No, being a man is not 'easy mode'.

Status
Not open for further replies.

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#21
Have either of you ever convinced someone holding the opinion of your adversary in this thread that you were right or that your points had merit?
I've never before had to point out that an entire, hundreds of millions strong group of people don't actually get to coast through life with zero problems. So no.
This is one of the stupidest fucking threads that has ever been on this board.
Probably, but when I stumble across sentiments like the quote in the OP I kind of feel obliged to point out the problems with it. I didn't like the thought of quietly ignoring it, tacitly approving of it.

I'm not on tumblr for this exact reason, I don't enjoy this sort of thing either, but I do enjoy this site and the company of most of you guys. When I saw 'http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/' along with the quote in the OP it was like suddenly realizing I was hanging out with a racist and it made me extremely uncomfortable. I wanted to point out the problems with it and honestly expected it would help, but apparently not. I'm sorry it led to bad feelings.
 

Amaryllis

Journeyed there and back again
#22
Have either of you ever convinced someone holding the opinion of your adversary in this thread that you were right or that your points had merit? I'm guessing no, because you are both so far up your own asses neither of you can give the other a single concession. This is one of the stupidest fucking threads that has ever been on this board. Go back to tumblr and reddit with this SJW flamewar hogshit.
Listen man, while I share at least some of the outrage, and had really hoped that this kind of argument would stay in the sewers of tumblr and the bored college person blogosphere where it belongs, when it shows up on your doorstep, it needs to be addressed. Whether this is by a mod being like GUYS DON'T DISCUSS THIS HERE (which still hasn't happened, you're the first mod to post in this whole chain, and all you really did was establish your hardline moderateness), or by attempting to have the discussion, it doesn't matter, but pretending like it doesn't exist isn't going to make it go away. It's just going to encourage more of it. This forum has managed to stay incredibly sane and balanced, especially in light of how contentious the genre(s) it's dedicated to, and the authors who write for it are. Sanity can be self-policing, or it CAN be maintained via oversight. It cannot be maintained by allowing some spastic to stagger in and piss all over the walls while you act like nothing is wrong at all (and to note, I do not frame the person disagreeing with me this way simply because they disagree with me, but because they are being rude and hostile while providing no tangible arguments, and do not appear to have done even a single google search to verify the things they have said).

Moreover, internet debates are rarely for the benefit of the people actually talking, who will be unlikely to change their minds publicly even in the face of an absolutely perfect argument with no flaws. They're usually for the people who read them, to examine both sides and draw their own conclusions. :)

That's messed up. For what it's worth, I sympathize. Even if I don't know you, this is something I don't wish to happen to anybody.
Thanks. It's long behind me now, I mostly mentioned it because I already had a pretty good feeling what the dude's reaction would be, and I figured it would be useful to see the hypocrisy and moral doublethink in action.
 
Last edited:

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#23
Personally I'm glad there's so little censorship (or need for it) here. I think the internet affords a unique opportunity to experiment in self-selecting communities. The ability to put on 'ignore' lists anyone you want and therefore essentially wish them away to the cornfield as far as ability to annoy you goes is a powerful tool which almost obsoletes traditional punishment-based incentives to fit in. I think I'll exercise it.

I like you guys, I like that we can meander into whatever subject the conversation leads toward on an ad hoc basis, I like that we usually have the most interesting, entertaining debates while still remaining polite and respectful and able to talk about fantasy stories in other threads and I like that nothing seems off-limits.

That said, someone mocking a rape victim is something even the most hardcore anarchists might be happy to see shut down by authority.
 

TomTB

Super Moderator
Staff member
#24
Over-moderation kills forums; I've seen it happen several times. For me personally I generally don't see the need to wade in and delete/censor posts, even when I whole-heartedly disagree with what's being written. I don't think any of us Mod's are likely to do this. The only time I'll press the delete button is when a post is completely illogical or pointless, or is really poor spamming and I can't think of a witty response. The vast majority of forum users have steered away from the more 'emotive' threads posted of late, and I'm sure are happy (as I am) for the thread contributors to fight it out between themselves.
 

TomTB

Super Moderator
Staff member
#25
I would wield my moderation axe though, if things spilled over into other sub-Forums, and it was to the detriment of the other forum members who come here to just discuss fantasy books.
 

