Ahr river
I feel like you're not listening to complaints, duck. You say you argue in good faith for other people, but then turn around and assume the worst out of everyone here, especially through what you imply and how you word things. That seems a by hypocritical and unfair, where you have the best intentions, always, but we never can, because we disagree with you (and feels like we can't disagree with you without being in an Echo Chamber, or somehow Misinterpreting).
It makes it a no-win situation that people aren't going to want to engage with.
Edited by MrAHR on Aug 15th 2018 at 1:56:21 PM
Read my stories!
No, the other one.
I can take pretty much all that and throw it back at you unmodified. I feel you're being unfair. I don't assume the worst out of people here. For one, that would be far worse than what even you're implying I assume. Two, I think most of you have good intentions. There's been some good discussions here, even if we've disagreed. Those can't happen if I always assume the worst out of people. So, you're wrong there.
If you think I'm misinterpreting what you say, or take what you say in bad faith, say that. But I very rarely see that. Alityros and Silasw (to pick two examples from the recent discussion) tries to, and those I can have decent discussions with. With you can I can most of the time. And other people as well. So you can't claim I'm assuming the worst out of everyone here. That's blatantly false. That's one part of what you say I can't see being in good faith.
But I can't assume good intentions when people come with personal attacks. I can't assume good intentions when people keep wanting to make me the bad guy just for disagreeing. What good intentions am I supposed to interpret from someone calling me a misogynist apologist? That is not good faith any way you cut it. I try to argue in good faith, but it's hard when that's what I get in return.
You can disagree with me without this being an echo chamber. That's kind of in the definition. But with these kinds of attacks on people who do disagree (and this isn't just me; I've seen other examples) is trying to turn it into one. Not everyone does that. But there's enough. I get the impression that differing opinions are meant to be stomped out, not discussed. That's why I think it's an echo chamber.
I also make an effort to try to end arguments before they turn too sour, or go off the rails too much. Hence why I suggested PMs before. It's why I decided to stop arguing (until I decided to respond to personal attacks). But people seem to be insistent into turning the discussion about me personally, like you do here. If I disagree too much, I'm suddenly "desperate" about one opinion or another. It really is like I'm not allowed to disagree without there being something wrong with me.
Check out my fanfiction!
Ahr river
I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, I was merely stating my feelings, and how I think everyone else is interacting with you. This isn't a "game" to win by throwing things back at people.
Read my stories!
No, the other one.
I know you're stating your feelings, and not accusing me. That part I understood. It was formulated well enough.
What I meant by throwing it back is that it applies just as well to the rest of the thread. I don't treat it like a game. It's not about winning. It's about understanding.
Check out my fanfiction!
Ahr river
Yes, and I constantly see this back and forth:
You say something
Someone else disagrees
you say they didn't understand
They still disagree
you say they didn't understand
and so on and so forth.
there is no magic "on" button for understanding. There is no "understand harder" setting that will make people understand your point. There are no magic words you can say that explain everything perfectly. If you want to promote understanding, it's a constant shifting dynamic of re-explaining things.
Like for instance, the last page someone said
and you responded
You want people to understand, but you fundamentally missed the point of what was being said. People keep trying to explain that they are approaching it from different premises, and that what you're arguing is on a different tract. Your response is to say you are arguing from the premise of good faith. Due to the context, this implies no one else is.
And then people get riled up and annoyed.
I know you're only stating your opinions. I know. But the way you're going about it is just creating this cycle where you're stating something in a way that implies moral superiority (unintentionally or not, that is the effect) and people bite back. And that sucks!
The reason people want to ignore you isn't because it's an echo chamber. It's because the definition of "understanding" that you're coming from is skewed. And I'm sure other folks have not been the kindest, but like I said, whenever I see you post, you're always posting with the implication that You do X and no one else does.
So if you want to promote understanding, please do. But your arguing structure has a few flaws, and you can't just keep repeating things in frustration and then get surprised when folks just want to stop engaging.
If you find it important to promote understanding, then you have to actually practice what you preach, and if you call people an echo chamber, you're really not taking the time to understand where they're coming from, and you're making them by default not listen. Part of understanding is knowing how to communicate.
