Forum menu
someone puts their position forward with their evidence and if you don’t agree with it counter it with your evidence
Like the OP: "This really upsets me"
Geeteee: "No it doesn't"
OP: "It really does."
Geetee: "Nope, it doesn't and here's a further example of it to prove my point."
You don't need to 'prove' how someone feels - they just tell you.
You can chose whether to take note of how they're feeling and change what you're doing to adjust and it's clear on this thread who does and who doesn't feel the need to do that.
Good job you all think Geetee has a thick skin, as people seem to think its OK to single him out for special treatment. The irony of it all, its bullying pure and simple.
Reading some of the mods posts and little recent activity from him, I'm guessing he's been banned.
I don't think that helps as it just looks like he's contemplating his posts, rather than not having any means of replying.
If only there was as much effort put into debunking his arguments, rather than just criticising him as a person.
It happens. And it didn't so much as make him flinch. Particularly the wealth of evidence provided on how toxic and misleading Jordan Peterson's rhetoric is has, to the best of my knowledge, never even made him re-consider his opinion on that very rhetoric and yet it's exactly the kind of thing that, had he been open minded about it, perhaps would have made him think that although he considers he has done no wrong to allethegear, the OP still thinks he's part of the problem here.
I'm sure he'll be along with arguments why my opinion of JP are misguided, and try and convince me why he's right, but once again he'll be missing the point.
That's more what his detractors object to, in my opinion. I don't often get involved in discussion on those topics because I both disagree with most of geetee's positions on the things he posts about and also dislike his constant lobbying on the topic. I tend to just steer clear and not read that stuff myself, but I can absolutely see that people should feel able to call it out whether or not if affects them directly (so specifically without being accused of "being outraged" on behalf of someone).
And where did Esme go?
I’d like her and her dating tales back please.
Eeek, I hope my other half isn't reading this!
I think you mean Emsz . . .
Hahaha.
Don't worry Esme your dating secrets are safe with us.
😉
Good job you all think Geetee has a thick skin, as people seem to think its OK to single him out for special treatment. The irony of it all, its bullying pure and simple.
If only there was as much effort put into debunking his arguments, rather than just criticising him as a person. That’s how its meant to work, someone puts their position forward with their evidence and if you don’t agree with it counter it with your evidence.
+1, play the ball, not the man.
But recently, things have changed.
I have been reduced to tears on multiple occasions reading the comments of some users who seem to be prolific recently, people like rene59, technicallyinept and geetee1972. Reading Alpin use a term like “was-man” absolutely reduced me to tears.
Rachel - I'm genuinely sorry that you feel upset by the posts, and can agree with you that there are a small number of notably vocal posters who have rather entrenched positions on some issues. But, I'd wager that much like the rest of society, a small number of shouty people can and would be drowned out by the masses if someone called them out on it. Your thread has done that with aplomb. But please don't ever sit, cry and be quiet because someone says something that offends, call out, shout out, and other will respond, others will help.
For my own part I have an odd relationship with my family and some of my older friends, some of whom have very different political/philosophical views. I too find their opinions fundamentally offensive and most of the time I can let it slide (Ii have a fairly thick skin), but every so often, it's worth the effort to give a massive push back and let them know that there's another voice, another way of thinking. I don't know if it moderates what they think/do, but I hope, sometimes that when they post, they might just briefly think about what I've said.
Sorry Esme autocorrect in action!
+1, play the ball, not the man.
Quite hard to do when the man continually insists on putting their face in front of the ball
Reading some of the mods posts and little recent activity from him, I’m guessing he’s been banned.
Not to my knowledge he hasn't.
+1, play the ball, not the man.
If somebody truly believes in what they are saying, the ball is the man.
I did caveat it with the word "personally" the rest of you can all commune as you see fit, some users will always 'share' more than others...
To me you're mostly a bunch of strangers on the web who also happen to like bikes, I'm an insular sod and I'll keep you all at arms length thanks 😉
Irrespective of whether or not this is a 'community' I think it's fair to expect a certain level of mutual respect and polite behaviour on any thread while still allowing for discussion and disagreement... Of course these things do often become personalised, beligerent and antagonistic. The trickfor each of us as individuals is knowing when to ease off and spot that you're actually being a bit of a dick, I'll aknowledge that I do struggle with that sometimes...
community?
