It's because of outdated gender roles, that say that men should be men, not cry or show any bad emotions, and just man up and tough it out, walk it off.
Yeah, emotional repression is one of the more obvious examples of toxic masculinity. Not going to see the doctor is also apparently more common for men than women, and that sucks too.
Just so people don't jump on me: Toxic masculinity is a phrase referring to aspects of classical masculine behaviour which are often harmful. It doesn't mean all masculine behavior is bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Besides assigning a negative attribute to a gender (whilst oddly enough proclaiming that feminism is against such things), the problem I have with the word "mansplaining" is that it's another SJW shut-down phrase. The purpose of an SJW shut-down phrase is to shift a discussion away from the use of reason and into a nebulous dreamworld in which the SJW can proclaim an instant win.
Here's how that would work in practice:
Normal Person (happens to be male): I think this man should be acquitted of rape because A, B and C. SJW: What do you know about rape? Stop mansplaining! Normal Person (happens to be male): Well if we define rape as X, Y, Z, then it follows... SJW: Rape apologist!!! Stop mansplaining!
Normal Person (happens to be white): I don't think this is an act of police brutality because A, B and C. SJW: You're blinded by your own privilege! Normal Person (happens to be white): OK, well then explain this to me because in this case it does not appear to be police brutality because so and so.. SJW: You don't know what you're talking about! Admit your privilege!
Besides assigning a negative attribute to a gender (whilst oddly enough proclaiming that feminism is against such things), the problem I have with the word "mansplaining" is that it's another SJW shut-down phrase. The purpose of an SJW shut-down phrase is to shift a discussion away from the use of reason and into a nebulous dreamworld in which the SJW can proclaim an instant win.
Here's how that would work in practice:
Normal Person (happens to be male): I think this man should be acquitted of rape because A, B and C. SJW: What do you know about rape? Stop mansplaining! Normal Person (happens to be male): Well if we define rape as X, Y, Z, then it follows... SJW: Rape apologist!!! Stop mansplaining!
Normal Person (happens to be white): I don't think this is an act of police brutality because A, B and C. SJW: You're blinded by your own privilege! Normal Person (happens to be white): OK, well then explain this to me because in this case it does not appear to be police brutality because so and so.. SJW: You don't know what you're talking about! Admit your privilege!
While, from a quick browse online, there is a school of thought that the term has been diluted through overuse, what you describe here is certainly not the original usage, which is more to do with men assuming women won't know things because they're women, as in the following.
Quote from Mansplaining example »
being a girl is reading a book on quantum theory, having a guy see you’re reading it, ask you what it’s about, and after you reply he starts explaining the concepts to you
the concepts in the book that you are reading right in front of him
#i must have said 'yeah i know i'm reading the book rn' like four times before he listened to me
#mansplaining
I feel the values of A, B, and C would determine whether your example exchange fell under the original definition of 'mansplaining'.
Out of interest, how would your post look if the abbreviation SJW (and its expansion) were to be tabooed?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Besides assigning a negative attribute to a gender (whilst oddly enough proclaiming that feminism is against such things), the problem I have with the word "mansplaining" is that it's another SJW shut-down phrase. The purpose of an SJW shut-down phrase is to shift a discussion away from the use of reason and into a nebulous dreamworld in which the SJW can proclaim an instant win.
Here's how that would work in practice:
Normal Person (happens to be male): I think this man should be acquitted of rape because A, B and C. SJW: What do you know about rape? Stop mansplaining! Normal Person (happens to be male): Well if we define rape as X, Y, Z, then it follows... SJW: Rape apologist!!! Stop mansplaining!
Normal Person (happens to be white): I don't think this is an act of police brutality because A, B and C. SJW: You're blinded by your own privilege! Normal Person (happens to be white): OK, well then explain this to me because in this case it does not appear to be police brutality because so and so.. SJW: You don't know what you're talking about! Admit your privilege!
You shouldn't paint feminists with a wide brush, because you're mostly hearing those kinds of things from a vocal minority. You have to understand that there are some misandrist feminists out there, but not all feminists are man-haters. Radical feminists are shunned by the majority. From what I've read from some radical feminist blogs, they think that the only way they can get their way is through violence. Another blog I read was incredibly transphobic, saying that trans women are just "male spies" and shouldn't be trusted, and only "females assigned at birth" can be feminists.
