of this strange point you’re trying to make.

Do you disagree? If so, why? Be specific. 

Edited December 21, 2018 by iNow

[StringJunky]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

When people interpret what others say, it also says a lot about them...

Isn't that the bigger issue. These types of actions or words, are 'perceived 'wrongs', not intended wrongs.
In this very discussion we have no idea as to the intent of the speaker, yet we have widely varying opinions by others ( including forum members ) as to what he meant, or they perceived him to mean.
This perception may have nothing to do with any actual wrong, or intent, on the part of the speaker, but may be due to the 'baggage' we all carry with us that colors our perspective. 

If its good practice ( or behavior, or manners ) not to call someone stupid in public, isn't it also good practice not to jump to conclusions and to assume the worst about a person based on your interpretation of what he said.
( or even to get a lip reader to decode what he said privately, and expose it in the news )

As a lifelong lip-reader, he did say "Stupid woman". No way did he say "Stupid people"

Edited December 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[MigL]

Regardless of what he actually said, the interpretation is of the intent, Stringy.
Did he say 'stupid woman' as an identifier, or did he imply that she belongs to the stupid gender ?
It is not as simple as someone slapping another person, where the action has intent and is wrong to all observers.
This action has differing interpretations, even among members of this forum.
Is someone going to declare themselves the arbitrer of correct behavior and say his own interpretation is the ONLY valid one ?

Otherwise all we have is one group ( with one interpretation ) calling the other group ( with differing interpretation ) 'sexist'.

I don't know much about J Corbyn ( as some others seem to ) but it seems like your politics is descending to American levels.
Sorry mate !

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Regardless of what he actually said, the interpretation is of the intent, Stringy.
Did he say 'stupid woman' as an identifier, or did he imply that she belongs to the stupid gender ?
It is not as simple as someone slapping another person, where the action has intent and is wrong to all observers.
This action has differing interpretations, even among members of this forum.
Is someone going to declare themselves the arbitrer of correct behavior and say his own interpretation is the ONLY valid one ?

Otherwise all we have is one group ( with one interpretation ) calling the other group ( with differing interpretation ) 'sexist'.

I don't know much about J Corbyn ( as some others seem to ) but it seems like your politics is descending to American levels.
Sorry mate !

Identifier. It's a bit much to extrapolate that as a sexist comment, especially when there's no prior history with him. This  is  the feminist brigade trying to maintain momentum on the back of the MeToo movement, no matter how tenuous the subject... as long as the subject is in the news it's all "good". Manufactured hysteria. I know how this going to end up... deja vu, anyone?

Edited December 21, 2018 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Regardless of what he actually said, the interpretation is of the intent, Stringy.
Did he say 'stupid woman' as an identifier, or did he imply that she belongs to the stupid gender ?
It is not as simple as someone slapping another person, where the action has intent and is wrong to all observers.
This action has differing interpretations, even among members of this forum.
Is someone going to declare themselves the arbitrer of correct behavior and say his own interpretation is the ONLY valid one ?

Otherwise all we have is one group ( with one interpretation ) calling the other group ( with differing interpretation ) 'sexist'.

I don't know much about J Corbyn ( as some others seem to ) but it seems like your politics is descending to American levels.
Sorry mate !

Tbf it seems that people here mostly argue whether such a statement could be sexist or not and not whether it is in the specific context. 

[geordief]

Getting "real" ,  how can it be objectively verified that he actually said one or the other words ?  (I understand even lip readers disagree)

 

Fwiw I don't believe him  but what is the point of this debate on such shifting foundations?

 

If I wanted to criticise  JC (and as a public figure  it is fair to do so) I would want to be very sure of my ground first.

[Raider5678]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

I honestly don’t even know what you’re talking about right now.

As Zap shared, you seem so busy defending yourself that you’ve become seemingly incapable of accurately comprehending what others are posting. 

The quote you shared accuses nobody of and no statement as being racist, yet that’s the heart of this strange point you’re trying to make.

Do you disagree? If so, why? Be specific. 

FFS stop moving the goal posts.

The entire point is that you pointed to almost everyone who complained about things being politically correct, and said they were just privileged and were saying it was bullshit because they couldn't say privileged things anymore.

You can jump from one side to the other about what they technically mean and all the terms that come with it, but ultimately the statement is quite clear: Don't say it, it's politically incorrect.

So yes, I disagree. You're so busy making comments about my reading comprehension that you're not actually reading what I'm saying.

 

TLDR;

The quote I shared very simply said don't say it because it's politically incorrect. Do you disagree?

Edited December 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

FFS stop moving the goal posts.

The entire point is that you pointed to almost everyone who complained about things being politically correct, and said they were just privileged and were saying it was bullshit because they couldn't say privileged things anymore.

You can jump from one side to the other about what they technically mean and all the terms that come with it, but ultimately the statement is quite clear: Don't say it, it's politically incorrect.

