5 ms·

If someone doesn't have a decoder book handy to make these translations, how are they supposed to react? How are you supposed to have an actual discussion and

by whatok 9y ago

If someone doesn't have a decoder book handy to make these translations, how are they supposed to react? How are you supposed to have an actual discussion and change minds if things phrased in such a hostile manner from the start?

camgunz 9y ago
If your goal is to have an actual discussion and change minds, you should know about the subject matter. So you don't need a decoder book, you just need to google "misogyny in america". That's the constructive thing to do, if you're interested. edit -- Hey I wrote a little screenplay to demonstrate how a conversation like this might go, in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below: A: kill all men B: huh, A, what's that about? A: Peter Thiel blames the 19th Amendment for the collapse of our society; the patriarchy is everywhere B: <googles patriarchy, suddenly starts buying Shirley Chisholm gear> All of which is to say that if you ask, "huh, A, what's that about?" instead of, "you genocidal maniac feminism is the worst and you're the worst" you can have a discussion.
- whatok 9y ago
  I don't understand. If I read something that says "kill all men" and I am not aware of the context attached to it, how am I supposed to make the leap to Google "misogyny in america"? Edit: To respond to your edit, I'm saying through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated and likely not get to the point where they ask "huh, what's that about?". I don't know if that's intentional or not but given how pervasive these problems are framed, I would think attracting as large of an audience as possible would be beneficial. > in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below This is not conducive to any productive discussion. I've responded with questions because I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding?
  - camgunz 9y ago
    > through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times. > I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy. > If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding? Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!"
    - whatok 9y ago
      There are a lot of assumptions in your post and I hope my response clarifies my position. >There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times. I was not referencing Twitter, I was quoting what was in your post. I did not say anyone was responsible for teaching anyone about feminism or how they should function as ambassadors. I do not feel like I need to be educated on this matter and do not care about how ambassadors conduct themselves. However, if you put yourself out there as an ambassador, it's natural that people scrutinize things you say a bit closer than others. When people are able to say that you represent something or are a spokesperson for a cause, they are going to attach your words to it. This ties into the next quote. > These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy. Tactics, messaging, whatever you want to call it, I'm just trying to understand the intent. If people are fed up and this is just venting, then sure, do you I guess? I personally just think it hurts the cause more than it helps it and am wondering if that's a concern or if there's something else going on. >Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!" I have not expressed any concern about male genocide. I have been upfront about asking about the intended efficacy behind the type of language used in this. That's all. Assuming ill intent when it's presented upfront is a really good way to lose people who might have been otherwise agreeable to a cause.
- thatswrong0 9y ago
  I didn’t realize that saying “kill all men” was attempting to foster a useful discussion. In fact, I’d say there’s nothing constructive about saying that even if you know the context.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > I didn’t realize that saying “kill all men” was attempting to foster a useful discussion. It's not. It's meant signal membership in a group and piss other people off (and show you don't care you did it). > In fact, I’d say there’s nothing constructive about saying that even if you know the context. The "context" is just an attempt to delegitimize the people who find the statement objectionable.
  - edflsafoiewq 9y ago
    Right. I don't think that "kill all men" should be taken very seriously and I'll go for it not being as bad as (say) "kill all Jews" for historical reasons. The weird thing is that there's a huge gap between it not being "that bad" and it being no obstacle at all to a leadership position in the community, especially given the Rust community's infamous obsession with language (can't say "thanks guys", can't say "bad style"). The optics on this are really bad.
