LABELS - The Thread!

[P3nT4gR4m]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

You make some good points, but I've seen enough from the two of them trying to tell women what they "should" feel, that I'm pretty certain of my assessment.

I wasn't going to lower myself to your level but, damnit to hell, you got me. I didn't tell a "woman" how she should feel, I told a person how they should feel. You're the one who got all prejudiced cos a fucking idiot man (who can't possibly understand anything) had the cheek to talk to a woman.

Anyway, I'm done with you now, go back to to hooting like a fucking retard and i'll go back to ignoring your stupid ass. Oh, and that wasn't a personal attack, you complete fuckhead, I'm criticizing your dipshit behaviour, not you. You fucking idiot 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200562.html#msg1200562
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200604.html#msg1200604
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200612.html#msg1200612
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200623.html#msg1200623
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200657.html#msg1200657

It's never been all-or-nothing/with-us-or-against-us. It's been "you don't get to tell us what we experience or control the conversation about it." Which he's repeatedly ignored.
I have also, explicitly and several times, said that we want dudes' input and you can disagree with HOW something is approached, but not what we experience (which he's also repeatedly ignored, most recently involving a terrible metaphor about lions). If he's backpedaling to that now, I give zero fucks.

I stand by those comments. None of them involved me saying "that isn't what it's like to be a woman" or "here's what your reaction is supposed to be." They were, actually, "if that's how you see it, then this is how I see it." I am entitled to my experience and opinions and views as much as the next person. If you and Nigel cannot wrap your minds around the idea that someone may see things from a different perspective, then that is your own problem, not mine. Well, at least until I start being accused of being literally subhuman, in which case Nigel's opinion becomes immediately invalid because it has reached the same point that made the Holocaust OK.

Also, I'm not ignoring anyone. I am allowed to have responses that do not remain with in the "yes ok I  agree" range.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200562.html#msg1200562
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200604.html#msg1200604
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200612.html#msg1200612
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200623.html#msg1200623
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33056.msg1200657.html#msg1200657

It's never been all-or-nothing/with-us-or-against-us. It's been "you don't get to tell us what we experience or control the conversation about it." Which he's repeatedly ignored.
I have also, explicitly and several times, said that we want dudes' input and you can disagree with HOW something is approached, but not what we experience (which he's also repeatedly ignored, most recently involving a terrible metaphor about lions). If he's backpedaling to that now, I give zero fucks.

Yep.

[Juana]

I stand by those comments.

Uh huh, I know you do. I still suggest you re-read Nigel's OP in that thread.

None of them involved me saying "that isn't what it's like to be a woman" or "here's what your reaction is supposed to be." They were, actually, "if that's how you see it, then this is how I see it."

This was your response to the Deciders thread:

If I can't understand, than I am not justified in agreement or disagreement. Agreement would be smiling and nodding, feigning solidarity with a position I can't really understand. Disagreement, or even trying to add my two cents to the conversation, would be injecting my own beliefs into a conversation about which I am ignorant. So my only rational choice is to butt out.

If you want to have a conversation about what it's like to be oppressed, you can't really tell everyone who doesn't already know what it's like that they can't understand. If you want to have a discussion about how to fix that oppression, and you're not willing to entertain the idea that the oppressors will ever understand, then you have to either give equal weight to their experiences as to your own, or admit you and they have nothing to talk about, since you'll never understand each other anyway.

The first part all but explicitly says that. Let me quote something ECH said yesterday that made me think of your reaction to being told you can't understand certain things.

I file that under the larger umbrella of "I don't understand". People seem to get hung up on thinking that if they can't understand something, it must not be valid. And while I'm sure it's nice to be such an amazing super-genius that anything you don't understand is obviously horseshit and should be ignored, dismissed, or confronted with hostility, well....I'm just not that smart. And I never want to be.

(emphasis mine)

I am entitled to my experience and opinions and views as much as the next person.

Did I not explicitly acknowledge that?

If you and Nigel cannot wrap your minds around the idea that someone may see things from a different perspective, then that is your own problem, not mine. Well, at least until I start being accused of being literally subhuman, in which case Nigel's opinion becomes immediately invalid because it has reached the same point that made the Holocaust OK.

Also, I'm not ignoring anyone. I am allowed to have responses that do not remain with in the "yes ok I  agree" range.

I explicitly acknowledged you have a different experience.

I didn't dehumanize you. I don't fucking like you, but please remember that I did no such thing.

You are ignoring our points. Repeatedly. You totally did not get anything Nigel said in the Deciders thread. You did not get (or respond to) attempts to clarify.

[trippinprincezz13]

I kinda have to say that it seems like v3x is being intentionally being misread unless I missed a whole lot of other shit - which is likely since that appears what these threads have involved into so I've been skipping through some of the longer ones.

