'Stupid Woman'

[iNow]

Yeah, that's super different. So glad you clarified. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

There are frequent and regular campaigns to hep people in countries where women (or other groups) are discriminated against. Often these only get in the news when a particular individual makes the headlines (e.g. Samar Badawi, Asia Bibi, Malala Yousafzai, Rahaf al-Qunun, etc.) but that doesn't mean people aren't always working for their cause.

But I think the idea you should ignore the everyday sexism that women have to put up with in the West because it is worse elsewhere is ridiculous.

But nothing like the current hysteria afforded western women; by contrast it's a token gesture.

Edited January 8, 2019 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But nothing like the current hysteria afforded western women; by contrast it's a token gesture.

The more we do the better the contrast.

15 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

which is where I say I think they're being oversensitive. I still stand by that.

I'm alright jack.

Edited January 9, 2019 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But nothing like the current hysteria afforded western women;

Edit: decided it was off topic. I sent it in a PM.

Edit 2: ANd I screwed it up when I went to copy and paste it. Nevermind.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Raider5678

[StringJunky]

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The more we do the better the contrast.

The more we do, the less the contrast.  If the contrast is "better", the difference is  more glaring. English lesson over. 

 

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Edit: decided it was off topic. I sent it in a PM.

Edit 2: ANd I screwed it up when I went to copy and paste it. Nevermind.

OK

Edited January 9, 2019 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If the contrast is "better", the difference is  more glaring. English lesson over. 

what do you think drives the change?

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But nothing like the current hysteria afforded western women; by contrast it's a token gesture.

context is important

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm alright jack.

Bananas. 

Edited January 9, 2019 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Bananas. 

OK

[Raider5678]

Just now, dimreepr said:

OK

Alright.

Moving on.

 

[dimreepr]

[iNow]

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But nothing like the current hysteria afforded western women; by contrast it's a token gesture.

Ten Oz recently pointed out to Raider that he is being dismissive of other peoples reactions (even if unintentionally and without awareness)... that he really has no right to decide from on-high what others should or should not be offended by.

He reinforced that it's fine for Raider not to be offended in these scenarios, that it's fine for Raider to feel others ought not be offended, but that mutual respect suggests we don't substitute our own preferences and responses for the preferences and responses of others. Said another way, we must accept the responses of others as authentic and valid and try not to summarily dismiss them merely for differing from our own. If they're offended, that may be different from my own likely reaction, but still okay and valid. 

This was in response to the implicit invalidation of their response that was occurring in the posts here (butthurt oversensitive less intelligent etc.).

I found that to be a valid point. "Just as I have no business telling you what you should be offended by you have no business telling others what they shouldn't be offended by. That is how mutual respect works." 

I think you probably agreed. However, you're now sort of following that same structure with the sentence above.

You seem to be suggesting that people focusing on Issue A are misguided because YOU happen to think Issue B is more important. You're dismissing those who focus on Issue A in a similar holier-than-thou way that we just collectively admonished. You're doing the same thing Raider did earlier. 

It's okay to think Issue B is more important. It's not okay to dismiss people who right now in the present moment happen to be focused on Issue A. They're also not mutually exclusive... walking and bubble gum chewing and whatnot.

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

This was in response to the implicit invalidation of their response that was occurring in the posts here (butthurt oversensitive less intelligent etc.).

 

And once again, you are taking my posts out of context and putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. It's easy to pick out a single word from each quote of spin it into something that it's not. However once again, that is misquoting me. Which is against the forum rules. And wrong, mind you. Please, reframe from doing this. I have already provided an entire post where I explain in detail how this greatly differs from what I actually said when you take it out of context.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And once again, you are taking my posts out of context and putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. It's easy to pick out a single word from each quote of spin it into something that it's not. However once again, that is misquoting me. Which is against the forum rules. And wrong, mind you. Please, reframe from doing this. I have already provided an entire post where I explain in detail how this greatly differs from what I actually said when you take it out of context.

 

grow up.

did that offend you?

[Raider5678]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

grow up.

did that offend you?

Surely you can be above stooping so low as to throw petty insults and then mock me with "did that offend you?"

If that is your response to my statements, rather then telling me where you actually disagree with them, then perhaps you're the one who needs to "grow up."

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Surely you can be above stooping so low as to throw petty insults and then mock me with "did that offend you?"

If that is your response to my statements, rather then telling me where you actually disagree with them, then perhaps you're the one who needs to "grow up."

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

context is important

 

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Quotes

 

You're right. Context is important. So why don't you provide some for your posts, instead of stopping at 10 words or less?

If you want to discuss this, great. Otherwise, your posts really don't make a lot of sense to me, and I'd wager to say they're confusing to a lot of others in this thread.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

You're right. Context is important. So why don't you provide some for your posts, instead of stopping at 10 words or less?

did that offend you?

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I have already provided an entire post where I explain in detail how this greatly differs from what I actually said when you take it out of context.

I read your post. I disagree with your conclusion. You failed to convince me that what we paraphrased and what you meant "greatly differs." 

35 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Please, reframe from doing this.

*Refrain

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

And once again, you are taking my posts out of context and putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. It's easy to pick out a single word from each quote of spin it into something that it's not. However once again, that is misquoting me. Which is against the forum rules. And wrong, mind you. Please, reframe from doing this. I have already provided an entire post where I explain in detail how this greatly differs from what I actually said when you take it out of context.

Going on off topic rants are against the rules as well. Your posts about whether or not being called various names at work would offend you are off topic less they were meant as equivalencies.