Besides assigning a negative attribute to a gender (whilst oddly enough proclaiming that feminism is against such things), the problem I have with the word "mansplaining" is that it's another SJW shut-down phrase. The purpose of an SJW shut-down phrase is to shift a discussion away from the use of reason and into a nebulous dreamworld in which the SJW can proclaim an instant win.
Here's how that would work in practice:
Normal Person (happens to be male): I think this man should be acquitted of rape because A, B and C. SJW: What do you know about rape? Stop mansplaining! Normal Person (happens to be male): Well if we define rape as X, Y, Z, then it follows... SJW: Rape apologist!!! Stop mansplaining!
Normal Person (happens to be white): I don't think this is an act of police brutality because A, B and C. SJW: You're blinded by your own privilege! Normal Person (happens to be white): OK, well then explain this to me because in this case it does not appear to be police brutality because so and so.. SJW: You don't know what you're talking about! Admit your privilege!
Complaining about nebulously-defined shut-down phrases. Uses "SJW" a half dozen times. Uh-huh.
Besides assigning a negative attribute to a gender (whilst oddly enough proclaiming that feminism is against such things), the problem I have with the word "mansplaining" is that it's another SJW shut-down phrase. The purpose of an SJW shut-down phrase is to shift a discussion away from the use of reason and into a nebulous dreamworld in which the SJW can proclaim an instant win.
Here's how that would work in practice:
Normal Person (happens to be male): I think this man should be acquitted of rape because A, B and C. SJW: What do you know about rape? Stop mansplaining! Normal Person (happens to be male): Well if we define rape as X, Y, Z, then it follows... SJW: Rape apologist!!! Stop mansplaining!
Normal Person (happens to be white): I don't think this is an act of police brutality because A, B and C. SJW: You're blinded by your own privilege! Normal Person (happens to be white): OK, well then explain this to me because in this case it does not appear to be police brutality because so and so.. SJW: You don't know what you're talking about! Admit your privilege!
Complaining about nebulously-defined shut-down phrases. Uses "SJW" a half dozen times. Uh-huh.
I'm not complaining about the use of phrases or words that I don't like, I'm complaining about the use of phrases or words for a purpose that I don't like which is to shut down discussion and claim an instant win.
The acronym SJW is not being used for that purpose, it's being used to classify a set of intellectual (or, as the case may be, anti-intellectual) ideas.
Nevertheless, I've gone out of my way to ask if there is a way that you would prefer to be identified other than SJW. Would you prefer neo-Marxist? Or is there another descriptor that best suits this set of ideas? Let me know. I would be fine with using a different descriptor as long as it's reasonable. But not really the point.
I'm not complaining about the use of phrases or words that I don't like, I'm complaining about the use of phrases or words for a purpose that I don't like which is to shut down discussion and claim an instant win.
The acronym SJW is not being used for that purpose, it's being used to classify a set of intellectual (or, as the case may be, anti-intellectual) ideas.
Nevertheless, I've gone out of my way to ask if there is a way that you would prefer to be identified other than SJW. Would you prefer neo-Marxist? Or is there another descriptor that best suits this set of ideas? Let me know. I would be fine with using a different descriptor as long as it's reasonable. But not really the point.
Using the term SJW to "classify a set of [anti-intellectual] ideas" IS using it to shut down discussion and claim an instant win. That's why people love the term "SJW". What other value did the term add to your post? It would've been just the same if you had omitted the label. And, if that weren't enough of a free-win, you also felt the need to contrast "SJW" with "normal person".
I've never heard "mansplain" used by anyone who wasn't using it as an instant shutdown/I win phrase. I wouldn't say the term is inherently misandrist, but it skirts the edge. What I will say, is I have never seen it used in a conversation in a manner that was not misandry.
I've never heard "mansplain" used by anyone who wasn't using it as an instant shutdown/I win phrase. I wouldn't say the term is inherently misandrist, but it skirts the edge. What I will say, is I have never seen it used in a conversation in a manner that was not misandry.
Whereas I've seen/heard it used by a number of women in science and in IT, describing how they are condescended to by men who assume that they (the women) know little to nothing about the very areas they (the women) specialise in. It wasn't generally used to the person doing the condescending, but rather describing the event after the fact, so the intent was not to shut down conversation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
It seems like an unnecessarily misleading term when used fairly. I don't think anyone should use it.
