unixknight

Members
  • Posts

    3152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Posts posted by unixknight

  1. 1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

    Oh son, sit down a minute. 

    That album isn't metal. It's radio friendly metal. Could you see "Nothing Else Matters" on Master of Puppets? Ride the Lighting? Kill em All? No way. Same with Unforgiven and frankly, same with 99% of the songs on that album. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad album. It's a bad Metallica album. 

    The soapbox has been brought out and I am unleashing righteous fury. 

    But but...  I liked 'Of Wolf and Man...'

  2. 1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

    Nobody in this thread does and the ones that do outside of this thread are not in positions of power.

    I don't see the relevance.

    In any case, I think we're talking in circles now.  Let's agree to disagree.  You're welcome to the last word, if you like.  😊

  3. 9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

    @unixknight.  If you keep calling Hot Chocolate, a drink with coffee beans, it doesn't make Hot Chocolate a drink with coffee beans.  Hot Chocolate is Hot Chocolate, it has a SPECIFIC DEFINITION and coffee is NOT IT regardless of how many individuals call coffee Hot Chocolate.  The ONLY WAY Hot Chocolate becomes Coffee is if Merriam Webster changes the definition of Hot Chocolate to Coffee.  But, if the UN Ambassador of Goodwill, the President of Canada, and professors of academia continues to teach that Hot Chocolate has coffee beans, the only way you can take the Hot Chocolate word back so you can stop arguing over the compatibility of Hot Chocolate with the Word of Wisdom is to burn down the movements of those Hot Chocolate Is Coffee people with power.

    And some people define hot chocolate as also having marshmallows while other don't.  Some purists would say Swiss Miss doesn't make 'true' hot chocolate while others permit Hershey's chocolate syrup to be used in making 'hot chocolate.'  

    This is why the "no true scotsman' argument is a fallacy. 

  4. 2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

    It is not.

    Why do you keep  trying to convince me that toxic feminism exists?  I know it does.  Like I said, you're preaching to the choir.

    I'm not sure if we actually even disagree, or whether you think I'm arguing something different from what I am.  I'll state my position:

    There's no set definition of the term 'feminism' because different people look at it form different points of view.  Thus, 'feminism' means different things to different people.  Therefore, any discussion of whether or not someone is a 'real' feminist is just a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.  Nobody gets to be the gatekeeper on who may call themselves a feminist.  (Which was the point I was making in my first post of this thread when I talked about the co-worker who insisted that my wife couldn't be a feminist because she's pro-life.)

    I never disagreed with you on your points about toxic feminism being a thing, or that many parts of it have taken on misandry.

  5. So last night I was invited to the home of a co-worker for dinner.  It's Ramadan, so it was a breaking of the fast.  (In Islamic tradition, during Ramadan you fast during the day and eat once the sun goes down.)

    Man, the food was incredible.  It was a blend of Tunisian and Spanish (as in Spain spanish) food.

    But that wasn't my realization.

    During dinner, everybody had white wine except me, and after dinner I was offered Turkish coffee but I declined.  Total resulting drama:  Zero.

    What I mean is this... When I'm among non-LDS Christians or Atheists, I don't like to discuss matters like the Word of Wisdom because more often than not I get funny looks, incredulous laughing, or taunting about how silly it is that we can't have [insert whatever beverage here].   Sometimes I get a lecture about how a certain amount of alcohol daily is good for you, or how there's nothing wrong with a cup of tea. 

    When I'm among Muslims however, (and in my experience this is also true of Hindu folks) when I say I'm unable to partake in those things because of my religious beliefs, they understand completely and that's that.  They just get it.  No offense is taken, no criticism, no exaggerated eye rolls.  They respect it because they have their own dietary rules.  It often leads to an enlightening and friendly conversation about our different beliefs and traditions.  

    But man... Tunisian food...  I'm gonna be daydreaming about that stuff for a while.

  6. 3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

    No.  We didn't disagree on that.  We disagreed on the reason for people to label themselves Feminist.  She uses the label, I do not.  I prefer to let my actions speak for itself.

    It all amounts to the same thing, in my book.  Definition of the label, reason for using it... whatever.  If it were simple and universal, there wouldn't be much to disagree on.

  7. 13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

    I just got done telling @LiterateParakeet her error on telling me I'm not a feminist.  So, as far as I know, there is nobody in this thread who uses the label Feminist while displaying anti-feminist sentiments.  So what exactly do you mean by "this very thread"?

    The fact that you two could disagree on what precisely a feminist is/does/believes.

  8. 1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

    It is VERY CLEAR.  The abortion issue is not a Feminist issue.  It is a PERSONHOOD issue.  That is - "I have the Right to my own Body" versus "I have a Right to life".  The Right to Life is not a Feminist Issue - boy or girl, that person has that Right.

    Gender Wage Gap is a Misandrist issue, not a Feminist issue.  The Gender Wage Gap is based on the concept that Males make more than Females because of an oppressive Patriarchy.

    Selective Service/Draft is also a Misandrist issue, not a Feminist issue.  Captain Marvel exemplifies this - the idea that the Military discriminates against Women because of Misogyny rather than Practical Chivalry.

    Misandrists use those issues as a pass/fail for whether or not they'll "allow" someone to call themselves a Feminist.

