This Open Thread has been brought to you by Ozy’s sense of self-worth.
About ozyfrantz
Ozy Frantz is a student at a well-respected Hippie College in the United States. Zie bases most of zir life decisions on Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, and identifies more closely with Pinkie Pie than is probably necessary. Ozy can be contacted at [email protected] or on Twitter as @ozyfrantz. Writing is presently Ozy's primary means of support, so to tip the blogger, click here.
@L: I know this is pretty much a dead thread, but I was torn away from the net lately due to work stuff. But I wanted to say thanks for your response. Maybe we can pick the discussion at a later date.
Before I go.
My favorite atheists used to be (and his is going back a while) Ellen Johnson, Annie Laurie Gaylor, and Susan Jacoby. This is before atheism was a movement. Before I even associated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens with atheism, And before anyone knew Sam Harris existed. YMMV. And heck I’ve seen atheism grow from literally being the only atheist in town to being part of a worldwide movement. I can’t complain.
In another thread, BlackHumor said to me: https://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/mansplaining-and-ms-paint/#comment-29239 In fairness to EE, he probably does not mean that no atheists were feminists before Elevatorgate, he means that Elevatorgate caused many feminists not in the atheist movement to wade into it to talk about the feminist issue in the atheist movement. Which it did; I was only loosely aware of the atheist movement myself until Elevatorgate. Not that I’m particularly inclined to be fair to EE because I’m pretty sure events since then (like the blowup in r/atheism) have proven pretty much beyond all doubt that the atheist movement has some… Read more »
On a positive note, I am still not drinking, which I will at least claim as a small victory.
Yes it is a victory. Stay strong.
I am sorry for the upset I seem to have caused, and I feel ashamed that I inflicted this on everyone. It is therefore probably best if I leave, at least for now; I am not sure I can realistically guarantee that I can keep my feelings about men entirely out of my posts in discussions about gender issues. My email address is [email protected], if anybody has any loose threads with me that they would like to finish. I do not know why I ended up becoming unable to contain my hatred against men and myself anymore, but I feel… Read more »
You don’t seem to understand that people who judge others and put them into categories can also be guilty of toxic behavior. In fact, it is negligent to assume that judging others and putting them into categories is innocent!
RocketFrog, this is your official mod warning. Your constant misandry, stemming though it may from your personal issues, is unwelcome and consistently derailing. Cut it out.
debaser71:
I am not sure I understand; there have been at least five threads here about how Nice Guys (TM) have toxic behaviour.
A virtue ethicist would say someone whose actions stem from good intentions, but still lead to harmful consequences that the person reasonably should have foreseen, is lacking in the important virtue of phronesis or “practical wisdom.” They are therefore culpable for the harm caused, although somewhat less culpable than someone who actually acted out of malice would be – Aristotle wrote a lot about this issue. I’m a feminist and I have leanings toward virtue ethics. I don’t think it’s right to say intent is irrelevant to ethics, at all – and I think most feminists and others who say… Read more »
And yet some people still can’t understand why so called “niceguyism” is toxic bullshit?
“As I mentioned earlier, until reading the Jonathan Coulton vs. Nice Guys thread, I was completely oblivious that complimenting a sweater was a sign of misogyny – or, for that matter, that daydreaming about relationship success (which I used to do a lot when I was younger, I must admit) was misogyny and entitlement. ”
BUT ITS NOT. Damn it all to hell.
It”s not misogyny, it’s not entitlement. It’s fucking being human.
If you punch the receptionist after she refuses to date you, then yeah, you’re an asshole. But Code Monkey is not an asshole.
ik: That’s because sexism means that men are usually in the states of power where they can perpetuate horrible acts. If you’re interested in very dangerous, female would-be dictators, just look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. I have sometimes heard it argued that such women should be considered “social men”, because they have risen to power in a patriarchal system and thus taken on the social position of men. It was a common argument when I was younger, and someone used Margaret Thatcher as an example of a woman who engaged in social oppression and warfare. I am still… Read more »
The problem with intent ethics in this case is that they seem to exempt “deliberate” ignorance, and I think that this is a lot of the problem feminists have with other sorts of intent ethics. People who choose not to pay attention to their impacts and thus maintain their “innocence” are very common these days and they pose a real problem to intent ethics. Nevertheless I think that some kind of intent ethics is inevitable with human-human interactions. In fact I might endorse intent ethics if it were honest in the Walter Kaufmann sense of “high standards of honesty.” I… Read more »
(the other citizens of the planet in the beginning of my last post, by the way, also includes the nonhumans who live here.)