Are you also mislead by the term "policeman"?
'Policeman' should be 'police officer'. There's no reason to use a gender exclusive term as a general one when it's quite possible to use a gender inclusive one. 'Mansplaining' does something similar in immediately making things into a directed gender issue. I think it's quite important with such issues to be careful not to make things too directed and to explain nuance, as such topics are already highly charged. I don't think using mansplaining makes you misandrist, of course not, but it's a poor term.
'Policeman' should be 'police officer'. There's no reason to use a gender exclusive term as a general one when it's quite possible to use a gender inclusive one. 'Mansplaining' does something similar in immediately making things into a directed gender issue. I think it's quite important with such issues to be careful not to make things too directed and to explain nuance, as such topics are already highly charged. I don't think using mansplaining makes you misandrist, of course not, but it's a poor term.
Mansplaining IS a gender-directed issue. It's an unwarranted explanation based on the supposition that women are less knowledgeable.
I'm not complaining about the use of phrases or words that I don't like, I'm complaining about the use of phrases or words for a purpose that I don't like which is to shut down discussion and claim an instant win.
The acronym SJW is not being used for that purpose, it's being used to classify a set of intellectual (or, as the case may be, anti-intellectual) ideas.
Nevertheless, I've gone out of my way to ask if there is a way that you would prefer to be identified other than SJW. Would you prefer neo-Marxist? Or is there another descriptor that best suits this set of ideas? Let me know. I would be fine with using a different descriptor as long as it's reasonable. But not really the point.
Using the term SJW to "classify a set of [anti-intellectual] ideas" IS using it to shut down discussion and claim an instant win. That's why people love the term "SJW". What other value did the term add to your post? It would've been just the same if you had omitted the label. And, if that weren't enough of a free-win, you also felt the need to contrast "SJW" with "normal person".
No. It is not being used as a shut down phrase here. I say again, if there is a descriptor that you prefer me to use, then go ahead and tell me what that is. And as long as it's even remotely sensible, I will endeavor to use it.
Let's once again cover what a shut down phrase really is. It would go something like this:
Normal Person: [Salient Point]
Market Anarchist: STATIST!!!
Normal Person: But... x, y, z!
Market Anarchist: Shut up statist!
The purpose of employing such a phrase is to deflect, obfuscate and often to put the person that's actually trying to have a conversation on the defensive by assigning a negative characteristic to them. Of course, statist doesn't work so well because no one gives a good damn if they're a statist or not. So fascist, nazi or commie might work better.
This is the style of 'discussion' used by the individuals formerly known as SJWs. Supposing I tell you you're being a fascist and you can either agree, in which case you are a fascist, or you can continue to disagree with me and state your reasons cogently in which case you are just blinded by your fascist privilege. It's shut down phrase after shut down phrase, false choices, anything to detract from a real discussion.
No. It is not being used as a shut down phrase here.
Whatever you say.
I say again, if there is a descriptor that you prefer me to use, then go ahead and tell me what that is. And as long as it's even remotely sensible, I will endeavor to use it.
A synonym of a shutdown phrase is still a shutdown phrase. How about this: Define for exactly what an "SJW" is.
Let's once again cover what a shut down phrase really is. It would go something like this:
The purpose of employing such a phrase is to deflect, obfuscate and often to put the person that's actually trying to have a conversation on the defensive by assigning a negative characteristic to them. Of course, statist doesn't work so well because no one gives a good damn if they're a statist or not. So fascist, nazi or commie might work better.
This is the style of 'discussion' used by the individuals formerly known as SJWs. Supposing I tell you you're being a fascist and you can either agree, in which case you are a fascist, or you can continue to disagree with me and state your reasons cogently in which case you are just blinded by your fascist privilege. It's shut down phrase after shut down phrase, false choices, anything to detract from a real discussion.
Calling people SJW's is the equivalent of "statist" "fascist" "nazi" etc. The only thing it brings to the discussion is the preconception that "SJW" is a synonym for "person who is wrong on the internet". It can be applied to anyone on the left you might disagree with, and it adds no new dimension other than to attempt to tar them by association with various ridiculous behaviors. Anyone who is an "SJW" can thereby be dismissed out of hand.
