Confessions of a Neckbeard

[inverarity]

Following Christopher Priest's rant about the Arthur C. Clarke awards, there have been echoes reverberating all over the Internet, particularly as a result of Catherynne Valente's observation that a woman wouldn't get away with that shit.

This really shouldn't be that controversial. And yet, in the comments of Valente's own posts, as well as all the people talking about it, there are all these neckbeards engaging in lengthy diatribes about how it's so haaaaard to be a man and bitches be crazywomen can be so meeeeeeean!

I mean, some dude actually told Valente, after she recounted her own horrific childhood experiences of bullying and then stated that she's a rape survivor, that she had it easy! Because girls were totally mean to him in school!

Holy shit. Just STFU. STFU forever.

This strikes home for me because... I used to be That Guy. Okay, not the guy who told a rape survivor that women have it easy — I don't think I was ever that big of a douche. (If I was, I have thankfully blotted it from my memory and I'm just glad no one ever gave me the beat-down I deserved.) But I was your typical nerdy dude who was totally pro-feminism but could still pull out Mansplainin' 101 about how Women Don't Appreciate Nice Guys and Of Course No One Deserves To Be Raped But If You Walked Through Central Park At Night Flashing a Roll of Cash... and other classics in that vein.

I am pretty ashamed of my younger self, I am. (Not just for those things, but they certainly give me no small amount of painful recollection.)

I make no claim to perfection now. I try to engage viewpoints I don't agree with in a thoughtful manner, and if I still don't agree with them, I'll be measured in my disagreement unless it's just downright offensive or batshit insane. I keep a somewhat cynical eye on a lot of drama & social justice sites, agreeing with much of what is said, thinking that a lot more is rather unnuanced or self-serving or kneejerk, but unlike my younger self, I don't feel a need to jump in and say "U R RONG!" When I do get into it, I have learned to walk away from arguments that are unproductive or in which the other person is clearly a troll and sees all interactions as a win/lose binary that cannot be resolved until someone cries uncle.

The thing is, when this is an argument over Harry Potter, it's merely annoying, provoking a head shake and some eye-rolling, but when it's guys telling women that their silly lady-brains are seeing misogyny that doesn't really exist, it's contributing to the very thing they are claiming doesn't exist.

This also strikes home because of course I am a big genre fan, and I even like some of those big genre works that get neckbeards so het up when people criticize them. And yet, holy shit, the rage that spews out of the keyboard-wielding howler monkeys of the Internet when a woman criticizes the things they love!

Some (in)famous examples:

• Liz Bourke's eviscerating review of Theft of Swords.
  
• _allecto_ pretty much calling Joss Whedon a rapist.
  
• Sady Doyle calling George R. R. Martin creepy and misogynistic.
  
• Pretty much everything acrackedmoon writes at Requires Only That You Hate.
  

Now, I do not agree with what all of the above women say. And one can intelligently disagree with them. I mean, I think _allecto_'s criticisms of Joss Whedon, in particular, are reeeeeeeeally reaching (it's one thing to say you don't think his work deserves all its feminist accolades, it's quite another to say that perceived misogyny in his work means the man himself is a rapist). I haven't actually read A Game of Thrones so don't have much of an opinion on it, but Doyle does seem to stretch a few of her points a bit, and I understand she was pretty nasty to some feminist bloggers who disagreed with her. I love ROTYH, but I don't always agree with acrackedmoon (man, ACM, why you gotta keep harshin' on Evil Stevie? And I still like Harry Potter and The Name of the Wind, so nyah nyah!), and I think she can at times be a little too quick to go for the jugular.



But. All of these women get a shit-ton of nerdrage and fucking rape threats dumped on them. I read a lot of bombastic bloggers, male and female, and while men get namecalled and disagreed with, even at their most vitriolic it's usually more of a schoolyard let's-beat-each-other-up-and-have-a-beer-afterwards exchange that's as much backslapping as brawling. My worst and most nasty trolls did some taunting and dickwaving, but no one threatened me, and if they did, we'd both know they were full of shit and it was hot air. Kathy Sierra and Seanan McGuire have received death threats accompanied by personally identifying information.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?