Humbition: Actually, one could argue (and I used to believe) that there is a powerful case to be made for a deontological environment ethic: As a citizen of this planet, it is your duty to not cause more damage to it than you have to, as you are not its only citizen, and you have no right to take away the ability to live here from its other citizens.. If you apply the categorical imperative to the choice of driving a large energy-inefficient car, you wind up with the question of whether you could support a universal law that everyone… Read more »
“If I used a transphobic or sexist slur, do you think it would be a valid excuse for me if I did not intend it as a slur?” Yes, it would be a valid excuse, as long as you recognized it was bad if called on it, and didn’t do it again. It doesn’t mean you were evil, or that your act was evil. It was simply an act done out of ignorance. Don’t do it again and no harm no foul. Doing it again intentionally (knowing it’s bad) is what I would object to. And most people committing transphobic… Read more »
Re intentions I am not advocating intent-based ethics. For decades I have been largely concerned with environmental and ecological issues, and intent-based ethics have absolutely no place in these. Environmental ethics is consequentialist or it is self-delusion. The atmosphere warms no matter how much we needed to get that big car… When I discuss intent I am talking about human nature, i.e. ape nature with a linguistic overlay kludge. You seem intent (pun intended) on judging yourself for not being a kind of animal that doesn’t exist and probably can’t exist. All people can do, especially in adapting to other… Read more »
ik:
I am sorry if I have caused pain in this thread; I was not aware of that.
Schala:
If I used a transphobic or sexist slur, do you think it would be a valid excuse for me if I did not intend it as a slur?
“It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of horrible acts perpetrated around the world are perpetrated by men.” I seem to remember that the overwhelming majority of horrible acts are also perpetrated by straight, cis people. That’s because sexism means that men are usually in the states of power where they can perpetuate horrible acts. If you’re interested in very dangerous, female would-be dictators, just look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. We could totally have equal-opportunity genocides if we wanted. I can totally imagine scenarios in which due to different technology Europe might be crushed under the heel… Read more »
“are you not in fact advocating intent-based ethics, which are kyriarchical and privileged?” He’s saying you can’t do otherwise. Men’s rea is what we use for courts of law. Criminal intent. If you punched someone in the face and they complain to law enforcement about it, it would be assault and the intent (to inflict physical harm) would be obvious. Though if you invoke bipolarity or the likes (assuming it is diagnosed by the court experts), intent diminishes, and so does the crime’s punishment. If you punched someone in the face and they die (rare, but happens), it would be… Read more »
The real “golden rule” (not the christianized version) goes more like this.
“Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.”
It’s better than the jesus version.
They might be wrong, but they do not become wrong just because they do not think women are toxic as well. I mean, if I claim that potassium cyanide is toxic, am I wrong if I do not think apple juice is also toxic? They are not wrong because they do not think women are toxic as well. They are wrong because women are about as toxic as men are, overall. Thus giving a pass to women, and using FAIL Marxism to explain classes (ie it DOESN’T work that way, we ARE NOT classes), that doesn’t work. Ironically, it’s using… Read more »
However, when you say:
are you not in fact advocating intent-based ethics, which are kyriarchical and privileged?
Humbition: This was why I used to find the categorical imperative a much better guiding tool than the golden rule (which, as you probably are aware, is also a quite absolute ethical framework). I am not particularly fond of myself, and if I had to choose my actions according to how I thought I ought to be treated, then I would be even more unpleasant towards others than I am. I sort of need to use a tool that does not rely too much on intuition and gut-thinking, because mine does not really seem to work. It might be the… Read more »