It's like you keep saying the dog is violent because it keeps biting you, while you're constantly tugging on its nose and ears.
Like... I honestly don't know what to tell you. Talking about the Person not the argument is usually not kosher for tv tropes, and I really do try and abide by that in every situation, but you keep slipping in these statements that rile people up and then when people get annoyed you go "see? I was right", thus the argument never ends. There's never any understanding.
Edited by MrAHR on Aug 15th 2018 at 3:09:09 PM
Read my stories!
This thread is getting locked for a few days.
The Mod with the Migraine
I'm unlocking the thread; do not let it devolve again. Instead, focus on this article I'm cross-posting:
It's a short editorial about why, exactly, Fox supporters think Hillary is corrupt and Trump isn't
. Spoiler alert: it has nothing to do with the textbook definition of corruption.
On their face, the two stories have little in common. Fox is simply covering the Iowa murder because it distracts attention from a revelation that makes Trump look bad. But dig deeper and the two stories are deeply connected: They represent two competing notions of what corruption is.
Cohen’s admission highlights one of the enduring riddles of the Trump era. Trump’s supporters say they care about corruption. During the campaign, they cheered his vow to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C. When Morning Consult asked Americans in May 2016 to explain why they disliked Hillary Clinton, the second most common answer was that she was “corrupt.” And yet, Trump supporters appear largely unfazed by the mounting evidence that Trump is the least ethical president in modern American history. When asked last month whether they considered Trump corrupt, only 14 percent of Republicans said yes. Even Cohen’s allegation is unlikely to change that.
The answer may lie in how Trump and his supporters define corruption. In a forthcoming book entitled How Fascism Works, the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley makes an intriguing claim. “Corruption, to the fascist politician,” he suggests, “is really about the corruption of purity rather than of the law. Officially, the fascist politician’s denunciations of corruption sound like a denunciation of political corruption. But such talk is intended to evoke corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order.”
Fox’s decision to focus on the Iowa murder rather than Cohen’s guilty plea illustrates Stanley’s point. For many Fox viewers, I suspect, the network isn’t ignoring corruption so much as highlighting the kind that really matters. When Trump instructed Cohen to pay off women with whom he had affairs, he may have been violating the law. But he was upholding traditional gender and class hierarchies. Since time immemorial, powerful men have been cheating on their wives and using their power to evade the consequences.
The Iowa murder, by contrast, signifies the inversion—the corruption—of that “traditional order.” Throughout American history, few notions have been as sacrosanct as the belief that white women must be protected from nonwhite men. By allegedly murdering Tibbetts, Rivera did not merely violate the law. He did something more subversive: He violated America’s traditional racial and sexual norms.
Once you grasp that for Trump and many of his supporters, corruption means less the violation of law than the violation of established hierarchies, their behavior makes more sense. Since 2014, Trump has employed the phrase rule of law nine times in tweets. Seven of them refer to illegal immigration.
Why were Trump’s supporters so convinced that Clinton was the more corrupt candidate even as reporters uncovered far more damning evidence about Trump’s foundation than they did about Clinton’s? Likely because Hillary’s candidacy threatened traditional gender roles. For many Americans, female ambition—especially in service of a feminist agenda—in and of itself represents a form of corruption. “When female politicians were described as power-seeking,” noted the Yale researchers Victoria Brescoll and Tyler Okimoto in a 2010 study, “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e., contempt, anger, and/or disgust).”
Cohen’s admission makes it harder for Republicans to claim that Trump didn’t violate the law. But it doesn’t really matter. For many Republicans, Trump remains uncorrupt—indeed, anti-corrupt—because what they fear most isn’t the corruption of American law; it’s the corruption of America’s traditional identity. And in the struggle against that form of corruption—the kind embodied by Cristhian Rivera—Trump isn’t the problem. He’s the solution.
Yes, yes they do. Feminism is usually seen as one of the biggest evils in the world by conservatives. Even the ones that want "Equality" compare it to Nazisim.... :/
Tief girl with eartude
Yeah, no conservative's bio is complete without them calling themselves an "Equalist"note (and maybe a screed against intersectionality for reasons the above post makes obvious).