So yes, I disagree. You're so busy making comments about my reading comprehension that you're not actually reading what I'm saying.

 

stop digging, my meters on the edge.

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Did he say 'stupid woman' as an identifier, or did he imply that she belongs to the stupid gender ?

You missed out the fact that he didn't say it at all.

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Tbf it seems that people here mostly argue whether such a statement could be sexist or not and not whether it is in the specific context. 

1

Tbf she does say stupid things

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Regardless of what he actually said, the interpretation is of the intent, Stringy.
Did he say 'stupid woman' as an identifier, or did he imply that she belongs to the stupid gender ?
It is not as simple as someone slapping another person, where the action has intent and is wrong to all observers.
This action has differing interpretations, even among members of this forum.
Is someone going to declare themselves the arbitrer of correct behavior and say his own interpretation is the ONLY valid one ?

Otherwise all we have is one group ( with one interpretation ) calling the other group ( with differing interpretation ) 'sexist'.

I don't know much about J Corbyn ( as some others seem to ) but it seems like your politics is descending to American levels.
Sorry mate !

You're implying that interpretation is a bad thing and ignoring how common it is to human communication. Much of what people say cannot be understood literally. Metaphors, gestures, analogies, sarcasm, exaggeration, subtly, and so on require interpretation to be understood. The way one chooses to use certain gestures, sarcasm, and etc can be inappropriate  or offensive depending on the environment. As previously mentioned that is one of the reasons why employers interview for jobs. A resume contains all the formal bits that outline ones eligibility for a position. Regardless of what ones history is on paper employers still make interpretations about fitness for employment based on face to face conversations. One can never read another person's mind. True intention behind a statement can never be known for a certainty. We are always interpreting what others mean.

In politics communication is one the primary skills. The most educated candidate in world with all the best ideas stands little chance of being elected if they communicate in a way people find awkward or cannot relate to. Choosing to say affirmative rather than yes even if either is accurate can be enough to give people misgivings or rally them to ones side.

I personally do not find what Jeremy Corbyn said sexist. However I am not British or well versed in the common speech patterns of Corbyn's audience. Just as key words in U.S. politics often mean something deeper so too do certain words of phrases in England. Dog whistles are designed to only be heard by specific individuals. I do not speak in Corbyn's regional dialect. Additionally the statement doesn't have to be intentionally sexist to be sexist. Everything is relative after all. Many of Saudi Arabia's most progressive men are sexist by western standards. 

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The entire point is that you pointed to almost everyone who complained about things being politically correct, and said they were just privileged and were saying it was bullshit because they couldn't say privileged things anymore.

Correct. 

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

You can jump from one side to the other about what they technically mean and all the terms that come with it, but ultimately the statement is quite clear: Don't say it, it's politically incorrect.

Right, but you didn’t say they were calling you politically incorrect.

You DID say they were calling you racist, and that’s what I commented on and specifically challenged. 

So... Who’s jumping “from one side to the other” and “moving goalposts” now?

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Right, but you didn’t say they were calling you politically incorrect.

You DID say they were calling you racist, and that’s what I commented on and specifically challenged. 

So... Who’s jumping “from one side to the other” and “moving goalposts” now?

Once again, stop putting words in my mouth. 

I did not say they were calling me racist. There was a single person from texas who called me racist, and then I said that more specifically, the University of California has labeled the statement as racist. That's my viewpoint on it.

Regardless of whether you think about whether or not they technically said it was racist or not, the main idea which you're completely intent on ignoring is that they said it's politically incorrect, and I think it's ridiculous.

 

I suspect we both agree on that simple concept that saying "There is only one race, the human race" shouldn't be politically incorrect. But you seem more intent on digging your heels in then simply saying something like "Okay, yeah. I can see where me saying that almost everyone who complains about politically correct things is just a privileged person is ignoring a lot of situations."

 

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Additionally the statement doesn't have to be intentionally sexist to be sexist. Everything is relative after all. Many of Saudi Arabia's most progressive men are sexist by western standards. 

I feel differently.

When the intentions are directly in reference to the subject, such as sexism, then yes, it's all relative.

If the intentions had nothing to do with that, and were simply grammatical, I don't think that makes something sexist.

 

For example, if he made a statement on the stupidity of women, it could be interpreted as sexist, yes. It was directly related to sexism and genders.

When he says "stupid woman" and uses it in a grammatical way, then it doesn't lay on some sort of spectrum, it just exists.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I did not say they were calling me racist. There was a single person from texas who called me racist, and then I said that more specifically, the University of California has labeled the statement as racist.

I appreciate your concession that you moved the goalposts when saying UC was arguing against political correctness (when, in fact, you said they labeled the statement racist, and now again repeated that different claim here).

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I suspect we both agree on that simple concept that saying "There is only one race, the human race" shouldn't be politically incorrect.

Absolutely. We are fully aligned here, on both the validity of the statement and the fact that it’s not in any way incorrect, politically or otherwise. 