ETA: Locked. Not because I'm a mean ol' lefty who can't stand to hear dissenting opinions (though I expect that's what jordan179 is going to claim), but because I have to go to work, I cannot access LJ at work, and I really don't want to read ten more pages of this shit when I get home.

Comments

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Again with jumping from being robbed to being raped. Can I get a response to the actual example I used?

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

You did. Evidently you failed to read my comment. So I shall repeat myself.

1) If the person did not commit something immoral, then yes. Doing something stupid does not mean you deserve to have something horrible happen to you.

2) On the other hand, if they did commit something immoral, then no--as long as their victimization fits the crime they committed. If you attempt to kill someone, you bear full responsibility for the intended victim killing you back. If you play around with someone's feelings, you bear no responsibility if that person rapes you.

Since wandering around drunk in Central Park is not immoral, the person in your example does not bear responsibility for being robbed. Anymore than you bear responsibility for being robbed by living in a city with a high crime rate, or walking around with a wallet.

To put it another way: They are responsible for walking around drunk. They are not responsible for being robbed.

Does that answer your question? Now please stop derailing the thread because I honestly can't see how this has anything to do with Inverarity's post.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I understand why you are opposed to treating "victim groups" differently than "non-victim groups," I do.

(*nods*) It's because I believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings, qua human beings.

The fact of the matter is, because of centuries (or even millennia) of oppression, certain actions and words have a special meaning and thus a special effect on victimized groups.

That is something which the individuals belonging to these groups must learn to overcome. Seriously -- this sounds harsh, but the only way to claim one's human equality is to practice it -- which is to say to grow thicker skins. And I am quite aware that this is sometimes hard, but it is the only way to secure one's equality as one's own inherent right, rather than as a gift dispensed by some generous outside authority (which note, can take that gift away on a moment's notice should the member of a "victim group" displease them).

The point is, you should treat everyone with respect and dignity--in terms of that, you should treat all groups the same. But because everyone is different, what it means to treat them with respect will necessarily be different for everyone. In the case of groups historically (and presently) subject to oppression, I really don't think it's too much to ask not to engage in actions which reflect that oppression.

Yes. Actually it is. Going out of one's way to be nicer to an individual because he or she belongs to a group that was historically oppressed means that one does not really respect his or her standing as your own equal.

Now, going out of one's way to be nice to people on general principles is another matter. But note that some of the people linked to in the original post explicitly state that they have the right to be rude to white males, and that those white males do not have the right to be rude back to them.

That argument I will accord no respect.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

For example: If you tell a woman (as a man) "Shut the fuck up," you're playing into a very long-lasting trope of oppression where men silence women. Telling a man "Shut the fuck up" just doesn't have the same impact. I could give many more examples.

I don't argue by telling people to "shut the fuck up." Such an argument is a logical null, equivalent to "hoopty doopty WOOOP!!!" and refutable by whatever other string of nonsense syllables someone chooses to type. People who argue like this need to be pointed at and laughed at -- regardless of their race or gender, or the race or gender of the person to whom they have made this argument.

Still less do I argue by threatening to beat up, rape or muder people. Such "argument" is in fact both criminally and civilly actionable -- it's called "making a terroristic threat." Again, regardless of the race or gender of the sender or recipient.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where "moral" came into this. I was talking about responsibility purely in terms of logic. And you don't really answer if getting robbed means it's wrong to point out that the person walking around drunk was being dumb.

But since most of my responses have had people running to rape even though I never brought that up I'm willing to withdraw since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

An excellent post. I agree with you fully.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

That is something which the individuals belonging to these groups must learn to overcome.

*sigh* I assume you do not belong to one of the "victimized groups" we're talking about. However, even if you do, the following point still holds.

What you're saying is that people who belong to "victimized groups" should all have to overcome hundreds of years of oppression, while people who do not belong to such groups do not have to do this. In other words, you are saying that the responsibility for overcoming a long history of oppression lies with the oppressed groups themselves. This is very much not okay. The responsibility lies with the oppressors.