Sparrow

Journeyed there and back again
#26
Over-moderation kills forums; I've seen it happen several times. For me personally I generally don't see the need to wade in and delete/censor posts, even when I whole-heartedly disagree with what's being written. I don't think any of us Mod's are likely to do this. The only time I'll press the delete button is when a post is completely illogical or pointless, or is really poor spamming and I can't think of a witty response. The vast majority of forum users have steered away from the more 'emotive' threads posted of late, and I'm sure are happy (as I am) for the thread contributors to fight it out between themselves.
That is so very true.
Heavy-handed moderation isn't necessary most times... if someone isn't keen on this topic, or doesn't cotton to some of the participants, then they can simply ignore the thread and move on. Easy as that.
 

l3gacy

Dr. Awesomesauce
Staff member
#27
I would wield my moderation axe though, if things spilled over into other sub-Forums, and it was to the detriment of the other forum members who come here to just discuss fantasy books.
agreed, the only reason I was my usual eloquent, well-spoken and articulate self earlier today instead of just shutting this flamewar down is because this is in Anything and doesn't spill over to the other forums. I will stand by my opinion that this topic is done to death to rather insane extremes almost everywhere else on the internet and doesn't really belong here but Anything is called Anything for a reason, so... carry on, I guess.

Though, I will say that both primary participants in this thread have posted almost exclusively in Anything, and very little in any other part of the forum, which I find strange.
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#29
Though, I will say that both primary participants in this thread have posted almost exclusively in Anything, and very little in any other part of the forum, which I find strange.
I'm more active in the other sections when I've recently finished a book. Right now what I'm reading is taking a while since I'm not sitting down and no-life-ing it and have been addicted to Skyrim, and there haven't been as many new 'general' book-related threads I have much to say about.

Out of my 196 posts, 89 are in 'Fantasy' and 104 are in 'Anything'. I don't think that's especially abnormal or 'exclusive' given books are kind of a variably paced hobby and the category of 'anything' is fairly broad. In July I got through six books; this month I read Shadow Ops 4 which I disliked, and have barely made it halfway through 'The Country of Ice Cream Star'.
 
Last edited:

Amaryllis

Journeyed there and back again
#30
Over-moderation kills forums; I've seen it happen several times. For me personally I generally don't see the need to wade in and delete/censor posts, even when I whole-heartedly disagree with what's being written. I don't think any of us Mod's are likely to do this. The only time I'll press the delete button is when a post is completely illogical or pointless, or is really poor spamming and I can't think of a witty response. The vast majority of forum users have steered away from the more 'emotive' threads posted of late, and I'm sure are happy (as I am) for the thread contributors to fight it out between themselves.
I don't believe in moderators suppressing conversation either (I think there is SOME upper limit to this, obviously), and I think I've said this in the past. This isn't the first time I've been in an argument on these forums, lol. I was just mentioning it, because legacy seemed angry that the discussion was happening at all, and I am of the mind that if it came up, then the 'discussion' (such that one can call it that) probably needed to happen, and that people replying to other people wasn't really doing anything harmful.
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#31
I was just mentioning it, because legacy seemed angry that the discussion was happening at all
I am too because this IS the sort of discussion that ruins other websites. But when people say things like the quote in the OP and others don't step in to point out the problems with it, you end up with unopposed discrimination making people feel quietly uncomfortable with participating. I was made uncomfortable by the quoted post for example, to the point I was almost afraid to dispute it. Whether you do or not there's a loss involved, but at least if you have the conversation things might turn out for the best.

I genuinely thought @Sparrow was a decent person at heart even if we disagreed a lot and would see my post and realize what he said was unfair and we'd get a decent discussion out of it, like we have on a bunch of topics lately. I didn't think we'd get what we did, and I completely understand that the train wreck we got would anger people who just enjoy talking about fantasy books.
 

Sparrow

Journeyed there and back again
#32
I am too because this IS the sort of discussion that ruins other websites. But when people say things like the quote in the OP and others don't step in to point out the problems with it, you end up with unopposed discrimination making people feel quietly uncomfortable with participating. I was made uncomfortable by the quoted post for example, to the point I was almost afraid to dispute it. Whether you do or not there's a loss involved, but at least if you have the conversation things might turn out for the best.

I genuinely thought @Sparrow was a decent person at heart even if we disagreed a lot and would see my post and realize what he said was unfair and we'd get a decent discussion out of it, like we have on a bunch of topics lately. I didn't think we'd get what we did, and I completely understand that the train wreck we got would anger people who just enjoy talking about fantasy books.

It might be a train wreck, but no lives were lost.
If this were real life I'd buy you a drink, and call it a night.;)
 

moonspawn

Journeyed there and back again
#33
I'm kinda glad I didn't see this thread until today. Otherwise I might have been tempted to jump in when the debate was really, really heated. :mad: However, I am going to address some of the more interesting comments.