You certainly haven't said anything substantive about the concept of mansplaining - you've just sprinkled the term "SJW" around. If mansplaining is associated with SJWs, then it MUST be ridiculous.
No. It is not being used as a shut down phrase here.
Whatever you say.
I say again, if there is a descriptor that you prefer me to use, then go ahead and tell me what that is. And as long as it's even remotely sensible, I will endeavor to use it.
A synonym of a shutdown phrase is still a shutdown phrase. How about this: Define for exactly what an "SJW" is.
Let's once again cover what a shut down phrase really is. It would go something like this:
The purpose of employing such a phrase is to deflect, obfuscate and often to put the person that's actually trying to have a conversation on the defensive by assigning a negative characteristic to them. Of course, statist doesn't work so well because no one gives a good damn if they're a statist or not. So fascist, nazi or commie might work better.
This is the style of 'discussion' used by the individuals formerly known as SJWs. Supposing I tell you you're being a fascist and you can either agree, in which case you are a fascist, or you can continue to disagree with me and state your reasons cogently in which case you are just blinded by your fascist privilege. It's shut down phrase after shut down phrase, false choices, anything to detract from a real discussion.
Calling people SJW's is the equivalent of "statist" "fascist" "nazi" etc. The only thing it brings to the discussion is the preconception that "SJW" is a synonym for "person who is wrong on the internet". It can be applied to anyone on the left you might disagree with, and it adds no new dimension other than to attempt to tar them by association with various ridiculous behaviors. Anyone who is an "SJW" can thereby be dismissed out of hand.
You certainly haven't said anything substantive about the concept of mansplaining - you've just sprinkled the term "SJW" around. If mansplaining is associated with SJWs, then it MUST be ridiculous.
I'm not sure how to interpret your replies at this point. Are you suggesting that no such group even exists? If so, you're going to need to explain that to me. If not, why can't they receive a label that you don't find offensive? How are we supposed to talk about any kind of political philosophy without giving it a title of some kind?
Quote from DJK3654 »
Gotta agree with Tiax, Ljoss' use of SJW is unfair.
No one is stopping either of you from elucidating.
The point is that SJW is a negative term. While there are people who it is perhaps fair to use this negative term, it's not productive for debate to refer to people as such especially given it may not be appropriate usage of the term given it's negative meaning. It is simply less antagonistic to avoid the phrase- in the same way referring to creationists as 'creatards' is unfair in any decent debate. While negative labels can be used, using them should be reserved for when you aren't debating those very people or people like them but rather talking about them in general when it's not as personal nor is there a productivity of exchange to be lost.
I'm not sure how to interpret your replies at this point. Are you suggesting that no such group even exists?
I am suggesting that the term is nebulously defined. My invitation for you to nail down exactly what it means still stands. In my experience the term can be used to describe such a huge number of potentially unrelated viewpoints and opinions as to render it meaningless. But maybe you have some special precise definition in mind.
If so, you're going to need to explain that to me. If not, why can't they receive a label that you don't find offensive?
The label is not the problem. The problem is using it as an argument shortcut. Just like someone who throws around the term "nazi" - it's not that the term "nazi" is offensive, or that some other label should be used. It's that often references to nazis are actually just a way to tar a viewpoint by association.
How are we supposed to talk about any kind of political philosophy without giving it a title of some kind?
What you are supposed to do is address the concept of mansplaining in a manner that does not boil down to "SJW's use this term. SJW's are bad. Therefore this term is bad."
The point is that SJW is a negative term. While there are people who it is perhaps fair to use this negative term, it's not productive for debate to refer to people as such especially given it may not be appropriate usage of the term given it's negative meaning. It is simply less antagonistic to avoid the phrase- in the same way referring to creationists as 'creatards' is unfair in any decent debate. While negative labels can be used, using them should be reserved for when you aren't debating those very people or people like them but rather talking about them in general when it's not as personal nor is there a productivity of exchange to be lost.
100% fine with that. 100% fine. In fact, I've asked Tiax at least two times to give me an alternate label that he finds less offensive and he hasn't done so. Again, I'll use whatever "less offensive" name he prefers within reason. Since he still refuses to do so, I'm going to start calling them "social justice advocates" until advised otherwise. Does that work for you?
