Australian dictionary has changed its definition of misogyny to to mean 'entrenched prejudice agains - Polidicks

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38079263]ok. I'll make a concession with you on this point. A person who uses a misogynistic slur in anger against a specific woman despite not wanting to reinforce misogynistic culture is a "accidental misogynist". A person who uses misogynistic slurs with the intent to reinforce misogynistic culture is a "purposeful misogynist" the second variety is significantly more harmful than the first, the first is a label that really isn't meaningful and important. OK?[/QUOTE] ahahahahahah are you seriously making up new terms so that you can still think of yourself as not sexist

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38077239]Out of curiosity, would you consider calling a man a dick or a bastard to be sexist as well?[/QUOTE] It is as sexist as "puss" aka not very sexist But the male does not have an equivalent for stronger sexist terms like "cunt"

[QUOTE=Andokool12;38079256]I was gonna say something but then I realized you're Dori and I won't get anywhere nevermind You're just sitting in this thread calling everybody a misogynist and shit-talking MRAs[/QUOTE] what are you even talking about dude

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38079114]nobody gives a shit[/QUOTE] Nobody cares about the legit points i've put forward? I'm pretty sure that's not how you debate properly. Maybe I should ignore and not take into consideration anything you say then

[QUOTE=The Baconator;38079295]It is as sexist as "puss" aka not very sexist But the male does not have an equivalent for stronger sexist terms like "cunt"[/QUOTE] Asshole comes close. Well sometimes, depends on how it's said. Except that i've never heard of anyone caring when being called an asshole. So maybe not.

[QUOTE=RobbL;38079310]Nobody cares about the legit points i've put forward? I'm pretty sure that's not how you debate properly. Maybe I should ignore and not take into consideration anything you say then[/QUOTE] no, i think you're just going with "hey its this guy whose wrong....." and trying to make dori appear unsavory by posting your convo log with him where it has no real place to even be

[QUOTE=Dori;38078709]um white male privilege is a real thing. the fact that you think otherwise is a sign that you benefit from it[/QUOTE] Of course it's a real thing, but bringing it up is not an excuse to ignore someone's argument

[QUOTE=RobbL;38079338]Of course it's a real thing, but bringing it up is not an excuse to ignore someone's argument[/QUOTE] what?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;38079328]no, i think you're just going with "hey its this guy whose wrong....." and trying to make dori appear unsavory[/QUOTE] No, point is he keeps rating me dumb without providing any counter arguments or even replying to my posts [editline]17th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Dori;38079353]what?[/QUOTE] "I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say on X, because you're privileged in regards to X"

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;38079294]ahahahahahah are you seriously making up new terms so that you can still think of yourself as not sexist[/QUOTE] are you fucking kidding me? #1: since when am I a sexist? I've never thrown a loaded slur at anyone, whether it be racist, sexist, or gender-related. I wouldn't classify myself either one of those definitions. I was talking about a hypothetical situation based on an anecdote that my english teacher told me in which he used a racist slur against a black man (when he was very young) despite not being racist in any way to make it hurt more. Sure that was an asshole move. #2: I'm making a difference in terms because if Dori is applying the definition of misogynist so liberally to people who throw misogynistic slurs there should be a difference in intent when applying a misogynistic slur. I mean holy shit if when I try to classify 2 types of people who reinforce misogynistic culture by intent, I get a personal attack on my own personal views by a moderator, it really speaks to the quality of this forum's administration.

[QUOTE=RobbL;38079354]No, point is he keeps rating me dumb without providing any counter arguments or even replying to my posts [editline]17th October 2012[/editline] "I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say on X, because you're privileged in regards to X"[/QUOTE] no, you're antagonizing people without restraint

[QUOTE=BloodYScar;38076740]Everything against women is misogynist. Just how everything against black people is racist. Butthurt society.[/QUOTE] hey the only person who sounds butthurt about something is you, just pointing that out

[QUOTE=RobbL;38079310]Nobody cares about the legit points i've put forward? I'm pretty sure that's not how you debate properly. Maybe I should ignore and not take into consideration anything you say then[/QUOTE] do you know how replies and quotes work? i said nobody gives a shit about your stupid chatlog with dori, that's all. try not to get confused

[QUOTE=Ownederd;38079379]no, you're antagonizing people without restraint[/QUOTE] I asked him to provide counter arguments to my posts that he rated dumb, how is that antagonising him?

[QUOTE=RobbL;38079354]No, point is he keeps rating me dumb without providing any counter arguments or even replying to my posts [editline]17th October 2012[/editline] "I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say on X, because you're privileged in regards to X"[/QUOTE] your argument consists of, "misogyny doesnt exist because not all women are offended by misogyny!!! checkmate, feminists" you havent made a point beyond that in 4 pages of 'DORI UR DUMB'

[QUOTE=RobbL;38079414]I asked him to provide counter arguments to my posts that he rated dumb, how is that antagonising him?[/QUOTE] cause you're posting your little trivial convo with dori conveys harassment on this thread

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38079398]do you know how replies and quotes work? i said nobody gives a shit about your stupid chatlog with dori, that's all. try not to get confused[/QUOTE] Yeah, but he's done it with quite a few people before and it's incredibly childish, that's all

Wow, this thread took a turn for the worse.

