3 ms·
That's pretty funny from the admin guy. He describes the person who posted the piece as "politically correct thought police", and then right afterwards threaten
by duairc 13y ago
That's pretty funny from the admin guy. He describes the person who posted the piece as "politically correct thought police", and then right afterwards threatens to ban them if they post anything else "like this", i.e., anything whose politics he disagrees with.
- muzz 13y agoInstead of "funny" you could also say "hypocritical"
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- duairc 13y agoYes, I could. I don't like the word "hypocritical" though, because it implies that contradicting oneself like that is the moral failing of an individual. But really, we all contradict ourselves all the time, and we don't even realise it. These types of contradictions are interesting not because they show that the person who makes them is bad or stupid, but because they reveal the ideologies that structure their thoughts, behaviours and actions, and the contradictions embedded therein. In fact "ideology" itself can be thought of as a kind of blindness to contradictions. In this particular case, the admin guy is probably not stupid. I'm sure he sees the contradiction in (p ^ ¬p). But he also is a man, and obviously feels threatened by feminism because it seeks to take away his male privilege (in this case, the right to be misogynist without anybody else complaining^), and thus is motivated by ideology to defend his male privilege. This ideology is powerful enough that he can blatantly contradict himself and not even see that he's done so. ^ I know the admin guy wasn't misogynist himself, or at least the original article wasn't about his misogyny, I am just saying that male privilege generally grants men the right to be misogynist without anybody else complaining (certainly in the "male spaces" that the admin guy is talking about), and feminism threatens to take that right away from him.