4 ms·

I feel you are fundamentally in agreement with my point and splitting hairs to satisfy a pedantic desire to make a very specific semantic distinction. It might

I feel you are fundamentally in agreement with my point and splitting hairs to satisfy a pedantic desire to make a very specific semantic distinction. It might feel good, but you're not going to win anyone over with this type of nitpicking.

norwalkbear 4y ago
It's not pedantic. It's a damn good point. Most men are shit out of luck just like most women beholden to whims of those with money and power.
- dasil003 4y ago
  It is pedantic because it's nitpicking my choice of words to make a completely separate point. This attracts people with the same concern (like you), but does nothing to bridge the gap to people with an alternate viewpoint (like the OP I responded to). Put another way, I could have made my point with a different choice of words that would not have drawn the response from mpweiher (and you). The problem is, any choice of words is open to be misinterpreted by someone with an axe to grind. If you want to be angry and find like-minded angry individuals, be my guest. If you want to build empathy and mutual understanding, then it's worth it to try to engage with people's primary point rather than seizing on an uncharitable interpretation of a particular phrasing or choice of words.
mpweiher 4y ago
You feel wrong. The distinction is absolutely fundamental.
throway33 4y ago
It's actually an important point. For example, one of the most misogynistic societies I can think of are the polygamous communities like Bountiful, BC, which are basically ruled by a small cadre of elite senior men with multiple wives. Women are very oppressed. However young men are just as oppressed; they are treated as competition by the elite, and essentially exiled or put to work as child labour in dangerous jobs. This community is very misogynistic and ruled by a patriarchy, and clearly the power is concentrated in the hands of men; at the same time it is not a community that you would want to be born into as a man or a woman, and the median man will end up with none of that patriarchal power or status. https://thetyee.ca/News/2006/05/26/Bountiful/ https://thetyee.ca/News/2006/05/26/Bountiful/ This is why it's important not just to average over groups. Dear Leader might always be a man, but that's not relevant to the fate of 99.99% of men who will never be Dear Leader, nor will they receive favour from him for sharing his gender. This is why a lot of people are sensitive to arguments that use language that equivocates between the entirely non-equivalent propositions "if you have power, you probably are a man" and "if you are a man, you probably have power". And yet the confusion between these two propositions is so widespread that probably most of the arguments in this HN comment section will come down to it.

norwalkbear 4y ago

It's not pedantic. It's a damn good point. Most men are shit out of luck just like most women beholden to whims of those with money and power.

dasil003 4y ago
It is pedantic because it's nitpicking my choice of words to make a completely separate point. This attracts people with the same concern (like you), but does nothing to bridge the gap to people with an alternate viewpoint (like the OP I responded to). Put another way, I could have made my point with a different choice of words that would not have drawn the response from mpweiher (and you). The problem is, any choice of words is open to be misinterpreted by someone with an axe to grind. If you want to be angry and find like-minded angry individuals, be my guest. If you want to build empathy and mutual understanding, then it's worth it to try to engage with people's primary point rather than seizing on an uncharitable interpretation of a particular phrasing or choice of words.

mpweiher 4y ago

You feel wrong. The distinction is absolutely fundamental.

throway33 4y ago

It's actually an important point. For example, one of the most misogynistic societies I can think of are the polygamous communities like Bountiful, BC, which are basically ruled by a small cadre of elite senior men with multiple wives. Women are very oppressed. However young men are just as oppressed; they are treated as competition by the elite, and essentially exiled or put to work as child labour in dangerous jobs. This community is very misogynistic and ruled by a patriarchy, and clearly the power is concentrated in the hands of men; at the same time it is not a community that you would want to be born into as a man or a woman, and the median man will end up with none of that patriarchal power or status. https://thetyee.ca/News/2006/05/26/Bountiful/ https://thetyee.ca/News/2006/05/26/Bountiful/ This is why it's important not just to average over groups. Dear Leader might always be a man, but that's not relevant to the fate of 99.99% of men who will never be Dear Leader, nor will they receive favour from him for sharing his gender. This is why a lot of people are sensitive to arguments that use language that equivocates between the entirely non-equivalent propositions "if you have power, you probably are a man" and "if you are a man, you probably have power". And yet the confusion between these two propositions is so widespread that probably most of the arguments in this HN comment section will come down to it.