Given all the advantages white males have in today's world because they are white males, this really should not be a big deal.

the only way to claim one's human equality is to practice it

Oh, give me a break. Equality is not something you "practice" (I have no idea what that even means). Rights only mean anything if they are respected by others, and ideally protected by an outside authority (and yes, I am aware that the "gift" can be taken away "on a moment's notice"--that's why we invented the Constitution). What, you think during Jim Crow all black people had to do was "grow thicker skins"?

Going out of one's way to be nicer to an individual because he or she belongs to a group that was historically oppressed means that one does not really respect his or her standing as your own equal.

No, it means you recognize that while they are equal to you, they are also different from you, and since they are different they should be treated differently (yet still with respect obviously). Again: Because everyone is different, treating them with equal respect requires treating them differently. This is not complicated.

But note that some of the people linked to in the original post explicitly state that they have the right to be rude to white males, and that those white males do not have the right to be rude back to them.

That is not what they're saying. It's not a matter of being rude or polite. It's a matter of whether you're allowed to use slurs that have a long history behind them. Can you honestly not see that there's a difference between a black woman telling a white man he's a rabid animal, and a white man telling a black woman that? Here's a hint: The former was not commonly used to castigate an entire class of people for centuries.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where "moral" came into this. I was talking about responsibility purely in terms of logic.

Um, huh? "Responsibility" is an inherently moral concept. Logic and morality are not mutually contradictory.

And you don't really answer if getting robbed means it's wrong to point out that the person walking around drunk was being dumb.

Let me put it this way: If someone comes up to you and talks about how they were robbed, and you respond by saying "Well, you shouldn't have been walking around alone at night," you're an asshole.

But since most of my responses have had people running to rape even though I never brought that up I'm willing to withdraw since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive.

People have been mentioning rape in their responses because this conversation began with talk about rape threats. You do not get to play coy and say "But I didn't mention it myself!" when the context is there for everyone to see.

That said, since you have consistently failed to respond to any actual substantive points, I agree this conversation has failed to go anywhere productive. So congratulations for successfully derailing this thread! You must be so proud of yourself.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I never suggested or implied that you argued like this so I don't understand where this post is coming from.

I agree that if all you say is "Shut the fuck up," you've failed to properly argue. But if you say "Shut the fuck up, and here's why," and you proceed to list the reasons your conversational interlocutor is stupid and/or an asshole, then you might be being rude but you're still arguing. In those circumstances, I'm suggesting that it's still bad for a white man to use that phrasing against a woman because of the (long, long) history at work. It's not bad in the same way for a man to use it against a man or a woman to use it.

[shinygobonkers.livejournal.com]

i jumped to rape because my point centers around a phenomenon that is specific to that particular crime. if i choose to recklessly walk through a shady area at night, and i am mugged, by and large no one would focus on that same kind of way on ME. on whether i somehow gave the mugger the idea that it was ok to mug me. whether how i dressed or how i walked or my state of sobriety or what i did for a living made it ok to threaten me with violence and steal my belongings.

and fair enough that personal responsibility is a good thing for everyone to develop. that is true. however, responsibility for a person's lack of wisdom in walking alone at night would NOT outweigh the responsibility of the perpetrator of a crime to not physically/financially/whatever violate the rights of another person. and my point regarding social attitudes towards rape is relevant because, to some degree, it creates a culture of impunity regarding that particular crime. if the victim who really did make a stupid/reckless/unsafe decision (which does not in any case mean they deserve to be attacked) does not feel safe coming forward to report the crime due to the attitude/reaction they will no doubt face which will exacerbate the trauma they already experienced, the rapist/attacker is free to continue attacking others, not all of whom will be similarly lacking in 'personal responsibility' at the time of the attack. social attitudes mean that for some victims, those experiencing spousal rape, for example, have next to no chance of their attacker getting any sort of punishment/castigation at all. where exactly is the personal responsibility in 'i told my spouse i wasnt in the mood and they decided they didnt care and attacked me/forced me anyway'?

also, i do think this is also thread derailing to continue on with so, so apologies for that.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I know you think you're a clever lad with your logic and all, but claiming it's not about morals, just logical cause and effect, is pretty disingenuous. Yes, we all know that walking alone in a high crime area flashing cash is dumb. Yes, we could even all agree that getting falling-down drunk at a frat party is unwise. There are all kinds of foolish things people do to put themselves in harm's way, and sometimes it's worthwhile to produce PSA's saying, "Hey, you probably shouldn't do this."