Odd clique more like, quite a narrowminded and controlled one at that too.
Sorry to read this Rachel 🙁
And yeah, I've been disgusted by the same comments from the same users. They seem to think it's edgy and fun, but they just look like massive bell ends. If discourse is a gene pool, these people are pissing in the shallow end and the forum would be better off without them. There's a bunch of friends I ride with who don't post here anymore because of this kind of thing. There are thread titles I don't click on because I know it's going to be the same few obsessive, misinformed people spreading hate.
In the last decade, everywhere online, a lot of people got very good at skating right up to the edge of forum rules without explicitly breaking them. The only online communities I know that have lasted without succumbing to this are ones that have rewritten their rules to aggressively weed these kind of people out.
I am slightly surprised to hear you say this Charlie. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I vividly remember being (quite correctly) pulled up by you and others for “white knighting”. So clearly there is quite a difficult balance there too.
really? Well I've not been here a whiteout that really doesn't sound like me. I have often complained about posts on here which I do not find personally offensive, yet generally unacceptable.
I called you for white knighting?
That's the way I recall it CM yeah. Probably a year or two ago now, ironically enough on some other thread about sexuality and gender-spectrum I think. I remember being rather defensive at the time but then later reflecting that actually it was a fair cop. I've tried to rein in my inner triggered-SJW a bit since then, mostly by avoiding such threads.
My apologies if it wasn't actually you.
To everyone saying "just ignore it", should you ever end up in a position where you're taking the brunt of something like racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, or transphobia, you'll find that's not how they work. It's not one comment here and there, they're part of a constant drumbeat that wears people down, bit by bit, every. single. day.
Telling targets of prejudice to ignore it is like telling people at the leisure centre to just ignore the diesel someone's pouring into the pool.
I feel this is a community - I have said this before and it fits my understanding of the definition. If others don’t feel so - that’s ok.
Personally, I am terrifically sorry that Rachel feels this way. To make someone feel that their very identity is not respected is not on.
Challenging opinions is fine, challenging the way someone identifies is not. We can’t pretend that questioning a persons right to identify and be identified as a particular sex, gender or sexuality is ok. Surely, that’s not an acceptable debate?
The often used example of not challenging someone’s right to identify with a culture, or race or religion must hold true for gender, sex and sexuality. I cannot imagine anyone here challenging my right to be identified as a person of colour, male or heterosexual.
I also have to say I find it troubling, the use of this thread by geetee to continue to pursue a line of argument. This isn’t the thread for it.
I cannot imagine anyone here challenging my right to be identified as a person of colour
They'd challenge it if you were born white though, so the argument goes. The problem is that some folk simply can't get further than the logic of "penis = bloke, end of." It's all a bit Gene Hunt really.
The often used example of not challenging someone’s right to identify with a culture, or race or religion must hold true for gender, sex and sexuality. I cannot imagine anyone here challenging my right to be identified as a person of colour, male or heterosexual.
Except it doesn’t really hold true for religion here does it?
It’s all about mocking imaginary sky fairies round here.
One thing I will say though, (IMO) this place is not a “Community” it’s a forum, an online service where users can post some text and read whatever others choose to post nothing more, and should perhaps not be given the weight or treated as seriously as a (real life) community. I wouldn’t rely on STW for support personally
It seems obvious to me that it's both and capable of being different things to different people. I'm not personally someone who'd use an online forum as a support network, but I can see that other people do and the reaction to that tells you that people do genuinely care about other forum users and their issues.
Except it doesn’t really hold true for religion here does it?
Plenty of folk dislike organised religion to varying degrees of tolerance but I don't think anyone's ever challenged anyone's rights to identify with one have they?
I don't really think religion fits well with others in that list TBH. It's a choice (in a free society at least) whereas the others aren't. I could wake up tomorrow and decide that I was going to believe in Catholicism or Islam and just crack on with it. I couldn't just decide I was going to be gay or black one day.
It’s all about mocking imaginary sky fairies round here.
Something I have also challenged before...!
