3 ms·

Alienating to men, obviously. I don't see the point of that question.

beat 8y ago
Socratic method. If my post was wrong, then it should be equally alienating to both women and men. But if it was merely an uncomfortable truth, then it should only be alienating to men - specifically men who take offense at having the general nature of sexism and their specific toxic reaction pattern to it called out. As I've said before, "I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!" is a redirection, a way of changing the subject and reversing the roles of attacker and victim. Men who understand sexism (including the sexist responses in discussions of sexism) don't feel personally attacked by generalizations and statistical truths. I don't feel attacked. Let's get Socratic again. Was my comment alienating? Yes, and deliberately so, to a targeted audience. Was it alienating to those who accept the basic truth of it? No. But the real question is... is what I said untrue? As a generalization, are women likely to find this study unsurprising? Are men likely to take a defensive position and make it about themselves? You seem to be agreeing with this - "alienating to men, obviously". It wouldn't be alienating to men if they weren't likely to do the role-reversal defense, and it would be alienating to women if it were untrue. So we're in a position where my comment is strongly punished by the community for saying true things. And here comes the hemlock. Socratic method is very interesting sometimes.
- kinghajj 8y ago
  > Socratic method. If my post was wrong, then it should be equally alienating to both women and men. Not necessarily; people have biases that affect their perceptions and reactions. > Men who understand sexism (including the sexist responses in discussions of sexism) don't feel personally attacked by generalizations and statistical truths. I don't feel attacked. I didn't feel personally attacked by your post or anyone's in this thread, yet still downvoted your OP for being alienating. > Was my comment alienating? Yes, and deliberately so, to a targeted audience. Was it alienating to those who accept the basic truth of it? No.... Are men likely to take a defensive position and make it about themselves? Yes, men are more likely to react that way, but one can still find your post alienating and counter-productive while acknowledging its truth. > So we're in a position where my comment is strongly punished by the community for saying true things. And here comes the hemlock. I think you're being a bit dramatic, downvotes are in now way equivalent to forced suicide.
  - beat 8y ago
    To be pedantic, Socrates wasn't really "forced" to drink hemlock. He could easily have avoided that fate. He could have argued forcefully for his innocence, and easily won - he could argue rings around the Sophists, and everyone knew it. Instead, he argued that society itself was wrong. He could then have begged for mercy. Instead, he told them to do their worst, and live down to what he thought they were. The jury voted for death by a wider margin than they voted for guilt! ("I didn't feel personally attacked... yet still downvoted") And of course, Socrates' real crime was saying true but uncomfortable things. All told, it's a pretty good analogy. It's not about the suicide, it's about society's reaction to uncomfortable truth, and what happens when you say the truth even knowing you'll be punished for it.

beat 8y ago

Socratic method. If my post was wrong, then it should be equally alienating to both women and men. But if it was merely an uncomfortable truth, then it should only be alienating to men - specifically men who take offense at having the general nature of sexism and their specific toxic reaction pattern to it called out. As I've said before, "I FEEL PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!" is a redirection, a way of changing the subject and reversing the roles of attacker and victim. Men who understand sexism (including the sexist responses in discussions of sexism) don't feel personally attacked by generalizations and statistical truths. I don't feel attacked. Let's get Socratic again. Was my comment alienating? Yes, and deliberately so, to a targeted audience. Was it alienating to those who accept the basic truth of it? No. But the real question is... is what I said untrue? As a generalization, are women likely to find this study unsurprising? Are men likely to take a defensive position and make it about themselves? You seem to be agreeing with this - "alienating to men, obviously". It wouldn't be alienating to men if they weren't likely to do the role-reversal defense, and it would be alienating to women if it were untrue. So we're in a position where my comment is strongly punished by the community for saying true things. And here comes the hemlock. Socratic method is very interesting sometimes.

kinghajj 8y ago
> Socratic method. If my post was wrong, then it should be equally alienating to both women and men. Not necessarily; people have biases that affect their perceptions and reactions. > Men who understand sexism (including the sexist responses in discussions of sexism) don't feel personally attacked by generalizations and statistical truths. I don't feel attacked. I didn't feel personally attacked by your post or anyone's in this thread, yet still downvoted your OP for being alienating. > Was my comment alienating? Yes, and deliberately so, to a targeted audience. Was it alienating to those who accept the basic truth of it? No.... Are men likely to take a defensive position and make it about themselves? Yes, men are more likely to react that way, but one can still find your post alienating and counter-productive while acknowledging its truth. > So we're in a position where my comment is strongly punished by the community for saying true things. And here comes the hemlock. I think you're being a bit dramatic, downvotes are in now way equivalent to forced suicide.
- beat 8y ago
  To be pedantic, Socrates wasn't really "forced" to drink hemlock. He could easily have avoided that fate. He could have argued forcefully for his innocence, and easily won - he could argue rings around the Sophists, and everyone knew it. Instead, he argued that society itself was wrong. He could then have begged for mercy. Instead, he told them to do their worst, and live down to what he thought they were. The jury voted for death by a wider margin than they voted for guilt! ("I didn't feel personally attacked... yet still downvoted") And of course, Socrates' real crime was saying true but uncomfortable things. All told, it's a pretty good analogy. It's not about the suicide, it's about society's reaction to uncomfortable truth, and what happens when you say the truth even knowing you'll be punished for it.