Quote from Tiax »
I am suggesting that the term is nebulously defined. My invitation for you to nail down exactly what it means still stands. In my experience the term can be used to describe such a huge number of potentially unrelated viewpoints and opinions as to render it meaningless. But maybe you have some special precise definition in mind.
Can you explain in mathematical detail what the tea party is or BLM? If I offer you a definition of "conservative" for example, that includes a hawkish approach to foreign affairs that doesn't exclude the possibility that you can successfully identify a "conservative" that is isolationist. There are plenty. But we all still get the general idea. I'm not falling into your trap. The bottom line is that we all know good and well exactly who these people are and that includes you.
So, let's test this theory. I'll find the most recent article that I can.
“This institution functions on the premises of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy,” it continues.
General Tso’s chicken was made with steamed chicken instead of fried — which is not authentically Chinese, and simply “weird,” one student bellyached in the Oberlin Review.
Others were up in arms over banh mi Vietnamese sandwiches served with coleslaw instead of pickled vegetables, and on ciabatta bread, rather than the traditional French baguette.
“It was ridiculous,” gripes Diep Nguyen, a freshman who is a Vietnam native.
Worse, the sushi rice was undercooked in a way that was, according to one student, “disrespectful” of her culture. Tomoyo Joshi, a junior from Japan, was highly offended by this flagrant violation of her rice. “I f people not from that heritage take food, modify it and serve it as ‘authentic,’ it is appropriative,” she said.
Oberlin’s black student union joined in the fray this month by staging a protest outside Afrikan Heritage House, an on-campus dorm.
Those students started a petition that also recommends the reduction of cream used in dishes, because “black American food doesn’t have much cream in it,” according to the Review.
So let's poll the forum population: social justice advocates or not social justice advocates?
All it means is that you came off as condescending. That's it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Can you explain in mathematical detail what the tea party is or BLM? If I offer you a definition of "conservative" for example, that includes a hawkish approach to foreign affairs that doesn't exclude the possibility that you can successfully identify a "conservative" that is isolationist. There are plenty. But we all still get the general idea. I'm not falling into your trap. The bottom line is that we all know good and well exactly who these people are and that includes you.
So, let's test this theory. I'll find the most recent article that I can.
Snipped examples of positions that I, who I suspect Ljoss would describe as SJW, also think are fairly bollocks, although I can understand the sentiment of 'If you're going to cook a dish from my home country and pass it off as authentic, at least get it close to right'
So let's poll the forum population: social justice advocates or not social justice advocates?
That's not a definition, it's an example. I could try and guess at your internal definition ('people who hold positions that Ljoss thinks are ridiculous', possibly) but if you could actually state it, that would probably be more productive.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international activist movement, originating in the African American community, that campaigns against violence toward black people. BLM regularly organizes protests around the deaths of black people in killings by law enforcement officers, and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system.
The Tea Party movement is an American political movement known for its conservative positions and its role in the Republican Party. Members of the movement have called for a reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing government spending, and for lower taxes. The movement opposes government-sponsored universal healthcare and has been described as a mixture of libertarian, populist, and conservative activists.
Well, that was easy.
Does the wikipedia definition of SJW match with yours?
In Internet culture, "social justice warrior" has been used as a pejorative neologism for liberals, progressives, feminists, and supporters of political correctness online. Frequently initialized as "SJW", the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a disingenuous person engaging in social justice arguments to raise their personal reputation
Can you explain in mathematical detail what the tea party is or BLM? If I offer you a definition of "conservative" for example, that includes a hawkish approach to foreign affairs that doesn't exclude the possibility that you can successfully identify a "conservative" that is isolationist. There are plenty. But we all still get the general idea. I'm not falling into your trap. The bottom line is that we all know good and well exactly who these people are and that includes you.
People self-identify as a member of the tea party and BLM and conservative. At the very least, if we have any doubt about whether someone is a member of those political movements, we can just ask them. No one self-identifies as an SJW. It's an accusation, and it's up to the accuser (you) to define what it means. Does everyone who uses the term "mansplaining" count as an SJW?
So, let's test this theory. I'll find the most recent article that I can.
So let's poll the forum population: social justice advocates or not social justice advocates?