But given that my original post was specifically about (among other things) rape and sexual harassment, and you went straight for the very analogy I was talking about, I am finding your wounded indignation that people are reading implications about moral culpability and sexual assault into your statements when that's totally not what you were talking about at all even a little bit to be highly suspect.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that members of persecuted groups appreciate your wise words about how they just need to suck it up and grow thicker skins, because surely their life experience hasn't taught them that. But that's not really the point. It's all well and good to say "Everyone should be civil as a matter of principle," and as a general rule, sure, it's usually more productive to use polite language even when arguing with people you think are vile and batshit insane, for the sake of making yourself look more reasonable to third parties, if nothing else.

But, let's take, oh, John Derbyshire's (http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire#axzz1rJPlABLB) recent rant, which was so screamingly racist that the National Review promptly distanced themselves from him, and you have to practically be wearing a white hood and burning crosses before the National Review will call a white man a racist.

But Derbyshire was very civil and used perfectly polite language in explaining that black people are violent, dangerous, and subhuman.

So according to you, if someone were to write a response in which they call Derbyshire a racist piece of shit while tearing into his argument, that person would be morally in the wrong because calling Derbyshire a racist piece of shit is rude, and Derbyshire wasn't rude.

Note that I'm not talking about whether calling him a racist piece of shit is a great rhetorical strategy - it probably isn't. But if someone expresses some truly vile opinions, and someone else uses intemperate language in response, and people then refuse to listen to the response because "You're using nasty language", that's the kind of bullshit the "tone argument" addresses.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

The connection is that libertarians are assholes. I've never met one who wasn't.

(And yeah, while I never went full libertarian, I also had some libertarian leanings at the height of my asshole years.)

[kalbear.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is absolutely 100% right to absolve a victim of their actions if their actions are legal.

I don't see why it wouldn't be. I can't even understand why it wouldn't be. The notion that it isn't is frankly absurd.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I have known several libertarians who aren't assholes. Admittedly the more libertarian they are the more likely they are to be an asshole.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Don't worry--it was dv8nation who derailed the thread, not you. And besides, you only came in after it was well and truly off track. :p

Victims

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I assume you do not belong to one of the "victimized groups" we're talking about.

I was born and raised Jewish. So yet, I do belong to a group which was quite severely victimized: and is being victimized again east of the Atlantic. Though I realize that we're pointedly excluded from the list of "victim groups" currently popular among the Politically Correct.

And I was treated with extra suspicion, and even the threat of violence, in part because I "looked Jewish." Happened in New York City in the early 1980's. So it's not even purely historical or theoretical from my POV.

You know what? I don't let it dominate my life, and I don't imagine that I get any special rights or consideration for it. Nor do I hold that I am required to extend any special rights or consideration to anyone else based on their group identity -- only the rights and consdieration I extend to everyone, REGARDLESS of group identity.

What you're saying is that people who belong to "victimized groups" should all have to overcome hundreds of years of oppression, while people who do not belong to such groups do not have to do this.

Yes. Though, frankly, anyone who has personally suffered "hundreds of years of oppression" is advantaged, rather than disadvantaged -- they have enjoyed an incredibly long life. And I don't think we should repress the Long families -- they might just wind up leaving Earth on a starship if we do that.

Now, is this fair? Nope. But there is literally no way to make this fair, as both the oppressors and oppressed are usually dead, often long dead, in this sort of situation.

Ancient historical unfairnessess are inameliorable. All the people who are alive now can do is overcome their lingering consequences as best they can, and this means learning to be tough and determined, not learning to be whiny and demanding, because the former route leads to personal pride; the latter route leads to eternal dependence on Big Daddy State Justice.

