Today I've Learned...

[AFK]

Yeah, I have this silly habit of using words the way they are defined in dictionaries, I can see how that would upset people.


Maybe I'm just an odd duck, I don't wish death, serious or in jest, simply when I disagree with someone.  It's disrespectful and definitely closes off debate.  If you can't handle debate without getting hot under the collar, then go find something else to do.  I WILL state my opinions whatever they are, I don't require anyone's approval and care less if I get it, but anyone who is going to consider themselves a Discordian should have a bit more resolve and stability than to try to squash debate simply because they disagree.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.

Yeah.  "I keep my wife in line" would be one of those.

In THIS case, however, you are mercilessly mocking, raging, and viciously satirizing people who disagree on one fine point of a larger argument.

It's become a fucking religion.

Maybe.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.

Yeah.  "I keep my wife in line" would be one of those.

In THIS case, however, you are mercilessly mocking, raging, and viciously satirizing people who disagree on one fine point of a larger argument.

It's become a fucking religion.

Maybe.

In my opinion, it has.  We look like Pastafarians, only with feminism instead of atheism.  It's damn near all we talk about, and it's become bitter, angry, and toxic.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Some points of view shouldn't be tolerated.

Repulsive opinions ought to be mercilessly mocked, raged at, and viciously satirized.

Yeah.  "I keep my wife in line" would be one of those.

In THIS case, however, you are mercilessly mocking, raging, and viciously satirizing people who disagree on one fine point of a larger argument.

It's become a fucking religion.

Maybe.

In my opinion, it has.  We look like Pastafarians, only with feminism instead of atheism.  It's damn near all we talk about, and it's become bitter, angry, and toxic.

It will run its course.

There's nothing stopping you from starting new topics or dusting off some excellent material and developing it though, is there?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

[...] but anyone who is going to consider themselves a Discordian should [...]

[AFK]

Uh, weren't you just bellyaching about someone removing context from one of your posts?

[Verbal Mike]

I just looked at it again in context, and it looks just as lulzy.

Anyway, you're right about wishing someone they die. I didn't mean it that literally, I guess, but it was wrong either way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It will run its course.

So does a meatgrinder.

There's nothing stopping you from starting new topics or dusting off some excellent material and developing it though, is there?

Yes, there is.  I've lost my muse.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.

How?  I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.

How?  I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?

I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.

How is that Calvinist?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.

How?  I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?

I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.

How is that Calvinist?

It is LIKE Calvinism.  RWHN's argument was not "feminism is wrong, get back in the kitchen", it was "I disagree that gender is the largest factor."  For that, he should be treated as you described?  Mocked, ridiculed, not tolerated?

What is the motivation, here?  To work towards equality, or make everyone agree on every detail?  Which is more important?  Results, or perfect adherence to groupthink?

[AFK]

No, feminism isn't wrong, and I strive to be an ally, I just don't want to see people lost along the way because they feel they too aren't allowed to be an ally, or, that they are an ally with baggage.  But please, yes, let's keep,working on gender equality.  I DO have a wife and daughter.  I want my daughter to have every opportunity in the world available to her, and I'll personally stomp anyone who gets in her way, male, female, or otherwise.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.

How?  I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?

I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.

How is that Calvinist?

It is LIKE Calvinism.  RWHN's argument was not "feminism is wrong, get back in the kitchen", it was "I disagree that gender is the largest factor."  For that, he should be treated as you described?  Mocked, ridiculed, not tolerated?

What is the motivation, here?  To work towards equality, or make everyone agree on every detail?  Which is more important?  Results, or perfect adherence to groupthink?

No, I didn't articulate myself very carefully.

Opinions and ideas ought to be lambasted, not the person.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Uh, yeah, ignoring my other sentence distorts its meaning.

How?  I mean, I know HOW it can happen, but in this case the distortion caused the message to turn from what to what?

I qualified that sentence with examples of not tolerating opinions via counter-speech, not censorship or force.

How is that Calvinist?

It is LIKE Calvinism.  RWHN's argument was not "feminism is wrong, get back in the kitchen", it was "I disagree that gender is the largest factor."  For that, he should be treated as you described?  Mocked, ridiculed, not tolerated?

What is the motivation, here?  To work towards equality, or make everyone agree on every detail?  Which is more important?  Results, or perfect adherence to groupthink?

No, I didn't articulate myself very carefully.

Opinions and ideas ought to be lambasted, not the person.

To a point, I agree. But when it becomes lambasting ideas just because they don't mesh with your ideas, you've crossed a line. That's why it's important to consider opposing viewpoints. Maybe they know about something you hadn't considered, or maybe you can work with their ideas and your ideas and create some kind of undead Frankenbelief that has legs of its own.

Also the lambasting gets in the way of realizing you're talking past each other, like what happened in RWHN's posts where everyone assumed he was saying there's no such thing as male privilege, but he was actually saying male privilege doesn't cross class lines.