'Stupid Woman'

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

To the person that keeps picking sides/favorites by downvoting Raider, that's NOT what rep points are for.

There are at least three people downvoting Raider in this thread (one of his posts received three downvotes). So either at least three people disagree with you, or perhaps your assumption regarding the reason for the downvotes is incorrect. I'm not sure we need another thread about the proper use of the reputation system.

[MigL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but INow seems to be misunderstanding Raider, and Raider seems to be misunderstanding INow.
Neither is willing to admit to that.

Yet other member(s) are choosing who is misunderstanding more wrongly ( or simply choosing sides ) ?
And neg repping that misunderstanding ?

And is the fact that three people are doing it justification for that ?

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

There are at least three people downvoting Raider in this thread (one of his posts received three downvotes). So either at least three people disagree with you, or perhaps your assumption regarding the reason for the downvotes is incorrect. I'm not sure we need another thread about the proper use of the reputation system.

Also, I think people are not showing enough slack with respect to his age. We are all at least double his age... and I'm triple.  

Edited December 22, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I’d honestly rather drop the issue entirely than move it to PM, but like my president tend also to counter punch when someone strikes at me

Tone is often more important than content in social interactions.

Only one of us is actively picking a fight. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by iNow

[MigL]

Sure, but you guys have been doing this in several threads.
Just hug it out already.
(No wait, he's a minor, that would be creepy )

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

And is the fact that three people are doing it justification for that ?

No, but even after perhaps a dozen discussions on Reputation, all we've ever been able to agree upon is that different people use it for different reasons. In addition, unless you are told by the person giving out the rep, it is impossible to determine if they are taking sides, making a comment on style or content, objecting to fallacious arguments, or any of dozens of other reasons. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, but even after perhaps a dozen discussions on Reputation, all we've ever been able to agree upon is that different people use it for different reasons. In addition, unless you are told by the person giving out the rep, it is impossible to determine if they are taking sides, making a comment on style or content, objecting to fallacious arguments, or any of dozens of other reasons. 

Quite possibly, some negs are off-the-cuff reactions by lurkers passing through.

[iNow]

Okay, gentlemen. Enough. This is a waste of our collective time and we all know it. 

Lets stick to the topic. Please.

I find the stupid woman comment contemptuous. I see both words as self-evidently intended to be used as rhetorical daggers. I find the introduction of gender to be a window into his deeper thoughts and psyche.   

Stupid!

...Woman!!

There was no kind intent underlying either word choice. 

There is no charitable interpretation available here to anyone intellectually honest. 

There is no way on no planet in no universe that this outburst was intended to heal or bring coalitions together. 

It was an attack. Gender was used as a weapon. This type of contempt should be collectively condemned. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by iNow

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Quite possibly, some negs are off-the-cuff reactions by lurkers passing through.

And while we're at it, did you say you are 3x Raider's age?!?! 

[Raider5678]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

I find the stupid woman comment contemptuous. I see both words as self-evidently intended to be used as rhetorical daggers. I find the introduction of gender to be a window into his deeper thoughts and psyche.   

Stupid!

...Woman!!

There was no kind intent underlying either word choice. 

There is no charitable interpretation available here to anyone intellectually honest. 

There is no way on no planet in no universe that this outburst was intended to heal or bring coalitions together. 

It was an attack. Gender was used as a weapon. This type of contempt should be collectively condemned. 

While I agree there was no kind intent, I see no reason why this should be treated any differently then if he had said something like "Stupid idiot" unless we can prove it was specifically done with the intention of using gender as an insult.

And being intellectually honest, I can see the word "woman" being used as an identifier in that context, or as an insult aimed at women.

So I don't think either of us can say with 100% certainty whether gender was used as a weapon or not.

 

And agreed, while that type of contempt should be condemned, must we really condemn the man the same as if we knew for certain exactly what the meaning of the phrase was?

 

[MigL]

It would not have been charitable even if he had said 'stupid person', INow.
( but if he had simply said 'stupid' it may have meant just that which she was speaking about at that time )

Yet there is a big jump between 'charitable' and sexist, and the fact that the comment is not 'charitable' doe not automatically make it sexist.
Unless you choose to interpret it that way.

Thank goodness we're allowed differing opinions.

 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

While I agree there was no kind intent, I see no reason why this should be treated any differently then if he had said something like "Stupid idiot"

But he didn’t say that. He said stupid woman, and even you seem to realize he felt no hesitation replacing the word idiot with the word woman. 

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Thank goodness we're allowed differing opinions.

Quite right, and you’re allowed to be wrong if that’s your prerogative.

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't think either of us can say with 100% certainty whether gender was used as a weapon or not.

I can’t assert anything with 100% certainty, even my own existence. Not the strongest argument, if I’m honest. 

[MigL]

I can live with that.
Been wrong many times before, and I'm sure I will be again in the future.
Live and learn.

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

But he didn’t say that. He said stupid woman, and even you seem to realize he felt no hesitation replacing the word idiot with the word woman. 

This is assuming he considered saying idiot, then decided to say woman instead.

I get the feeling that's probably not what happened, and that he simply said the first word that came to mind.

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And while we're at it, did you say you are 3x Raider's age?!?! 

I'm 56.

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

I can’t assert anything with 100% certainty, even my own existence. Not the strongest argument, if I’m honest. 

Except you asserted this as an absolute did you not?

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

It was an attack. Gender was used as a weapon.

 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm 56.

I knew we were close. I recently turned 60.

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

I can live with that.
Been wrong many times before, and I'm sure I will be again in the future.
Live and learn.

I was wrong once, too. It was a Tuesday. During a leap year. 

[MigL]

"it was an attack" is certain.
"gender was used as a weapon" is open to interpretation.
( but that's also an opinion )

 

Didn't know leap years came that often, INow

Edited December 22, 2018 by MigL

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Except you asserted this as an absolute did you not?

Nope 

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

This is assuming he considered saying idiot, then decided to say woman instead.

I get the feeling that's probably not what happened, and that he simply said the first word that came to mind.

Yes, hence my use of the phrase “no hesitation.”

#comprehensionstrikesagain

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nope 

Alright.

It was an attack. Gender was not used as a weapon though.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

It was an attack. Gender was not used as a weapon though.

What leads you to this conclusion? As others have noted, it’s clearly open to interpretation. Why do you think the rest of us should accept yours as valid?

[Raider5678]

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

It was an attack. Gender was used as a weapon.

So using the except same set up, theoretically that means if I ask the same questions as you're asking me I'll get a response:

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

What leads you to this conclusion? As others have noted, it’s clearly open to interpretation. Why do you think the rest of us should accept yours as valid?

 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

What leads you to this conclusion? As others have noted, it’s clearly open to interpretation. Why do you think the rest of us should accept yours as valid?

I was lead to that conclusion because it's possible he didn't mean to use gender as a weapon. I don't think the rest of you should just accept mine as valid.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, hence my use of the phrase “no hesitation.”

#comprehensionstrikesagain

Okay.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

Please stop looking for a fight. I couldn’t care less about this exchange.

This is all so much easier if we can all be just a bit more chill and charitable to one another. 

Interstingly, this thought works equally well geopolitically. 

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please stop looking for a fight. I couldn’t care less about this exchange.

Quite frankly, I'm not looking for a fight. I'm trying to have a discussion, which would be going a lot better if you'd stop making comments about my ability to comprehend things.