I'm reading that v3x does not use gender/race/sexual orientation as his basis for treating people a certain way. Not literally "OMG I don't know if you're black or male or gay or Asian cuz I don't SEES that stuff! hur hur hur!" I get the impression he's saying he tries to treat people like people, and I'm not quite sure what's wrong with that, if that's what he meant. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away, but I'm not sure what's wrong with acting upon it on an individual level if one is not interested in activism.

I'm quite surprised that things have gotten to this point (kinda) as it seems to be a lot of misinterpretation and/or an "all or nothing/with us or against us" sort of attitude. Like I mentioned in the No Cause, No Ally thread, while I understand the issue with certain perjorative terms, I also think context and intent is still rather important, and while it may be something to think about and perhaps work on, seems minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not worth the level of outbursts it's been causing

You make some good points, but I've seen enough from the two of them trying to tell women what they "should" feel, that I'm pretty certain of my assessment.

Well, like I said my assessment of v3x at least was primarily from this thread and I stand by what I said about that. Having internet access only work, it's been hard to keep up with the other threads, though the direction they've taken is disappointing.

As for Pent, in the years I've been here, he's never struck me as sexist. He does appear to enjoy putting forward a "tough guy", "badass" persona, and when he knows he's gotten under someone's skin, likes to dig at it. So yea, he's probably acting like a huge dick (zomg!) but I don't think I'd peg him as sexist yet.

"But he's really a nice guy and doesn't mean any harm, you shouldn't be so hard on him".

Thanks! 

But well, yea, in a way. Being from the privileged position of "straight, white, male", it's probably not terribly easy to entirely wrap one's mind around the trials that minorities of various sorts go through, not having gone through those type of experiences on their own. Just because they don't come to an immediate epiphany of how interwoven sexism and various discriminations are into society, or if there is some disagreement on how to go about dealing with these issues or how big of an issue something is, doesn't seem cause to completely write them off as sexist subhuman shitstains, when they don't display outwardly sexist behaviors outside of this argument. "All or nothing" doesn't always seem like the best stance to take

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Trippin, I like you, but that wasn't a compliment. I think that you may need to do some more reading of the threads that led me to my current opinion on the two of them, because "But he's really a nice guy and doesn't mean any harm, you shouldn't be so hard on him" refers specifically to an earlier conversation about the way people will often jump to the defense of a man who is overly grabby/pushy/out of line, if a woman makes a scene or someone intervenes on her behalf.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And I gotta say, I don't buy the "really a nice guy" thing because, for all intents and purposes, you are what you behave like.

[trippinprincezz13]

Don't tell me that you understand what it's like to be me, when I'm pretty sure that you don't. And for fuck sake, if I tell you that I don't think you do, don't insist. I won't insist that I understand what it's like to fight in combat or to impregnate a woman and have no power over what she does with that pregnancy, because I don't. I can try, I can imagine it, but I can't really know, any more than you can really know what it's like to be pregnant. Insisting that you understand is entitlement, it's an attempt to exercise privilege, and it's also a theft; it's insisting that you know my experience better than I know it, to such an extent that YOU know what understanding my existence is better than I do. It's insulting, it's condescending, it's dismissive, and it's a COMPLETE DICK MOVE.

I agree with this.

You are not getting what Nige is saying. Like, at all. Sympathy and empathy, you can (and should) have. You may certainly have parallel experiences that make it much, much easier to understand what it's like but the actual, physical living it is not something you can actually do (short of doing something like Black Like Me).
*snip*
We want your input. We need your help solving the problems. This requires your empathy. It doesn't need you to say "I get it" in a way that means you've lived what we have (because you can't and you haven't).

And this. (I'm trimming down the posts for sake of saving space)

If you butt out, that's the same as deciding you don't give a fuck about oppression or equality, and the fact is that we need you. We just don't need you telling us you know us better than we do. During the Civil Rights protests, a really common scenario was white guys getting involved and then just naturally, with no ill will or malice, trying to take over at meetings and dictate the way they thought things should be done. There's a difference between input, and trying to take over. Unfortunately, straight white men in America are deeply enculturated to take charge. It's wrapped up with the cultural perception of manhood

And this as well. It's true that ignoring a problem certainly won't make it go away. And saying you don't want to get involved if you can't completely understand what it's like is a cop-out and a bit insulting. "Not my problem to deal with!"

(White) men cannot understand, but our help is needed. We have an obligation to help, partly because we recognize there is a problem and partly because we are the ones "in charge," so we are the only ones who can change things. At least, without a revolution. But we cannot be in charge of what needs to be done, and since we do not understand what it is like to be oppressed we cannot offer advice on what might mitigate that oppression if our advice has anything to do with changing the opinions or behaviors of the oppressed. We can only be of assistance in doing it. We are like lions, if a lion could be hired to guide a safari through lion territory.

So yea, this was insensitive and took what Nigel & Garbo were trying to say (I think) and took it to a more extreme, hyperbolic conclusion. Obviously everyone should be involved/care since, as was starting to be talked about in another thread, patriarchy does affect everyone and no, it isn't possible to fully understand the experiences that others go through. That's why communication is important to make others understand as best you (general you) can what something is like. So no, someone's experiences and opinions on them shouldn't be disregarded because one doesn't understand them, but I don't think someone should be faulted just for not being able to fully understand something from another person's point of view.

