5 ms·

I'm describing, not prescribing (and I'm specifically talking about HN and YC, not making general claims). Yes, women can be anti-feminist. As you said, these

by jdp23 10y ago

I'm describing, not prescribing (and I'm specifically talking about HN and YC, not making general claims). Yes, women can be anti-feminist. As you said, these are tricky issues. If you haven't yet understood why many people see the political ban as aligning with this, then either you haven't tried very hard or your belief system is preventing you from understanding. There's plenty of information here and in other discussions, so give it another try.

Chris2048 10y ago
> haven't tried very hard or your belief system is preventing you from understanding why won't you say explicitly? Is there some nuance that cannot be stated?
- jdp23 10y ago
  It's not nuanced at all, it's quite clear. And I was very explicit about why I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you. If this is something you really want to understand (whether or not you agree), invest the effort (which may also mean finding a way to get beyond any limits your belief system is leading to). If you do that, you don't need any further explanation from me. If you don't do that, nothing I say will help you understand.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    And can you not see that: > I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you Is pretty arrogant, you have such high esteem for your perspective you don't think it could be wrong, in fact I'm biased for not understanding it; You're suggesting, instead, that I must have to go on some mysterious journey-of-self, as if you were a wise zen master furnishing me with enlightenment; rather than supporting your own, somewhat basic, claim that "the ban supports the antis"...
    - jdp23 10y ago
      It's interesting to see how you interpret my words. Thanks for the discussion.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > Thanks for the discussion. Maybe it's my biases, but that seems pretty passive-aggressive.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        Earlier: > Thanks for the reply. Also passive-aggressive?
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Probably not, at that point it wasn't clear that the statement was unlikely to be true.

by jdp23 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

> haven't tried very hard or your belief system is preventing you from understanding why won't you say explicitly? Is there some nuance that cannot be stated?

jdp23 10y ago
It's not nuanced at all, it's quite clear. And I was very explicit about why I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you. If this is something you really want to understand (whether or not you agree), invest the effort (which may also mean finding a way to get beyond any limits your belief system is leading to). If you do that, you don't need any further explanation from me. If you don't do that, nothing I say will help you understand.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  And can you not see that: > I don't see it as a good use of my time or energy to try to explain it to you Is pretty arrogant, you have such high esteem for your perspective you don't think it could be wrong, in fact I'm biased for not understanding it; You're suggesting, instead, that I must have to go on some mysterious journey-of-self, as if you were a wise zen master furnishing me with enlightenment; rather than supporting your own, somewhat basic, claim that "the ban supports the antis"...
  - jdp23 10y ago
    It's interesting to see how you interpret my words. Thanks for the discussion.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > Thanks for the discussion. Maybe it's my biases, but that seems pretty passive-aggressive.
      - chillwaves 10y ago
        Earlier: > Thanks for the reply. Also passive-aggressive?
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Probably not, at that point it wasn't clear that the statement was unlikely to be true.