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

But you seem more intent on digging your heels in then simply saying something like "Okay, yeah. I can see where me saying that almost everyone who complains about politically correct things is just a privileged person is ignoring a lot of situations."

Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the meaning of the word “almost,” and perhaps you’re not clear on why I was sure to insert it before posting the message that triggered this unnecessary cascade with you?

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

I appreciate your concession that you moved the goalposts when saying UC was arguing against political correctness (when, in fact, you said they labeled the statement racist, and now again repeated that different claim here).

It wasn't a concession. I still think that UC labeled it racist. But since you were intent on disagreeing with that idea, I went with the more basic idea, simply to try to get the main point across, that at the very least you can concede that they were saying it's politically incorrect which is why it's complained about. It was not moving the goal posts, and I very clearly said:

13 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

You can jump from one side to the other about what they technically mean and all the terms that come with it, but ultimately the statement is quite clear: Don't say it, it's politically incorrect.

Perhaps that clears up some of your confusion.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the meaning of the word “almost,” and perhaps you’re not clear on why I was sure to insert it before posting the message that triggered this unnecessary cascade with you?

Filtering out your snark, you'll see I very clearly addressed this already, by pointing out my disagreement was that it isn't "almost always". You'd realize this, but again, you're intent to dig in your heels and drag every inch of ground.

Literally if you read my first post, you'll see that I explicitly disagree with your use of always. You can suddenly pretend that I'm an idiot and I've never realized that you used the word almost, but seriously, this is getting tiring. Every singe time I've quoted you, I've included the word "almost" or something similar to that, because I don't put words in your mouth that you didn't say.

You're jumping around from one argument to another, and constantly trying to brush everything I've said under the rug without actually addressing what I've said by questioning my ability to read, pretending like I haven't actually read what you said, or trying to say I'm moving the goal posts when I clarify something in a simpler way. But despite all of that, you still haven't addressed what I've said.

 

Anyways, I'm done with this conversation. After all of that, you're so intent on digging your heels in, that now you're trying to pretend that I don't know what the word "almost" is, or pretending that I didn't notice you said it. I explicitly addressed it. And you're still going to play this game. I explicitly addressed the very aspect of what you said, quoted it, and explained why I disagreed with it, I provided citations, quotes, evidence, and my reasoning. And your reply to that is to throw in just one more smart remark.

This is what annoys me about having discussions on this forum sometimes. 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I still think that UC labeled it racist.

Yes, I understand. I said you moved the goalposts when saying they labeled it PC. 

17 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You're jumping around from one argument to another, and constantly trying to brush everything I've said under the rug without actually addressing what I've said by questioning my ability to read, pretending like I haven't actually read what you said

I questioned your comprehension, not your literacy. This comment here only further reinforces that exact point. 

Please recall also that it was in context of this:

 

[Raider5678]

Just now, iNow said:

Yes, I understand. I said you moved the goalposts when saying they labeled it PC. 

So. To clarify, it's moving the goal posts to say "Alright, fine. Think of it this way instead. It's still the same thing. I don't see why we disagree."?

Let's look at it numerically.

0 = Perfectly Okay, 1 = Politically Incorrect, 2 = Racist.

Me: According to UC, saying "There is only one race, the Human Race", is 2. The main idea, is that I don't think that statement is a 2, I think it should be a 0."

You: UC didn't say it was a 2.

Me: Alright, then we disagree on what we think they were saying. Regardless, even if they're not saying it's a 2 according to you, they're definitely at least saying it's a 1. I still think it should be a 0. We agree.

You: You're moving the goal posts.

 

That is literally all I did. I conceded the idea that regardless of what we both interpreted what they said as, both of us agreed it should be a 0. We just disagreed about whether it was being called a 1 or a 2. And since it didn't matter, I simply conceded that point to try to help us reach an agreement easier. My bad. Next time I'll continually assert that I think it's racist, even though it doesn't support my position at all and doesn't relate. 

 

[iNow]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

As Zap shared, you seem so busy defending yourself that you’ve become seemingly incapable of accurately comprehending what others are posting. 

 

Merged post fail. This quote should be included in my previous. 

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Merged post fail. This quote should be included in my previous. 

You know what, I was trying to help us come to an agree faster. If you want to pretend like I'm just trying to defend myself and I'm not actually reading anything you're saying, then go ahead.

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

I questioned your comprehension, not your literacy.

You're so busy defending yourself that you're not actually reading what I said.

You questioned my reading comprehension. Is that really that drastically far from me saying you questioned my ability to read, that you have to bring it up and correct me and pretend that because of that I haven't actually been reading what you've said?

 

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You questioned my reading comprehension. Is that really that drastically far from me saying you questioned my ability to read

Yes

[MigL]

To INow and Raider, maybe you guys can clear up your comprehension issues in PMs.
To the person that keeps picking sides/favorites by downvoting Raider, that's NOT what rep points are for.