- wonderwonder 9y ago
  I fully support equality for all and believe that as long as people are not hurting others what they do with their life and body is their call but your argument is not advancing that cause. You seem to infer immunity on the part of those you deem oppressed from having their statement being taken at face value but don't extend this same courtesy to those you deem oppressors. You believe that someone should read "kill all men" and respond in a curious manner, because you think you are in the right, regardless of whether they are a parent of small male children. We exist in a nation of free speech but if you say something, it is not the responsibility of the listener to do the research to figure out if there is some deeper meaning to what you are saying. Even if there is a deeper meaning, calling for the eradication of a gender or race is not going to initiate the productive conversation between the speaker and those being targeted that you think it is. I have young boys and once someone says to me "kill all men" anything else they say is pretty much meaningless. There are better way to initiate a free exchange of ideas. Many would not extend this courtesy of looking for deeper meaning to those whose view points you are trying to change. Would you be happy to initiate a calm thoughtful conversation with someone who tweets out that "Women are ruining this great nation" or would you call for their firing and censorship? Individuals have different ideas on life and that's ok but the workplace is not the right place to discuss controversial topics unless the freedom of expression is extended to all view points, and there has to be an understanding that feelings may be hurt on both sides. Finally, words have specific meaning, especially the written word. Words also carry consequences. If someone says "Kill all men", I will believe that what they mean is "kill all men".
  - camgunz 9y ago
    > If someone says "Kill all men", I will believe that what they mean is "kill all men". What do you think someone means when they say "I'm gonna kill the person who wrote this"? Do you call the cops? > You seem to infer immunity on the part of those you deem oppressed from having their statement being taken at face value but don't extend this same courtesy to those you deem oppressors. There's a long history of men oppressing women. There is no history of women oppressing men. So when someone says "kill all men" they can't be referencing a history of oppression. On the other hand when someone says "biologically, women are worse engineers than men", they're referencing a school of thought that has denied women basic human rights and still has modern adherents. My point is we're not on the verge of a male genocide (it feels ridiculous to even type this). We are always on the verge of taking away freedoms from women and people of color. So I think we need a more nuanced rule than "face value", or whatever. > Would you be happy to initiate a calm thoughtful conversation with someone who tweets out that "Women are ruining this great nation" or would you call for their firing and censorship? Censorship? Nah. Firing? If they have an important position then certainly. The same way I would advocate that if they said "Slavery was a good idea" or "Nazism has a lot going for it". We know slavery is wrong. We know Nazism and fascism are wrong. We know misogyny and sexism are wrong. Protesting the patriarchy or being angry about it isn't the same thing. I'd also be willing to have a conversation with them though, so "both" is the answer to your question I think. > Individuals have different ideas on life and that's ok but the workplace is not the right place to discuss controversial topics unless the freedom of expression is extended to all view points, and there has to be an understanding that feelings may be hurt on both sides. Global warming is "controversial" despite being obviously the truth, but we can't move forward on addressing it because we continue to pay lip service to people who just don't believe in it. The same is true of feminism, economics, the criminal justice system, gay rights, immigration, and so many other things. I do care what people think and I want to treat them with respect and consideration, but that doesn't trump our right to things like equal pay, clean air and water, due process, etc. Or to put it another way, at some point I don't care what bigots think and I don't think they should dictate policy. I don't have to agree to listen to the KKK at work if I want to be able to say that women deserve equal pay. That's nonsense.
- simonpenn 9y ago
  The goal of most people in a workplace is very much _not_ to have an actual discussion and change minds.