In your example "kid" is replacing the identifier "woman". In that context the associated judgements would applied to those offended by "stupid woman".  If that hasn't been the case, if your context has been totally different, those posts are off topic and you should refrain from continuing that line of discussion. 

[Raider5678]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Going on off topic rants are against the rules as well. Your posts about whether or not being called various names at work would offend you are off topic less they were meant as equivalencies.

In your example "kid" is replacing the identifier "woman". In that context the associated judgements would applied to those offended by "stupid woman".  If that hasn't been the case, if your context has been totally different, those posts are off topic and you should refrain from continuing that line of discussion. 

I brought this up earlier.

On 1/7/2019 at 3:10 PM, Raider5678 said:

However, this is getting offtopic.

And I got a response:

On 1/7/2019 at 3:21 PM, Strange said:

I think it is exactly on topic. Unnecessary or irrelevant compliments may be just as insulting as explicit insults.

Say what you like, but it was not an off-topic rant as you say.

Additionally, since when do we go about on this forum under the pretext that things "are off topic less they were meant as equivalencies."? 

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Your posts about whether or not being called various names at work would offend you are off topic less they were meant as equivalencies.

Since when are we not allowed to bring up different examples without them automatically being considered equivalencies?

I brought up examples of insults and discussions that pertained to my experiences because that is what I'm most familiar with, and it was easier for me to use them as examples. That never has meant they were equivalencies, and will not mean that they're the same for the foreseeable future.

Saying that because I used an example in this thread must mean that it is equivalent to what you want it to say, is a lousy excuse to take my words out of context. And you're well aware of this.

 

Once again, I have a simple request. Don't take my words out of context, and don't claim I said something I didn't. I never called anyone who gets offended at "stupid woman" ridiculous not smart butthurt oversensitive people.

 

I'm going to stop replying to this line of discussion because this time it genuinely is getting off topic. If you really want to continue this, PM me.

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Since when are we not allowed to bring up different examples without them automatically being considered equivalencies?

This thread is about someone Corbyn call May a "Stupid Woman". There is no point is not an on topic reason for you to carry on about how much you are not offended by "kid" less you are relating it back to "stupid woman" somehow. 

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I brought up examples of insults and discussions that pertained to my experiences because that is what I'm most familiar with, and it was easier for me to use them as examples. That never has meant they were equivalencies, and will not mean that they're the same for the foreseeable future.

Quote

 

example

 noun

ex·am·ple | \ig-ˈzam-pəl  \

Definition of example 

(Entry 1 of 2)

1: one that serves as a pattern to be imitated or not to be imitateda good example

2: a punishment inflicted on someone as a warning to othersalso : an individual so punished

3: one that is representative of all of a group or type

4: a parallel or closely similar case especially when serving as a precedent or model

5: an instance (such as a problem to be solved) serving to illustrate a rule or precept or to act as an exercise in the application of a rule

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/example

 

Yes, your example was that you are "smart enough" not to be "butthurt" offended over something "ridiculous"as being called "kid". Under which definition of example should I not see it as a parallel or equivalent illustration to "stupid woman"?

[MigL]

Well, if you're going by strict definitions, Ten oz...

T May did make comments that J Corbyn thought were stupid, and, she is a woman.
So what is the problem ?

Seems to me, after lecturing us all on what we are allowed to be offended by, you and Dimreepr have no problem bringing Raider's age up in your rebuttals. ( even the "bananas in Pyjamas ' children's show comment )
You can't have it both ways.
You can't argue that everyone has the right to be offended by what THEY perceive to be an offence.
And then proceed to 'knowingly' try and offend them.

Luckily, Raider is probably used to this, and is not so thin-skinned.

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well, if you're going by strict definitions, Ten oz...

T May did make comments that J Corbyn thought were stupid, and, she is a woman.
So what is the problem ?

Some feel there isn't a problem with the comment. Also no one here has denied May is a woman. 

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seems to me, after lecturing us all on what we are allowed to be offended by, you and Dimreepr have no problem bringing Raider's age up in your rebuttals. ( even the "bananas in Pyjamas ' children's show comment )

No, Raider can be offended by whatever he finds offensive. I have literally posted as much. At no point have I posted about what Raider should or shouldn't be offended by I also have not brought up Raider's age.

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

You can't have it both ways.
You can't argue that everyone has the right to be offended by what THEY perceive to be an offence.
And then proceed to 'knowingly' try and offend them.

Luckily, Raider is probably used to this, and is not so thin-skinned.

I am not attempting to have it both ways. I am not criticizing Raider for not being offended. I am criticizing the insults he is shading others with. Calling people "oversensitive" ridicules them for their beliefs. 

[MigL]

My apologies Ten oz.
The 'strict definition' part was for you.
The 'bringing up his age' part was for Dimreepr.

I 'confused' my wording.
Hope you weren't 'offended'.
( I feel I should add that after every post now )

Edited January 9, 2019 by MigL

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

My apologies Ten oz.
The 'strict definition' part was for you.
The 'bringing up his age' part was for Dimreepr.

I 'confused' my wording.
Hope you weren't 'offended'.
( I feel I should add that after every post now )

Your ability to identify that one could be offended fits in with the point on my last few posts. One does not have to agree with another's feelings to acknowledge them as valid. Nor do intentions have to be offensive to cause offense. 

Had Corbyn responded as you just did and said something like "I didn't mean to say that and I hope she wasn't offended" I doubt this thread exists.