I have never heard the term "social justice advocate", since you just invented it, so you tell me. I had understood "Social Justice Warrior" to be similar to "Keyboard Warrior", using the term "warrior" facetiously to indicate someone who likes to appear to be doing something for social justice without ever leaving their couch. Clearly this is not what you mean.
Just so people don't jump on me: Toxic masculinity is a phrase referring to aspects of classical masculine behaviour which are often harmful. It doesn't mean all masculine behavior is bad.
Art is life itself.
Here's how that would work in practice:
Normal Person (happens to be male): I think this man should be acquitted of rape because A, B and C.
SJW: What do you know about rape? Stop mansplaining!
Normal Person (happens to be male): Well if we define rape as X, Y, Z, then it follows...
SJW: Rape apologist!!! Stop mansplaining!
Normal Person (happens to be white): I don't think this is an act of police brutality because A, B and C.
SJW: You're blinded by your own privilege!
Normal Person (happens to be white): OK, well then explain this to me because in this case it does not appear to be police brutality because so and so..
SJW: You don't know what you're talking about! Admit your privilege!
While, from a quick browse online, there is a school of thought that the term has been diluted through overuse, what you describe here is certainly not the original usage, which is more to do with men assuming women won't know things because they're women, as in the following.
I feel the values of A, B, and C would determine whether your example exchange fell under the original definition of 'mansplaining'.
Out of interest, how would your post look if the abbreviation SJW (and its expansion) were to be tabooed?
You shouldn't paint feminists with a wide brush, because you're mostly hearing those kinds of things from a vocal minority. You have to understand that there are some misandrist feminists out there, but not all feminists are man-haters. Radical feminists are shunned by the majority. From what I've read from some radical feminist blogs, they think that the only way they can get their way is through violence. Another blog I read was incredibly transphobic, saying that trans women are just "male spies" and shouldn't be trusted, and only "females assigned at birth" can be feminists.
Complaining about nebulously-defined shut-down phrases. Uses "SJW" a half dozen times. Uh-huh.
I'm not complaining about the use of phrases or words that I don't like, I'm complaining about the use of phrases or words for a purpose that I don't like which is to shut down discussion and claim an instant win.
The acronym SJW is not being used for that purpose, it's being used to classify a set of intellectual (or, as the case may be, anti-intellectual) ideas.
Nevertheless, I've gone out of my way to ask if there is a way that you would prefer to be identified other than SJW. Would you prefer neo-Marxist? Or is there another descriptor that best suits this set of ideas? Let me know. I would be fine with using a different descriptor as long as it's reasonable. But not really the point.
Using the term SJW to "classify a set of [anti-intellectual] ideas" IS using it to shut down discussion and claim an instant win. That's why people love the term "SJW". What other value did the term add to your post? It would've been just the same if you had omitted the label. And, if that weren't enough of a free-win, you also felt the need to contrast "SJW" with "normal person".
I've never heard "mansplain" used by anyone who wasn't using it as an instant shutdown/I win phrase. I wouldn't say the term is inherently misandrist, but it skirts the edge. What I will say, is I have never seen it used in a conversation in a manner that was not misandry.
Whereas I've seen/heard it used by a number of women in science and in IT, describing how they are condescended to by men who assume that they (the women) know little to nothing about the very areas they (the women) specialise in. It wasn't generally used to the person doing the condescending, but rather describing the event after the fact, so the intent was not to shut down conversation.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Are you also mislead by the term "policeman"?
'Policeman' should be 'police officer'. There's no reason to use a gender exclusive term as a general one when it's quite possible to use a gender inclusive one. 'Mansplaining' does something similar in immediately making things into a directed gender issue. I think it's quite important with such issues to be careful not to make things too directed and to explain nuance, as such topics are already highly charged. I don't think using mansplaining makes you misandrist, of course not, but it's a poor term.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Mansplaining IS a gender-directed issue. It's an unwarranted explanation based on the supposition that women are less knowledgeable.
No. It is not being used as a shut down phrase here. I say again, if there is a descriptor that you prefer me to use, then go ahead and tell me what that is. And as long as it's even remotely sensible, I will endeavor to use it.