by whatok 9y ago

camgunz 9y ago

If your goal is to have an actual discussion and change minds, you should know about the subject matter. So you don't need a decoder book, you just need to google "misogyny in america". That's the constructive thing to do, if you're interested. edit -- Hey I wrote a little screenplay to demonstrate how a conversation like this might go, in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below: A: kill all men B: huh, A, what's that about? A: Peter Thiel blames the 19th Amendment for the collapse of our society; the patriarchy is everywhere B: <googles patriarchy, suddenly starts buying Shirley Chisholm gear> All of which is to say that if you ask, "huh, A, what's that about?" instead of, "you genocidal maniac feminism is the worst and you're the worst" you can have a discussion.

whatok 9y ago
I don't understand. If I read something that says "kill all men" and I am not aware of the context attached to it, how am I supposed to make the leap to Google "misogyny in america"? Edit: To respond to your edit, I'm saying through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated and likely not get to the point where they ask "huh, what's that about?". I don't know if that's intentional or not but given how pervasive these problems are framed, I would think attracting as large of an audience as possible would be beneficial. > in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below This is not conducive to any productive discussion. I've responded with questions because I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding?
- camgunz 9y ago
  > through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times. > I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy. > If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding? Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!"
  - whatok 9y ago
    There are a lot of assumptions in your post and I hope my response clarifies my position. >There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times. I was not referencing Twitter, I was quoting what was in your post. I did not say anyone was responsible for teaching anyone about feminism or how they should function as ambassadors. I do not feel like I need to be educated on this matter and do not care about how ambassadors conduct themselves. However, if you put yourself out there as an ambassador, it's natural that people scrutinize things you say a bit closer than others. When people are able to say that you represent something or are a spokesperson for a cause, they are going to attach your words to it. This ties into the next quote. > These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy. Tactics, messaging, whatever you want to call it, I'm just trying to understand the intent. If people are fed up and this is just venting, then sure, do you I guess? I personally just think it hurts the cause more than it helps it and am wondering if that's a concern or if there's something else going on. >Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!" I have not expressed any concern about male genocide. I have been upfront about asking about the intended efficacy behind the type of language used in this. That's all. Assuming ill intent when it's presented upfront is a really good way to lose people who might have been otherwise agreeable to a cause.
thatswrong0 9y ago
I didn’t realize that saying “kill all men” was attempting to foster a useful discussion. In fact, I’d say there’s nothing constructive about saying that even if you know the context.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > I didn’t realize that saying “kill all men” was attempting to foster a useful discussion. It's not. It's meant signal membership in a group and piss other people off (and show you don't care you did it). > In fact, I’d say there’s nothing constructive about saying that even if you know the context. The "context" is just an attempt to delegitimize the people who find the statement objectionable.
- edflsafoiewq 9y ago
  Right. I don't think that "kill all men" should be taken very seriously and I'll go for it not being as bad as (say) "kill all Jews" for historical reasons. The weird thing is that there's a huge gap between it not being "that bad" and it being no obstacle at all to a leadership position in the community, especially given the Rust community's infamous obsession with language (can't say "thanks guys", can't say "bad style"). The optics on this are really bad.
wonderwonder 9y ago
I fully support equality for all and believe that as long as people are not hurting others what they do with their life and body is their call but your argument is not advancing that cause. You seem to infer immunity on the part of those you deem oppressed from having their statement being taken at face value but don't extend this same courtesy to those you deem oppressors. You believe that someone should read "kill all men" and respond in a curious manner, because you think you are in the right, regardless of whether they are a parent of small male children. We exist in a nation of free speech but if you say something, it is not the responsibility of the listener to do the research to figure out if there is some deeper meaning to what you are saying. Even if there is a deeper meaning, calling for the eradication of a gender or race is not going to initiate the productive conversation between the speaker and those being targeted that you think it is. I have young boys and once someone says to me "kill all men" anything else they say is pretty much meaningless. There are better way to initiate a free exchange of ideas. Many would not extend this courtesy of looking for deeper meaning to those whose view points you are trying to change. Would you be happy to initiate a calm thoughtful conversation with someone who tweets out that "Women are ruining this great nation" or would you call for their firing and censorship? Individuals have different ideas on life and that's ok but the workplace is not the right place to discuss controversial topics unless the freedom of expression is extended to all view points, and there has to be an understanding that feelings may be hurt on both sides. Finally, words have specific meaning, especially the written word. Words also carry consequences. If someone says "Kill all men", I will believe that what they mean is "kill all men".
- camgunz 9y ago
  > If someone says "Kill all men", I will believe that what they mean is "kill all men". What do you think someone means when they say "I'm gonna kill the person who wrote this"? Do you call the cops? > You seem to infer immunity on the part of those you deem oppressed from having their statement being taken at face value but don't extend this same courtesy to those you deem oppressors. There's a long history of men oppressing women. There is no history of women oppressing men. So when someone says "kill all men" they can't be referencing a history of oppression. On the other hand when someone says "biologically, women are worse engineers than men", they're referencing a school of thought that has denied women basic human rights and still has modern adherents. My point is we're not on the verge of a male genocide (it feels ridiculous to even type this). We are always on the verge of taking away freedoms from women and people of color. So I think we need a more nuanced rule than "face value", or whatever. > Would you be happy to initiate a calm thoughtful conversation with someone who tweets out that "Women are ruining this great nation" or would you call for their firing and censorship? Censorship? Nah. Firing? If they have an important position then certainly. The same way I would advocate that if they said "Slavery was a good idea" or "Nazism has a lot going for it". We know slavery is wrong. We know Nazism and fascism are wrong. We know misogyny and sexism are wrong. Protesting the patriarchy or being angry about it isn't the same thing. I'd also be willing to have a conversation with them though, so "both" is the answer to your question I think. > Individuals have different ideas on life and that's ok but the workplace is not the right place to discuss controversial topics unless the freedom of expression is extended to all view points, and there has to be an understanding that feelings may be hurt on both sides. Global warming is "controversial" despite being obviously the truth, but we can't move forward on addressing it because we continue to pay lip service to people who just don't believe in it. The same is true of feminism, economics, the criminal justice system, gay rights, immigration, and so many other things. I do care what people think and I want to treat them with respect and consideration, but that doesn't trump our right to things like equal pay, clean air and water, due process, etc. Or to put it another way, at some point I don't care what bigots think and I don't think they should dictate policy. I don't have to agree to listen to the KKK at work if I want to be able to say that women deserve equal pay. That's nonsense.
simonpenn 9y ago
The goal of most people in a workplace is very much _not_ to have an actual discussion and change minds.