So no, 'affirmative action' doesn't work, and it isn't really intended to work anyway. It isn't intended to equalize discrimination, it's a Newspeak term intended to force our brains to think a certain way because we can't conceptualize what it represents without unconsciously attaching positive connotations from its name.
Well the unemployment rate for blacks is a lot higher than the general population. There's no way to know how high their unemployment rate would be without affirmative action but I imagine it would be higher.


I don't know of the particulars in the US or the UK, but in the Netherlands positive discrimination does exist and it tends to favour women and minorities
For women to be favored by affirmative action policies is to me the absolute dumbest thing in the world. This is basically favoring an entire gender for employment. So with both minorities and women being viewed favorably white men are out of luck, at least for low wage entry level jobs. In the U.S. if you go into any major grocery store and look around at whose running the cash registers they are all women.

I know exactly what defines Libertarianism and Objectivism, and there is no separating the two in the United States.
Whose running for the nomination of the Republican Party?.. that would be Rand Paul (Libertarian). Gosh, I wonder where he got his first name from... guessing he was named for that Russian Witch who concocted Objectivism.
Rand Paul isn't a libertarian lol. He's also reached out to minorities and talks more about inequality and what should be done about inequality and what the causes of inequality are in the U.S. then any other candidate running for the Republican ticket. I tend to like Rand's solutions. Honestly this comment is inane and to me beyond offensive.


In America the collective government policies of the last five decades have done much to make up for past misdeeds.
Progress is made little by little... we have a black man elected twice to be our President, the Supreme Court recently ruled favorably in regards to same sex marriage.
When the first black president has done a horrible job I don't know if I'd call that progress. Also the Supreme Court shouldn't be making those kinds of decisions. The decisions itself doesn't go against what I stand for but the route taken to reach marriage equality goes against important democratic principals and has already opened the door for assaults on religious liberty.


All this really proves is that you don't know the meaning of the words you use. And your idea of charity is terribly one-dimensional, and based exclusively on empty feel-good talking points rather than anything even vaguely resembling reality.
I think those kinds of people have the view that it's exclusively the government's job to be charitable. Honestly I think government dependence should be a choice and obviously its not always a choice but what I'm trying to say is it shouldn't be forced on anyone but if you look at the policies of our country it is clear the government has become way too intrusive. If people are all living off of the state in servitude like they are in Denmark I don't see that as being that different from aristocracy. Both are different kinds of servitude.
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#34
Well the unemployment rate for blacks is a lot hire than the general population.
Even if you consider demographics as disparate entities for the purposes of determining the state of the country (I don't) that isn't an argument in and of itself for 'affirmative action'. Why should private entities have to, and and publicly funded agencies fail in their mandate (to hire the most competent people possible to serve the public) to redress an imbalance that doesn't really mean anything? An unemployed person is an unemployed person. We don't live in some kind of Whites vs Blacks version of reality TV show Shipwrecked. We're all on the same island, so why treat every demographic as a separate tribe?
Rand Paul isn't a libertarian lol.
I don't follow American politics, to the extent that until I googled the name I thought @Sparrow meant Ron Paul (about whom I also know nothing beyond the name and a vague sense that I might have heard it in the context of libertarianism, maybe).
 

Sparrow

Journeyed there and back again
#35
I'm kinda glad I didn't see this thread until today. Otherwise I might have been tempted to jump in when the debate was really, really heated. :mad: However, I am going to address some of the more interesting comments.

For women to be favored by affirmative action policies is to me the absolute dumbest thing in the world. This is basically favoring an entire gender for employment. So with both minorities and women being viewed favorably white men are out of luck, at least for low wage entry level jobs. In the U.S. if you go into any major grocery store and look around at whose running the cash registers they are all women.
Yes, and most of the managers are men.
Walmart and other large chain stores have already been sued for unfair, and illegal treatment of women and minority employees, and lost major cases.

Rand Paul isn't a libertarian lol. He's also reached out to minorities and talks more about inequality and what should be done about inequality and what the causes of inequality are in the U.S. then any other candidate running for the Republican ticket. I tend to like Rand's solutions. Honestly this comment is inane and to me beyond offensive.
Really, you're offended by my comments. Well then, you need to grow up before debating with the grownups.
Here is a fair assessment of Rand Paul's association with Libertarianism-- seems he hasn't a problem with being called a Libertarian...
http://www.newsweek.com/rand-paul-real-libertarian-319959
"He told a Harvard audience that he’s 'libertarian-ish' and wants 'a libertarian influence in the Republican Party'. He told Sean Hannity on Fox that he’s happy to be called 'either libertarian conservative or constitutional conservative'.”