[QUOTE=RobbL;38079425]Yeah, but he's done it with quite a few people before and it's incredibly childish, that's all[/QUOTE] and i will reiterate; nobody gives a shit [editline]17th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Alxnotorious;38079426]Wow, this thread took a turn for the worse.[/QUOTE] lightening the mood or just making dumb observational posts yet again?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38079435]and i will reiterate; nobody gives a shit [/QUOTE] I've been taking the time to provide counter arguments to other people's posts, but they're not doing the same for me. Just a tad dickish don't you think? [editline]17th October 2012[/editline] Anyway, here's all the points i've made if anyone is going to be decent enough to actually make some legit counter argument this time around [QUOTE=RobbL;38077720]Verbal discrimination against men isn't sexist just because it's more prevalent amongst women? Wha-what? If a man is discrimated against because of his gender, then that's sexism. Whether such discrimination is common and deep-rooted throughout the wider world has no bearing on that unlike what you're suggesting. People are individuals, it's not like every woman is subject to all the misogyny present in the world and every man is responsible for that. That's pretty terrible logic[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RobbL;38078170]Again, people are individuals. Women and men aren't single entities or hiveminds. If one women is discriminated against the hurt that is causes for her doesn't magically spread throughout the whole of the female population. Likewise, just because men as a whole have discriminated against women more so than women have done so against men doesn't mean that every single man has to be subject to the implications of that and is responsible for said discrimination It's like vou're saying women discriminating against men isn't sexism because as a whole, women have been subject to more discrimination. Again, that implies that every individual man is responsible as if we're all a hivemind, and goes on the illogical assumption that the overall offended can never offend the overall offenders[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RobbL;38078392]Uh, what does even mean? Take a man who treats women equally. A woman who he has never met before starts discriminating him because of his gender. Now according to people like you that's not sexism because of what a large amount of his fellow men have done and what a large amount of the women's fellow women have suffered. (btw isn't that the definition of generalisation?) Ultimately, all discrimination happens on an individual level. Why should innocent people bear the implications of the actions of other members of their group? Yes that does happen, but it's not a desired side affect of society and it directly goes against our ideals of fairness and equality[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RobbL;38079463]I've been taking the time to provide counter arguments to other people's posts, but they're not doing the same for me. Just a tad dickish don't you think?[/QUOTE] "im being the adult here, stop being so dumb" you literally need to stop this

I'm feeling a lot dumber after reading this thread

What's the difference between entrenched prejudice and hatred?

why am i doing this [quote] Verbal discrimination against men isn't sexist just because it's more prevalent amongst women? Wha-what? If a man is discrimated against because of his gender, then that's sexism. Whether such discrimination is common and deep-rooted throughout the wider world has no bearing on that unlike what you're suggesting. People are individuals, it's not like every woman is subject to all the misogyny present in the world and every man is responsible for that. That's pretty terrible logic[/quote] yes it does have a bearing. discrimination against women has been used to subjugate them. i've never been insulted or held-back because i was a man, not even by straw-feminists who don't exist. the same is not true of women, my mum will support that. she worked in a field that was dominated by men and it was a constant uphill battle due to the insults, berating, and most importantly the lower salary and benefits. people are not "individuals" in the way you say they are. people are the result of history and the backgrounds of everyone previous to them. women today are a result of institutional misogyny, just as men are.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;38079542]What's the difference between entrenched prejudice and hatred?[/QUOTE] entrenched prejudice is passive, hatred is active

My god this thread is so god damn stupid and you should all contemplate suicide. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Patriarch;38079651]My god this thread is so god damn stupid and you should all contemplate suicide.[/QUOTE] wow epic joke dude so funny

It's hilarious.

RobbL, stop. You're making the side you're fighting for look completely fucking retarded, even when there are legitimate points to make. I'm not going to get involved in this, but please just stop.

[QUOTE=thisispain;38079607] yes it does have a bearing. discrimination against women has been used to subjugate them. i've never been insulted or held-back because i was a man, not even by straw-feminists who don't exist. the same is not true of women, my mum will support that. she worked in a field that was dominated by men and it was a constant uphill battle due to the insults, berating, and most importantly the lower salary and benefits. people are not "individuals" in the way you say they are. people are the result of history and the backgrounds of everyone previous to them. women today are a result of institutional misogyny, just as men are.[/QUOTE] What i'm saying is that discrimination against an individual woman shouldn't be considered more severe because women have in general have been subject to more discrimination than men, and discrimination against an individual man shouldn't be considered less severe because men as a whole have been subject to less discrimination than women. An individual man isn't responsible for what men have done as a whole, and isn't directly affected by what other men have experienced- the same for women. What affects people is individual experiences. Obviously the actions and experiences of other people indirectly have a bearing on that, but that's not what i'm talking about From what I understand, you're saying that the severity of something happening to someone should be based on how likely it is to happen to them and that how often that thing has happened to other members of that person's group. Which is silly. I know that women have and do suffer more because of sexual discrimination, and I know that people are the result of of history and everyone previous to them, i'm not doubting those points