Let's once again cover what a shut down phrase really is. It would go something like this:
The purpose of employing such a phrase is to deflect, obfuscate and often to put the person that's actually trying to have a conversation on the defensive by assigning a negative characteristic to them. Of course, statist doesn't work so well because no one gives a good damn if they're a statist or not. So fascist, nazi or commie might work better.
This is the style of 'discussion' used by the individuals formerly known as SJWs. Supposing I tell you you're being a fascist and you can either agree, in which case you are a fascist, or you can continue to disagree with me and state your reasons cogently in which case you are just blinded by your fascist privilege. It's shut down phrase after shut down phrase, false choices, anything to detract from a real discussion.
Whatever you say.
A synonym of a shutdown phrase is still a shutdown phrase. How about this: Define for exactly what an "SJW" is.
Calling people SJW's is the equivalent of "statist" "fascist" "nazi" etc. The only thing it brings to the discussion is the preconception that "SJW" is a synonym for "person who is wrong on the internet". It can be applied to anyone on the left you might disagree with, and it adds no new dimension other than to attempt to tar them by association with various ridiculous behaviors. Anyone who is an "SJW" can thereby be dismissed out of hand.
You certainly haven't said anything substantive about the concept of mansplaining - you've just sprinkled the term "SJW" around. If mansplaining is associated with SJWs, then it MUST be ridiculous.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I'm not sure how to interpret your replies at this point. Are you suggesting that no such group even exists? If so, you're going to need to explain that to me. If not, why can't they receive a label that you don't find offensive? How are we supposed to talk about any kind of political philosophy without giving it a title of some kind?
No one is stopping either of you from elucidating.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I am suggesting that the term is nebulously defined. My invitation for you to nail down exactly what it means still stands. In my experience the term can be used to describe such a huge number of potentially unrelated viewpoints and opinions as to render it meaningless. But maybe you have some special precise definition in mind.
The label is not the problem. The problem is using it as an argument shortcut. Just like someone who throws around the term "nazi" - it's not that the term "nazi" is offensive, or that some other label should be used. It's that often references to nazis are actually just a way to tar a viewpoint by association.
What you are supposed to do is address the concept of mansplaining in a manner that does not boil down to "SJW's use this term. SJW's are bad. Therefore this term is bad."
100% fine with that. 100% fine. In fact, I've asked Tiax at least two times to give me an alternate label that he finds less offensive and he hasn't done so. Again, I'll use whatever "less offensive" name he prefers within reason. Since he still refuses to do so, I'm going to start calling them "social justice advocates" until advised otherwise. Does that work for you?
Can you explain in mathematical detail what the tea party is or BLM? If I offer you a definition of "conservative" for example, that includes a hawkish approach to foreign affairs that doesn't exclude the possibility that you can successfully identify a "conservative" that is isolationist. There are plenty. But we all still get the general idea. I'm not falling into your trap. The bottom line is that we all know good and well exactly who these people are and that includes you.
So, let's test this theory. I'll find the most recent article that I can.
Oh, here, published today! Perfect:
http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/oberlin-college-students-protest-the-cafeteria-food-not-being-culturally-accurate-enough-demand-to-be-paid-an-hourly-wage-for-their-protesting/?utm_campaign=SFFB&utm_source=BarstoolFB&utm_medium=Socialflow
So let's poll the forum population: social justice advocates or not social justice advocates?
On phasing:
That's not a definition, it's an example. I could try and guess at your internal definition ('people who hold positions that Ljoss thinks are ridiculous', possibly) but if you could actually state it, that would probably be more productive.
Well, that was easy.
Does the wikipedia definition of SJW match with yours?
A particular subtype of condescending, such that the people being condescended to found it more convenient to develop a term to describe it.
People self-identify as a member of the tea party and BLM and conservative. At the very least, if we have any doubt about whether someone is a member of those political movements, we can just ask them. No one self-identifies as an SJW. It's an accusation, and it's up to the accuser (you) to define what it means. Does everyone who uses the term "mansplaining" count as an SJW?
I have never heard the term "social justice advocate", since you just invented it, so you tell me. I had understood "Social Justice Warrior" to be similar to "Keyboard Warrior", using the term "warrior" facetiously to indicate someone who likes to appear to be doing something for social justice without ever leaving their couch. Clearly this is not what you mean.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So what's your point?