When the first black president has done a horrible job I don't know if I'd call that progress. Also the Supreme Court shouldn't be making those kinds of decisions. The decisions itself doesn't go against what I stand for but the route taken to reach marriage equality goes against important democratic principals and has already opened the door for assaults on religious liberty.
When Obama took office the American Economy was in free fall, unemployment finally peaked at about 11%-12% in late 2009... it's now under 6% which is considered full employment. That's not quite as horrible as Bush jr., now is it. The Supreme Court ruled on Same Sex Marriage because it has become a constitutional issue, who the hell else would make such a decision? When State Legislatures overreach and pass laws the "moral majority" want passed defining marriage as only being between one man and one woman, and those laws are later struck down by State Supreme Courts on constitutional grounds, then move up the food chain to the Federal Supreme Court for affirmation... that is exactly what should happen. At least one branch of our government is doing its job.
And btw, "religious liberty" cannot infringe on Personal Liberty, nor can it be contrary to constitutional law.
 

Silvion Night

Sir Readalot
Staff member
#36
When the first black president has done a horrible job I don't know if I'd call that progress.
A horrible job? What nonsense is this? He's hailed by the rest of the free world as one of the best presidents the US has had in the post-war period. His popularity even eclipses that of Clinton. Seriously, under his administration unemployment has plummeted, the economy has rebounded and is on the rise again, Obamacare has been implemented (his biggest achievement in my opinion), American soldiers are slowly but surely returning home from wars overseas, Bin Laden has been slain, and gay marriage has been legalized. And this all despite constant opposition (just for the sake of being obnoxious or so it seems to an outsider) from the Republican majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

If people are all living off of the state in servitude like they are in Denmark I don't see that as being that different from aristocracy. Both are different kinds of servitude.
How does 'living of the state' equal 'servitude' in your eyes?
 

Boreas

Journeyed there and back again
Staff member
#37
I don't see the need for any moderation on this thread, nor the need to lock it down. The topic of conversation is sure to rile up proponents on both sides and a little heat is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as participants are able to extricate themselves before plunging within the Schwartzschild Radius of consistent ad hominems and flamewar tactics. Anyone not interested in the topic can avoid the thread as has been previously suggested.

I don't think this is a stupid thread, even if similar arguments have taken place elsewhere on the internet. No less stupid than the 'Musings on Religion' and 'Mass Immigration' threads recently started. Clearly, there is a need to voice these thoughts and opinions.

by @Nuomer1: Ah! Good move. I was about to quote your final comment "This is not an exhaustive list" and reply that yes it was - at least, I am exhausted trying to get through it!

I think @lyraseven did a good job of outlining in brief some of the major points.

by @Nuomer1: Clearly there are issues here on which you feel very strongly - but a less vehement post, preferably shorter - or a collection of shorter posts - might get your points across more clearly.

I'll hazard a guess that she feels strongly on the matter because she sees through the hypocritical arguments fronted by the third wave feminist narrative to the self-evident inequities that most of the media turns a blind eye to. Neither was her post in any way vehement. It was rather measured and composed.

I'm particularly gratified at the mention of Erin Pizzey, a woman I greatly admire. I'll also suggest Christina Hoff Sommers' critical works Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys as essential reading.
 

wakarimasen

Journeyed there and back again
#38
Well. Isn't this a lively, yet dull, discussion?

The world has been set up in favour of men since men could swing a club harder than women. It's an outmoded concept that we are struggling to shake off. Personally I think we concentrate on the wrong things.
The greatest advancements to be made in feminism (which I define as being the equalising of opportunity and influence for women) could come from spending more time examining and changing male developmental issues. Inequality in society is a learnt behaviour.

I feel sorry for my boy. Why? Because he's been raised as a gentle and caring kid. He'll help little kids where other boys his age won't. He'll think about the consequences of his actions (not that he pays attention to what he learns much). Why's that bad? Because most of the other boys don't think like that and the pressure to fit in with a peer group is going to put him under unnecessary stress just because he's not a complete dick. We need to look at how we raise our kids and the expectations we place on the genders, mostly unconsciously.

Don't even get me started on how I worry about my girls, let's just say they're starting Kung-Fu soon.
The good side is that whenever I find that Lego Sleeping Beauty has constructed a new vehicle to take down dinosaurs with My little pony's help I never know which one of three made it (probably all of them) - but I'm proud of the their dismissal of gender norms.
 

Sneaky Burrito

Crazy Cat Lady
Staff member
#40
Meanwhile, this whole thread for me is like:



And so I'm not reading the posts past about the first paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.