Is that fairies that are in the sky or fairies that are sponsored by Sky?
I’m still here, or at least I think I am, guess I’ll find out in a moment! I just have a day job and also two kids and a professional wife (I do most of the parenting and home stuff as my wife’s job isn’t one that you can do from home whereas mine is) so my time to contribute is sporadic.
There’s been a lot said since last night and I don’t want to avoid many of the very reasonable points that have been raised. But at the same time I can’t respond to everything. Forgive me if I parse too much.
First, patriarchy. I do not believe society oppresses women any more than it does men. Are there still examples of where women get a raw deal because they are women? Yes, of course there are. Are there equivalent examples for men? Yes, absolutely and these can be find in the legal system, educational system and family courts or indeed anything associated with parenting where men are generally regarded as less valued than women.
But more importantly, I think the dialogue of who experiences more oppression is so utterly pointless as be to be fatuous. If your argument is that women experience more oppression than men as a result of society, then you’re reducing the argument to one of ‘mine’s bigger than yours’ and we all know how fatuous that is.
Regarding men in positions of power – firstly the number of men occupying such positions is a tiny subset of all men in general and they also represent a fabulous level of competence that we should celebrate. But any way, there’s still so few of them that the fact that they are ‘men’ is borderline irrelevant as it’s not the key defining feature of their position or success.
Quite apart from anything else, in making these observations, you haven’t taken into consideration any of the evidence that preferences and personality traits play a big part in the roles that people pursue. Quite honestly, I am more suspicious of people who pursue positions of power at the expense of family and think that the smart money is on staying several layers below the pathological commitment to career development that seems to be the dominant paradigm for so many ‘alpha males’.
On the subject of equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity; I am a staunch believer in the latter and ardently resist the former. Engineering an equal outcome is not only morally wrong (in my view) its hugely inefficient and counterproductive. For example, while I think we should do more to encourage women in to STEM roles, trying to engineer an equal balance would result in a weaker overall capability for two reasons. One, we know that greater male variability means that the number of high intellect men is typically larger than the number of high intellect women and in these kinds of roles it makes sense to maximise the number of high intellect people in general. If you put a limit on how many men you recruit in order to backfill with women, you’re artificially limiting the IQ pool you recruit from. Second, and on the same basis, the preferences of men and women do differ (even though there are plenty of examples of men and women who don’t fit that preference, myself included) and in those differences (men with things, women with people – something that is well established across other species than just the humans) preferences for career choice will mean you have fewer women interested in pursuing STEM related roles than men. Again, if you try to engineer an equal outcome, you’ll limit your overall strength. Of course, I accept that it would be better to ensure there are genuinely no barriers to opportunity. There was a very good programme on Radio 4 on this subject just recently. Have a listen here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00017wb
Moving on to my ‘intellectual intransigence’, I’ve not changed my mind because I’ve not seen anything on this thread or this forum that makes me think anything other than my thinking is actually right. I know I can be incredibly dogmatic and I know full well how other people experience that. I make a conscious choice sometimes to maintain my line of reasoning and thinking because more often than not, I’m right. I know that will be like blue touch paper to a lot of you but I’m resolutely unapologetic for it; I do a lot of research before I form my opinions; they are not based on whimsy or caprice or, more importantly, on populist ideas or orthodoxy. I consider myself a relatively original thinker.
As for the bullying, yeah, that is precisely what it is but this tells me two things. One, that I’m probably right in my assertions (because when all you can do is criticise me personally, then that tells me you don’t have the knowledge, data or intellect to challenge me any other way), and two, that the hypocrisy of your position is rampant and needs to be called out.
You say I’ve ‘oppressed Rachel’ because I’ve been strident and resolute in my views and those views upset her (and that this is evidence for the oppression of women in general by people like me in general), well the same is true for what many of you have done. But that’s OK; this is just a forum after all and I know the people I care about most would tell you you’re flat wrong in your own assertions as to my character.
Regarding the mistruths pedalled by feminist dogma, there’s a good article here published by Time Magazine that discusses this view points:
http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/
The data around sexual assault and sexual harassment is particularly worrying because while I would never trivialise assault or indeed in anyway regard it as a deeply pernicious problem, I just don’t accept that it is in any way as prevalent as people would like you to believe and this makes me deeply suspicious as to the motives of those people publishing these so called facts. They have far less to do with equality and fairness and far more to do with power.
