4 ms·

Really? How do you know that? You appear to be attributing intentions to him that are not actually demonstrated by his words. [edit for clarity: him = the faceb

Really? How do you know that? You appear to be attributing intentions to him that are not actually demonstrated by his words. [edit for clarity: him = the facebook admin]

roarroar 13y ago
My interpretation is far closer to his words than the GP, and I am giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt. So please be consistent and reply to the GP pointing out his mistake. Oops, you just revealed your bias.
- jacalata 13y ago
  Yes. My bias is that when people say something horrifically bigoted, I believe that they mean it. If they didn't, then it's on them to prove that if they need to, I see no need to give the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that our different approaches here reflect a different base level of belief in the existence of real bigotry, and hence the likelihood of such statements reflecting real bigotry rather than being the ironic/trolling type.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - roarroar 13y ago
    Again, your whole deal is "what is he like"? This is the sort of dull thinking that leads people to become obsessed with rumors and celebrity gossip. The fact that he might hate women is relevant, just not in the way you desperately want it to be - the way in which you can ignore what he said. I grew up around racists and sexists, so you're utterly wrong in your speculations about my world view. And that's all your responses are - speculations about some psychological defect or another that you can use to ignore what's being said. That is called a 'defense mechanism'.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      What? I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. Stop calling it a 'defense mechanism' for people to criticise someone for objectionable behaviour. If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures. I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not.
      - roarroar 13y ago
        >I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Obviously, you are not ignoring "what he said". That's a given, since you're talking about his post. But you're not addressing the point (that was the sense used, and I'm shocked you lack the common sense to understand this). Rather, you're engaging in gossip about whether he hates women. You even went as far as digging up another comment he made at another time to gossip about his attitude. You are the "Thought Police" this guy is talking about. >Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. And so the backpedaling begins. Now you're concerned about how "inappropriate" it was. Note the misdirection, where suddenly you dial down the heavyweight accusations of "misogyny" and Internet detective work to look more reasonable at a tactically opportune moment. It's all about how "appropriate" the comment was. Unfortunately for you he is the administrator of the group in question and he (and Facebook and any other administrators) get to decide what is "appropriate" there. What you are really doing (ignoring your little tactical retreat) is trying to tie the essential point of the post to a hatred of women. Which note is not the same thing as whether the poster himself hates women. >If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures. Bad analogy. The forum on which the post was made isn't yours to police, and his actions aren't equivalent to pissing on the table, which is a health hazard and a far more egregious social violation than saying some mean things on the Internet. Further, you have employed the same tactics against me by bringing my tendencies and background into question. >I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not. A more interesting question is how you know how I "tend" from a sample of one. Just think how this power could be used for the good of mankind!

Really? How do you know that? You appear to be attributing intentions to him that are not actually demonstrated by his words. [edit for clarity: him = the facebook admin]

roarroar 13y ago

My interpretation is far closer to his words than the GP, and I am giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt. So please be consistent and reply to the GP pointing out his mistake. Oops, you just revealed your bias.

jacalata 13y ago
Yes. My bias is that when people say something horrifically bigoted, I believe that they mean it. If they didn't, then it's on them to prove that if they need to, I see no need to give the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that our different approaches here reflect a different base level of belief in the existence of real bigotry, and hence the likelihood of such statements reflecting real bigotry rather than being the ironic/trolling type.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- roarroar 13y ago
  Again, your whole deal is "what is he like"? This is the sort of dull thinking that leads people to become obsessed with rumors and celebrity gossip. The fact that he might hate women is relevant, just not in the way you desperately want it to be - the way in which you can ignore what he said. I grew up around racists and sexists, so you're utterly wrong in your speculations about my world view. And that's all your responses are - speculations about some psychological defect or another that you can use to ignore what's being said. That is called a 'defense mechanism'.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    What? I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. Stop calling it a 'defense mechanism' for people to criticise someone for objectionable behaviour. If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures. I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not.
    - roarroar 13y ago
      >I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to. Obviously, you are not ignoring "what he said". That's a given, since you're talking about his post. But you're not addressing the point (that was the sense used, and I'm shocked you lack the common sense to understand this). Rather, you're engaging in gossip about whether he hates women. You even went as far as digging up another comment he made at another time to gossip about his attitude. You are the "Thought Police" this guy is talking about. >Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. And so the backpedaling begins. Now you're concerned about how "inappropriate" it was. Note the misdirection, where suddenly you dial down the heavyweight accusations of "misogyny" and Internet detective work to look more reasonable at a tactically opportune moment. It's all about how "appropriate" the comment was. Unfortunately for you he is the administrator of the group in question and he (and Facebook and any other administrators) get to decide what is "appropriate" there. What you are really doing (ignoring your little tactical retreat) is trying to tie the essential point of the post to a hatred of women. Which note is not the same thing as whether the poster himself hates women. >If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures. Bad analogy. The forum on which the post was made isn't yours to police, and his actions aren't equivalent to pissing on the table, which is a health hazard and a far more egregious social violation than saying some mean things on the Internet. Further, you have employed the same tactics against me by bringing my tendencies and background into question. >I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not. A more interesting question is how you know how I "tend" from a sample of one. Just think how this power could be used for the good of mankind!