I can see how it might be frustrating to someone that wants to help/does care that "you just don't get it" or "you should be involved but not too involved" or feel like their opinions don't matter after being told repeatedly that they dont get it. Some of v3x's remarks were a bit insensitive, but I don't think it warrants writing him off as a human completely. Disregarding someone as sub-human because they don't immediately "get it" or agree completely with you doesn't really seem conducive to getting others to understand your point

[trippinprincezz13]

Trippin, I like you, but that wasn't a compliment.

No shit.

ETA: I suppose to elaborate. The "thanks" was for the acknowledgement that because I apparently don't think that they are automatic shitheads based upon what I've read so far - uninformed in part, insensitive to a degree, in disagreement on some terms, purposefully digging because they know it's getting to someone, yea sure. But I suppose that automatically makes me an apologist for sexists, making observations based on what I've read so far.

[trippinprincezz13]

I have a tendency to reaaaallly give people the benefit of the doubt before completely writing them off, so I suppose that's a personal flaw.

The personal attacks on either side baffle me really, since I'm pretty sure when it comes down to it, most people are mostly in agreement when it comes to these issues.

[The Dark Monk]

I have a tendency to reaaaallly give people the benefit of the doubt before completely writing them off, so I suppose that's a personal flaw.

The personal attacks on either side baffle me really, since I'm pretty sure when it comes down to it, most people are mostly in agreement when it comes to these issues.

I will agree with this. I find lately a lot of debates have turned into arguments, very heated ones, with multiple people having to break due to rage. I don't find it conducive. Though I read them still, I am guilty of that, I don't agree with how it is handled. A lot of people have gotten unnecessarily hurt, and brought up in other areas, it does SEEM like it's my side or yours pick one or be insulted into oblivion. Again I find myself in the middle of opinions, and a lot of the sway of opinion can be how it's handled through other people. If it's the way it's handled here I know it's how it would be handled if we were to meet or how it would be handled in a social situation. Quite honestly if I saw this between people and there's a mood of fight, I'd disregard it all, because I believe if it stays a debate, the information relating will not get lost. A lot of it too has turned into Man V Woman and itself encases the loss of tolerance for some odd reason when Trip has the biggest point of all:
"most people are mostly in agreement when it comes to these issues."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I refuse to view him as a full human being until/unless he views me, and all women, as full human beings with the right to define our own experiences and wants.

It's a give and take thing I have going on.

Anybody who insists that I am taking away their basic humanity by refusing to let them deprive me of mine is a non-person in my eyes.

Anyone who looks at an issue of another person's oppression and responds with "But what about ME?" is a non-person in my eyes, until and unless they are able to critically examine their response, recognize the selfishness of it, and revise their perspective.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Note that I am NOT talking about the issue of how patriarchy and institutionalized sexism affects men. Men HAVE their own experiences, which are valid. What is not valid is trying to supercede/co-opt women's experiences and needs in the feminist dialogue.

[The Dark Monk]

I refuse to view him as a full human being until/unless he views me, and all women, as full human beings with the right to define our own experiences and wants.

It's a give and take thing I have going on.

Anybody who insists that I am taking away their basic humanity by refusing to let them deprive me of mine is a non-person in my eyes.

Anyone who looks at an issue of another person's oppression and responds with "But what about ME?" is a non-person in my eyes, until and unless they are able to critically examine their response, recognize the selfishness of it, and revise their perspective.

Note that I am NOT talking about the issue of how patriarchy and institutionalized sexism affects men. Men HAVE their own experiences, which are valid. What is not valid is trying to supercede/co-opt women's experiences and needs in the feminist dialogue.

I don't disagree one bit with the overwriting opinions. The subhuman part is the part I disagree with. Flawed, yes, but insulting, demeaning, and other forms of mental assault I don't believe will solve the problem. (Note I am not perfect and have done so especially if it's a hot topic with me that I am very enthusiastic about.) That makes people stonewall and turn off, in which the information you are trying to give to him gets lost which again means he will not have learned anything at all. You can say it's his problem, but as a relay of information and to educate and hope your idea gets out there and sticks, his problem becomes everyone's, including yourself.

I hope that came out right, I don't mean it to be offensive or an attack in any way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I refuse to view him as a full human being until/unless he views me, and all women, as full human beings with the right to define our own experiences and wants.

It's a give and take thing I have going on.

Anybody who insists that I am taking away their basic humanity by refusing to let them deprive me of mine is a non-person in my eyes.

Anyone who looks at an issue of another person's oppression and responds with "But what about ME?" is a non-person in my eyes, until and unless they are able to critically examine their response, recognize the selfishness of it, and revise their perspective.

Unless they're saying it from the inside of a gas chamber.

But other than that, I can see where you're coming from.