The reality is that 95% of men are good people; we aren’t ‘pre-rapists’, we don’t assault or harass women (any more than they do to us), and we aren’t subjecting them to oppression. 5% of men may well be doing all or some of those things but to then decide that we have a problem with ‘masculinity’ as a result, exemplified in such terms as ‘toxic masculinity’ (which clearly exists but then so does toxic femininity), is nothing short of bigotry. It is no better than concluding we have a problem with blacks because they are over represented in the crime statistics.
Finally, why do I feel so strongly about this ‘war on men and boys’ (as I and others see it)? Well that’s easy, I have two boys, I don’t want them growing up in a world that has decided to shift equality to a place where being either gender represents being at a disadvantage, which is where I think we are heading if we are not careful.
Good job you all think Geetee has a thick skin, as people seem to think its OK to single him out for special treatment.
I personally couldn’t care less if Geetee is thick skinned or not.
This thread was started by someone who he (among others) has upset.
His first reaction was to flatly refuse to believe he was anything to do with it, because he never posted anything against trans people.
This is very telling in itself, why on earth would it not have occurred to him that Rachel may be offended by the mysogony he is constantly criticised for posting on here 😳
But no. Rather than consider this, he just started posting more of the same stuff Rachel was upset by in the first place. And never once considered her complaint or accepted his part in it.
Thick skinned ? Clearly 🙄
Cougar- regardless of your personal opinion about religion and whether you think it merits being grouped with other protected characteristics (disability, sexuality, race, sex, gender reassignment, etc)- it is legally one of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act. There has been very little evidence of religious tolerance on this forum to the point where I simply avoid religious debates because so many people are unable to participate in adult discussions without descending into sky fairies and imaginary friends.
It’s not up to any of us to pick and choose and say it’s ok to discriminate on religion but not on race, for example.
This is very telling in itself, why on earth would it not have occurred to him that Rachel may be offended by the mysogony he is constantly criticised for posting on here
Because I;'ve never said anything misogynistic either. My contentions are all backed by empirical evidence and cannot possibly be misognynistic as a result. But you know, keep making that accusation if it makes you feel better.
I could wake up tomorrow and decide that I was going to believe in Catholicism or Islam and just crack on with it
And that's part of the problem. It isn't like that and it isn't something that you just argue away. I would really doubt that you could wake up and choose to believe it. You might choose to follow it or go to a church but believing it is something else. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed of course, just that it's not an argument to be won
Because I;’ve never said anything misogynistic either.
The weight of opinion isn’t in your favour on that one.
The often used example of not challenging someone’s right to identify with a culture, or race or religion must hold true for gender, sex and sexuality. I cannot imagine anyone here challenging my right to be identified as a person of colour, male or heterosexual.
Not here but Google Rachel Dozefal.
I could wake up tomorrow and decide that I was going to believe in Catholicism or Islam and just crack on with it
I did .... but I suspect it was always in there in the first place
I just don’t accept that it is in any way as prevalent as people would like you to believe and this makes me deeply suspicious as to the motives of those people publishing these so called facts.
You don't get much more empirical than that.
I was really trying to stay out of this because is just don't see the point but, my fault for reading to here.
Attacking individuals is offside. Attack their ideas, opinions etc fine but can we not try to play nice? I can't imagine the OP wants us to stop discussing ideas but to do so with respect.
Geetee I don't read a lot of your posts because we are not interested in the same things. A lot of what you say has some backing and I appreciate your concern - boys are doing less well at every level of education and are under represented at the upper levels. Recent studies seem to show that the more equal a society is, the more gender differences there are not less.
However, if you are as intellectually curious as you seem to be you should Branch out your sources of information, as you seem to be finding only things which confirm your beliefs. Their is a significant body of work which suggests that rising to the top has very little to do with competence, so maybe hold off on celebrating the men at the top.