In other words, you are saying that the responsibility for overcoming a long history of oppression lies with the oppressed groups themselves.

Yep.

This is very much not okay.

I'm sorry if this reality bothers you. Would you like to board the crosstime machine and emigrate to some more congenial reality, possibly ones with different human natures?

The responsibility lies with the oppressors.

That's nice. Since I'm not one of the "oppressors", save by tautological claim, and indeed in most cases the actual oppressors are either long-dead or very old by now, that diffuses the responsibility very nicely.

Consider your own life, though. How far have you ever gotten in achieving any end by claiming that someone else is responsible for your own situation? And how far, instead, have you gotten when you took responsiblity for your own life and began working to improve it -- not by petitioning other people for help, but by working hard and improving yourself?

Guilt

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Given all the advantages white males have in today's world because they are white males, this really should not be a big deal.

That's very nice. And I tell you that I am a white male, and I am not going to give anyone any special help or consideration for not being a white male. And furthermore, I take the demand that I should to be itself quite HIGHLY oppressive, especially if backed with force.

And why not? I didn't do anything to oppress non-whites or non-males. And if someone else chose to favor me because of my magic "white male privilege," that was their choice.

I ... only ... feel ... guilty ... for ... things ... I ... do. I do not feel guilty for things that others do. The reason why is that I only control my own actions -- not the actions of others.

The term for this is "responsibility." The term for accepting unearned guilt is "neurotic guilt."

Practicing Equality

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

the only way to claim one's human equality is to practice it ...

Oh, give me a break. Equality is not something you "practice" (I have no idea what that even means).

To "practice" equality is to consider yourself to be fundamentally equal to others, and to treat other people as fundamentally equal to yourself, with your judgement of them being as individuals rather than members of a group.

If Mr. Able, who is white, respects Mr. Baker, who is black, as a fellow human being, and demands such respect in return as a condition of his own respect, then he is "practicing equality." If Mr. Able despises Mr. Baker for being black and demands excessive respect from Baker while treating him contemptuously, then he is being racist. But if Mr. Able gives Mr. Baker unearned respect while demanding little in return because Baker is black, then he is also being racist.

Rights only mean anything if they are respected by others, and ideally protected by an outside authority (and yes, I am aware that the "gift" can be taken away "on a moment's notice"--that's why we invented the Constitution).

If rights inhere equally in humans qua humans, then they are harder to take away. (Indeed, the logic of such a position was strong enough to lead to the abolition of black slavery in America). But if rights are distributed by the State to members of groups based on the groups they belong to, the distribution can always be changed, and no one is secure in the enjoyment of his rights.

What, you think during Jim Crow all black people had to do was "grow thicker skins"?

No, because they were legally disadvantaged, so they had to repeal Jim Crow. And now, during Affirmative Action, whites need to repeal Affirmative Action, for a milder version of the SAME REASON. People have rights as individual humans, and these rights are the SAME for all people.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

No, it means you recognize that while they are equal to you, they are also different from you, and since they are different they should be treated differently (yet still with respect obviously).

Ah. Maybe since members of different groups are equal but different, they should get special facilities designed for these groups? Shall we call this "Some groups are more equal?" Or maybe "separate but equal?"

Again: Because everyone is different, treating them with equal respect requires treating them differently. This is not complicated.

People are different as individuals. They must be judged and treated accordingly as INDIVIDUALS. To treat them differently because of their group membership is to treat them unequally, even if you hop up and down and chant the mantra "equally!" forever.

Re: Victims

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

So it's not even purely historical or theoretical from my POV.

Trust me, my friend, this isn't purely historical or theoretical for any oppressed group.

You know what? I don't let it dominate my life, and I don't imagine that I get any special rights or consideration for it.

I'm not suggesting that anyone get any special rights. The only special "considerations" I uphold are ones based on the equal respect everyone deserves.