    ..in your opinion.

    And yep, Misandrists are into gatekeeping too.

  9. Just now, anatess2 said:

    There's a very clear and universal definition of what a feminist is.  I have posted it above.

    The issue is that MISANDRISTS have usurped the definition.  Until such time that these Misandrists lose their place in influential society or start using the label most befitting their advocacy, the term Feminist will forever be poisoned in socio-political discussions.

    I see you're in a fighting mood today.  😉

    That definition is inadequate.  There are some who believe that part of the goal of equality includes abortion rights.  Some don't.  The definition you provided offers no clarity on that.  Some believe in the gender wage gap.  Others don't.  Some would be fine with women having to register with the Selective Service.  Some don't.  

    See what I mean?  People use those issues as a pass/fail for whether or not they'll "allow" someone to call themselves a feminist.

  10. 1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

    @unixknight, this is an over-simplification of the REAL DAMAGES that the Modern Feminist Movement has created in our society.  If you're wondering, here are just a few statistics:

    You don't have to convince me that there's a toxic and dangerous strain that's causing these problems.  All I'm saying is that, without a clear, universal definition of what being a feminist means, it doesn't make much sense to judge whether or not people can use the term when describing their own views.

  11. 12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

    So, yes, I posit that the Modern Feminist Movement who has taken Betty Friedan's concepts into its modern form ARE NOT FEMINISTS as they rail against the Patriarchy and silly things such as equality of outcomes and whatever else Captain Marvel signifies that posits Masculinity as Toxic and Femininity as "The Future".  Unfortunately, today's society do not think of "LDS Feminists" as Feminists or even any Women's-March-attending Pro-Life organization.  Rather, they think of NOW and hat-wearing-movements and college-pulluting-Gender-Studies-activists as Feminists in the same manner that the Antifa Movement is NOT Anti Fascist.  I do not want to be put in the same section of discussion as those non-feminists labeling themselves as Feminists.  

    I do not need to use that poisoned label to be an advocate for women's rights on the basis of the equality of sexes - a true feminist. 

     

    1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

    First, of all we're not talking about THOSE kinds of feminists. I used the article in the beginning of this thread to establish a foundation for this discussion, at least. 

    Second, since your comment about "virtual signaling" I understood you did not want to be considered ANY kind of feminist. And yet you object to me saying you're not a feminist. 

    Finally, I don't care what Radical Feminists think about my brand of Feminism any more than I lose sleep over Born Again Christians saying I-as a Latter-day Saint- am not Christian. My definition is what matters to me.

    By the way, I went to the Women's March with a fellow Latter-day Saint Feminist and had a wonderful time. No, I didn't wear an offensive hat, but I really enjoyed being there. 

    I think the problem, when it comes to discussing feminism in general, is that it would be super convenient if there were a fixed list of types of feminism and each person could be conveniently categorized into the appropriate type and discuss from there.

    Everybody has their own idea of what it means to be a feminist.  We try to differentiate the reasonable (and appropriate) view that says that men and women are equals from the more recent, more aggressive type that seems to be looking for inequality to justify its own anger.  In some things, there really is a spectrum and we have to cut each other some slack.

    Don't be like the person I talked about earlier, who took it upon herself to judge who can call themselves a feminist and who doesn't.

  12. 1 minute ago, Mores said:

    BTW, she's not the only one.  When I went on a search for the article quoted in the OP, I found a dozen other such cases that came earlier.

    Not surprised.  Whenever I see a news article like this I assume for every one that gets reported on, there's a bunch more we don't happen to hear about.

  13. It ought to come as precisely -zero- surprise to anybody that this sort of things is happening.  We live in a culture that tells us to love ourselves first, foremost and nigh exclusively.  To put one's own needs above those of the community, family, even friends.  To value one's notions of themselves as so high that laws are being enacted to keep that from being challenged by anyone for any reason.  To value one's self not for any higher spiritual connection or for one's accomplishments, but just because it's more emotionally satisfying that way in the short term.  We're told to never challenge someone's assertions about themselves - their highest priority - no matter how ridiculous they become.  If a 55-year-old man claims to be an 8-year-old girl, who are any of us to question it?  be a man, be a woman, be a porcupine.  Be what you want and let no one question you.

    So at last someone is so completely shameless as to publicly declare herself the object of her own love and regard to such an extreme that she's marrying herself...

    ….  and we got laughed at when we said marriage was being eroded.

  14. On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 7:10 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

    The main difficulty I have in discussing feminism is that it has come to mean so many different things to different people that it's hard to know if we are truly talking about the same thing. 

    Same here.  A few years ago I was talking with someone and she laughed out loud when I commented that my wife joined a feminist group with a pro-life focus.  This person thought it was hilarious that someone could be pro-life AND consider herself a feminist at the same time.  Essentially playing gatekeeper.  If you don't pass this ideological test, you won't be taken seriously.

    That's intensely annoying.

  15. 16 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

    @unixknight Just giving a "thumbs up" without any kind of reply might seem like I didn't really care about your explanations, so just to make that clear: I simply have nothing to add to that ☺️It was definitely an interesting read. 

    I guess that's all for now. Thanks everyone for your comments and patience! 

    Haha thanks for the note then.  Glad to help!