There is equally a significant body of work which shows that once you correct for educational opportunities, there is no statistically significant difference between males and females in terms of intellect or IQ. It is perhaps the statements you make like that which result in the misogyny accusations.
You will not find the evidence I quote in stw, you'll have to Google or use an academic engine. If you are as you claim to be you will do so.
GT, I'll just say two things on the back of that monologue:
1) Whilst I agree that artificially engineering a 50:50 gender split in a given industry is daft (though not for the male superiority reasons you cite, obviously), in an area where a demographic is disadvantaged it can be necessary to give that demographic opportunities or priorities above and beyond the others even if it's just in the short term. Equality and fairness are not synonyms, if you give someone who can't walk a wheelchair do you have to give everyone one in the name of equality?
2) If you're dogmatic by your own admission and unwilling to change your mind once it's made up, you aren't the "original thinker" you think you are by a long chalk. You're almost heading into Dunning-Kruger territory I fear.
Back to the OP.
I really do feel for you Rachel. Please know that your contributions are wholeheartedly welcome and by your absence this place would be less than it is, with a few exceptions.
This place has become a lesser place recently due to certain number of posters that are either banging the same drum, repeatedly, or those that are sailing close to the wind with their “freedom of speech” defence. There are trolls on here too. Whether it’s the usual suspects with different usernames or new emboldened ones that think the divisive nature of how social media has become in the last few years is now allowing them to spout their toxic bile.
I’ll bet they wouldn’t risk saying these types of things in mixed company or in their local pub for fear of being called out on it, or worse. Behind an anonymous keyboard they think they’re safe.
I would say that everyone should live by the golden rule of "Don't be a dick", but in reflection that could being seen as bigoted, sexist, etc. So I'll amend that to "don't be an arsehole", because everyone has one and it has the potential to stink.
Cougar- regardless of your personal opinion about religion and whether you think it merits being grouped with other protected characteristics (disability, sexuality, race, sex, gender reassignment, etc)- it is legally one of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act.
...
It’s not up to any of us to pick and choose and say it’s ok to discriminate on religion but not on race, for example.
Yes, I know this and I agree with you. But that's specifically in regards to discrimination, it doesn't mean it gets special status not to be discussed or criticised either. If we banned someone for being Buddhist or something it'd be a very different story.
Finally, why do I feel so strongly about this ‘war on men and boys’ (as I and others see it)? Well that’s easy, I have two boys, I don’t want them growing up in a world that has decided to shift equality to a place where being either gender represents being at a disadvantage, which is where I think we are heading if we are not careful.
Your use of the words " either gender " suggests that you are not seeing the whole picture .
Because I;’ve never said anything misogynistic either.
The weight of opinion isn’t in your favour on that one.
It’s the wrong sort of opinion though. We’re not original thinkers and haven’t done any research so our opinions are ultracrepidarian. If we were all smarter we would realise our opinions are wrong and then we could get smarterer and offend others to our hearts content as long as we provided some links and shit.
Can someone give me the abridged version of geetees post? I could imagine how it went but just want to be certain
Because I’ve never said anything misogynistic either.
The weight of opinion isn’t in your favour on that one.
No, but the facts are.
(Nobody is able to post GT's misogynistic words and the STW collective have had all day to find some. It's an argument from silence, but so far it's holding up.)
No, but the facts are
Yeah, of course they are.
Oh, apart from the “inconvenient” ones of course.....
I just don’t accept that it is in any way as prevalent as people would like you to believe and this makes me deeply suspicious as to the motives of those people publishing these [b]so called facts[/b]
A haiku ok?
Men have feelings too
Shouty women should keep quiet
My wife thinks I'm right
Ooh! A Haiku- fest?
Made a lady cry
I believe everything I say
Can’t be my fault then
Because I;’ve never said anything misogynistic either.
The weight of opinion isn’t in your favour on that one.
No, but the facts are. (Nobody is able to post GT’s misogynistic words and the STW collective have had all day to find some. It’s an argument from silence, but so far it’s holding up.)
Yeah, of course they are.
Oh, apart from the “inconvenient” ones of course…..
I just don’t accept that it is in any way as prevalent as people would like you to believe and this makes me deeply suspicious as to the motives of those people publishing these so called facts
Eh?