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
Yeah, conservatives or reactionaries need to justify their support for "traditional values" and the most common justification is naturalistic fallacy.
The idea that women being primarily domestic and outside of any power hierarchy is simply a result of their inborn biological disposition instead of anything like social norms or any other external factors.
It's all very simplistic and convenient.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 22nd 2018 at 5:54:10 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Shin Megami Tensei IV
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
To make it even weirder. Their traditions are mostly from the 19 century, traditions are pretty changing with time and even our perception of gender roles change. Even from a genuinely traditionalist outlook, most of their stuff make no sense.
Oh absolutely, traditionalists regardless of their stance pick and choose traditions that fit their views.
Similar to how religious fundamentalists pick and choose whatever parts of the religious intellectual tradition that they want to follow.
Usually people who believe that their values are all objectively correct tend to be just as if not more subjective as anyone else.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 22nd 2018 at 8:47:07 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Oh, bother.
It is the same reason women who seek promotions are often derided as being “too ambitious” or some crap.
Disgusted, but not surprised
You may be referencing it but a few posts up the posted article references a study that showed that people when exposed to a woman who is described as "power hungry" or "ambitious" expressed moral outrage.
So your point is rather apropos.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Shin Megami Tensei IV
Or even better. A woman having moral outrage about anything is see as a Knight Templar in potence, a young man doing the same for not being allowed to be a asshole is see as a heroic freedom fighter.
Quite, our society's many and obvious double-standards are clear as day if one bothers to look.
Which is why I have such little tolerance for the people of my demographic who refuse to acknowledge it, their weak willful ignorance is pathetic.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
The part about 'protecting white women from non-white men' reminded me about an issue that has always irritated me: the Warren Farrell idea that men oppressed women in order to 'protect' them.
What was denying women the vote protecting them from? What was denying women an education protecting them from? What was denying women the rights to their children protecting them from? Even the more commonly brought up 'protective' things, like the draft, could be better explained by a pragmatic need to maintain population growth (if women die you'll eventually start running out of men) rather than some kind of altruism on men's part.
Honestly, I wouldn't the guys claiming that stuff were really the ones who felt the need for "protection".
Protection from being outdone.
Protection is a classic excuse for dominion, hence why people are more than willing to tolerate authoritarian or otherwise non-democratic authorities if they at the very least provide protection.
Thus while male protection of women through patriarchy is farcical but at least understandable.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Like reflections in the glass!
I found an except linked in the Wild Teen Party page detailing, well a Wild Teen Party, but the context of the excerpt (the book it came from was about a gang rape case in the area, and also non-fiction) and the party (dubbed "Ryan's Wreck" after the student who threw the party) has me wondering how common "revenge parties" as the article puts it are,how motivated by sexism they are and if either Ryan's Wreck or the gang rape are emblematic of the sexism in the Jock or High School cultures of the time.
Somewhat related to the current topic, I wonder if it is a coincidence that "Dominion" is a few letters off from "Domination"?
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Sep 2nd 2018 at 10:39:44 AM
A procrastination in of itself
X4 The entire idea is build around the infantilisation of women. So the idea is that women aren’t capable of certain things and that by doing said things for them men are protecting them from facing problems they can’t solve.
Tief girl with eartude
Both come from the Latin word "dominus" (itself from the Latin word for house, domus) meaning "lord".
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Exactly (and the Latin word for house ultimately comes from the proto indo-european word "*dem-", meaning "to build", which also gives us the modern word "timber").
Edited by Bisected8 on Sep 2nd 2018 at 10:14:46 AM
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
Shin Megami Tensei IV
Oh, so it really derivates from House.
They are related. Is kinda obvious.
The law in the night
Something light hearted and funny.
Do you? Do you have the balls to not listen to your penis?
Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not arguing in good faith.
And that's what I mean with this being an echo chamber. Someone who doesn't agree is ignored or pushed away with false accusations.
Check out my fanfiction!