But there is literally no way to make this fair, as both the oppressors and oppressed are usually dead, often long dead, in this sort of situation.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html

There are people being oppressed right now as we speak, so please quit the "But everyone's dead and there's nothing we can do!" shtick.

Ancient historical unfairnessess are inameliorable.

*bzzzt* Sorry, this is factually incorrect. Try again?

All the people who are alive now can do is overcome their lingering consequences as best they can, and this means learning to be tough and determined,

Oh for the love of all that is holy, give me a fucking break. People cannot overcome centuries of oppression through strength of will. Life is not anime where you get to power a giant robot with your courage. Sexism and racism will not die just in case women and minorities grow thicker skin. I can't believe we're even debating this.

not learning to be whiny and demanding, because the former route leads to personal pride; the latter route leads to eternal dependence on Big Daddy State Justice.

Let me get this straight: In Jordan179 World, asking that people not play into centuries-old tropes of oppression is being whiny and demanding, and will result in totalitarian socialism. Makes sense.

(Me) In other words, you are saying that the responsibility for overcoming a long history of oppression lies with the oppressed groups themselves.

Yep.

Wow, it sure is great to be a white male, huh? Not only do we get to benefit from centuries of oppressing non-white males, but we don't even have to do anything to ameliorate the consequences of that oppression! Good thing there isn't a hell, am I right?

I'm sorry if this reality bothers you. Would you like to board the crosstime machine and emigrate to some more congenial reality, possibly ones with different human natures?

Haha, "human nature," that's rich. You may be right that white men will never make up for all the shit that's been done in the past, but if so that isn't because of "human nature." It's because people like you don't want to face the facts of their own privilege.

That's nice. Since I'm not one of the "oppressors", save by tautological claim, and indeed in most cases the actual oppressors are either long-dead or very old by now, that diffuses the responsibility very nicely.

You are benefiting from the oppression right now. I'm given to understand that in a legal context that means some of the responsibility of the crime falls upon you. Of course, the same holds true for me as well. The difference is that I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound.

Consider your own life, though. How far have you ever gotten in achieving any end by claiming that someone else is responsible for your own situation?

If it's actually true that someone else was responsible for my situation? Pretty damn far, actually. That's kind of what the entire criminal justice system is based on, after all.

And how far, instead, have you gotten when you took responsiblity for your own life and began working to improve it -- not by petitioning other people for help, but by working hard and improving yourself?

Not to be all "Godwin's Law"-ish, but do you think Trayvon Martin's mistake was that he didn't "take responsibility for his own life"--well, when he still had it at least?

The Problem With Argument By Invective or Force

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that members of persecuted groups appreciate your wise words about how they just need to suck it up and grow thicker skins, because surely their life experience hasn't taught them that

Being a member of a "persecuted group" which rose above persecution precisely by doing that, I think members of other persecuted groups would be wise to follow our example. And it's hard for "their life experience" to "teach them that" if everyone is telling them "You were persecuted so you deserve specially nice treatment now and if you don't get it you should focus your energies on getting it rather than on succeeding personally."

In fact this was a major issue in black America -- remember the argument over the "talented tenth" versus "all the people?"

So according to you, if someone were to write a response in which they call Derbyshire a racist piece of shit while tearing into his argument, that person would be morally in the wrong because calling Derbyshire a racist piece of shit is rude, and Derbyshire wasn't rude.

Not only would that person be morally wrong, more importantly that person would be arguing INEFFECTUALLY. A neutral observer, who knew nothing of the facts at issue, would note that Derbyshire was making his points in a polite and rational manner, while the other person was impolite and arguing by insult, and would conclude even before considering the arguments that something was probably wrong with the other person's arguments, because he was unable to state his case CALMLY and LOGICALLY.

Note that I'm not talking about whether calling him a racist piece of shit is a great rhetorical strategy - it probably isn't.

Well, think about it. Suppose that Adolf Hitler calmly and reasonably outlines how Jews have had a negative impact on every known society, and a Jew then responds to his well-reasoned points by saying "You filthy Nazi barbarian! You molested your own neice!"

If you knew nothing about Hitler or the Jews, what would you conclude from this exchange about the likely merits of the two positions?

Argument by insult has the significant weakness that it will only convince someone who already agrees with the argument. And even then, if the person be fair-minded, it may cause him to doubt the argument, because of the tone of the speaker. This is true even if the argument is true.

This is more than theoretical. Look at how Austria gave credence to David Irving's Holocaust denial by answering his logical points by imprisoning him. And, as a long-time student of World War II, I can with authority tell you that David Irving was factually wrong.

Generally speaking, when someone feels the need to argue by invective, it indicates a logical weakness in their position. This is not always true -- in particular, politicians may employ invective to emotionally sway their audiences -- but it does beg the question why the person can't make the point more calmly.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

In those circumstances, I'm suggesting that it's still bad for a white man to use that phrasing against a woman because of the (long, long) history at work. It's not bad in the same way for a man to use it against a man or a woman to use it.

This makes sense only if we assume that this "(long, long) history" has rendered women de facto inferior at dealing with hostile argument from men, compared to men dealing wtih hostile argument from women. But if this is true, then the real problem is the assumption on the part of the women that they must defer to men -- and the only way the women can overcome this problem is by gaining experience in standing up for themselves. Coddling them won't give them this experience: instead, it will teach them that they need special treatment because they can't hack it the same way men can.

I speak as a man who has mostly loved and befriended very intelligent and strong-minded women who didn't take crap from nobody. :)

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm a (white male) libertarian who is quite aware of the long history of sexism and racism, and wants to see it overcome. I don't think it can be overcome by discrimination in the opposite direction, but rather only by treating people as equals and demanding equal treatment from them in return, no matter who you or they are in terms of group identity.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Holy crap flood of comments. Would you please limit yourself to one in the future?

That's very nice. And I tell you that I am a white male, and I am not going to give anyone any special help or consideration for not being a white male. And furthermore, I take the demand that I should to be itself quite HIGHLY oppressive, especially if backed with force.

Not just oppressive, but highly oppressive, eh? I dare you to say that to someone who's suffered actual oppression. Well, if you ever manage to get off that high horse at least.

I didn't do anything to oppress non-whites or non-males.

Well, except for arguing in this thread that their oppression doesn't matter.

I ... only ... feel ... guilty ... for ... things ... I ... do. I do not feel guilty for things that others do.

Get over yourself. I have never asked or implied that you feel guilty for your white privilege. Almost every time I've seen white privilege be brought up, you always get a white person (usually a guy) who whines about how I didn't do anything so why should I feel guilty.

It's not about feeling guilty. It's about how non-white people are still at a disadvantage vis-a-vis white people, and to not acknowledge that makes you an asshole. Whether or not you feel guilty is up to you, but you need to at least acknowledge the fact.

To "practice" equality is to consider yourself to be fundamentally equal to others, and to treat other people as fundamentally equal to yourself, with your judgement of them being as individuals rather than members of a group.

All right. Still don't see how oppressed groups doing this will end their oppression, but whatever.

But if Mr. Able gives Mr. Baker unearned respect while demanding little in return because Baker is black, then he is also being racist.

*rolls eyes* "Unearned respect," give me a break. At the very least he earns more respect because Mr. Able has benefited throughout his life from white privilege that simultaneously harmed Mr. Baker.

If rights inhere equally in humans qua humans, then they are harder to take away.

Oh, wouldn't it be great if that were true? And you accuse me of being unrealistic...

No, because they were legally disadvantaged, so they had to repeal Jim Crow. And now, during Affirmative Action, whites need to repeal Affirmative Action, for a milder version of the SAME REASON.

Oh my God. Not only are you equating Jim Crow with affirmative action ("milder version," nice save), but you're also implying that the only way oppression can exist is through the law. Are you for real?

Shall we call this "Some groups are more equal?" Or maybe "separate but equal?"

I repeat: Get off your fucking high horse. This is not at all what I'm talking about and you damn well know it.

To treat them differently because of their group membership is to treat them unequally,

Except their group membership is part of their individuality. So to ignore their group membership is to ignore an essential element of their identity.