So proud!

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

664 comments

I'm not saying it isn't bigoted.
That's not what I said. Read more carefully.
I said your logic concludes that you are bigoted for using it.
How can we discuss this subject without me necessarily use it.
You probably can't, which really puts you in a corner, logically.
Using a word as an example isn't the same as using it in it's intended context.
You previously stated that it is sexist in any context. So that's irrelevant.
You didn't make an argument you made an insult that didn't even particularly make sense but it's intent was clear.
My argument is perfectly clear: it's that your logic is flawed.
That's ad hominem
Again, no it's not. An ad hominem is when you use a character attack to discredit an argument. That's not what I'm doing.
No I lost
Lol
- That's exactly what you're arguing.
  No it concedes that I'm using a bigoted word in a discussion about said bigoted word. It's really not hard to figure out unless you're trying to be blind.
  Not at all, I know it's bigoted, you just admitted it was bigoted and thus you agree with me. Duh.
  It is, you can't remove the racist insult from the hard r and you can't erase the sexism from mansplaining they are inherent.
  No your argument is janky at best and we know that because you devolved to insults rather than discussion.
  It is though it is amusing you just described what just did as your example of ad hominem.
  An error? Who makes those?! Grow up
  
  "My argument is perfectly clear: it’s that your logic is flawed."
  That’s exactly what you’re arguing.
  Yeah no shit, that's why I said it...
  No it concedes that I’m using a bigoted word
  Correct, which, by your logic, makes you a sexist:
  When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist just like I’m not stopping to ask the person dropping hard r’s if they think they’re racist
  
  That's not what I said. Read more carefully.
  That's what I was referring to, clearly. Though I love how your argument style just keeps getting more and more disingenuous and rude.
  No it means I exampled a bigoted word in a discussion about that word, there's a huge difference between an academic discussion and using it in my day to day life.
  If that's the way you need to see it to accept that it is on fact sexist then yes, sure. If rather you think I'm a bigot then you actually be a bigot and use bigoted terms.
  Yeah except that's me and we know I don't mean it given the plethora of context but please try to climb that pile you insist on greasing.
  
  That's what I was referring to, clearly.
  So your response to "That's not what I said" is "That's exactly what you're arguing?"
  Even though I explained it to you right after that line?
  I said your logic concludes that you are bigoted for using it.
  Weird.
  No it concedes that I'm using a bigoted word in a discussion about said bigoted word.
  Correct. And:
  When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist
  So, according to you:
  The word is bigoted/sexist no matter the context
  Using a bigoted/sexist term means you are going to be assigned to be sexist
  You used a bigoted/sexist term
  Pretty simple stuff, guy. No one made you say these things. You can't be mad at me because you painted yourself into a corner.
  Yeah except that's me and we know I don't mean it given the plethora of context
  Contradicts with:
  When it’s a sexist term you’re going to be assigned to be sexist
  Which is it?
  
  Jesus Christ, you're somehow losing the ability to follow a conversation.
  Why are you quoting yourself?
  It is sexist no matter the context, I'm not using it against anyone so I'm not a bigot I'm just exampling a bigoted word. You're being obtuse. Is there a way to remove the intended insult from the hard r? No. Can you remove the intended insult from mansplaining? No. So both of those are always bigoted at times you might argue there's some moral reason to do it but that's all ex post facto.
  It's sexist. If you need to see me as a bigot to get that across the so be it but you know as well as I do your argument is void of logic.
  
  So it seems like what you're trying to say is that it's possible for you to use that word without being a sexist, depending on the context?
  Yes or no?
  
  Use it in a sentence in the correct context, I'll leave it to you to prove you can remove the insult from it.
  No, its always sexist. Point to where I said the person using it is always a sexist. What I've said is if you're saying someone is mansplaining you're in fact a sexist and I've said you cannot remove the intended insult.
  
  Let's try this again.
  Yes or no:
  Is it possible for you to use the word "mansplain" without being a sexist, depending on the context?
  
  Yes. We've gone over this. You can use it without being a sexist.
  You cannot use it in the proper context without being a sexist ie. "Greg is mansplaining baseball." Because that's clearly a sexist insult.
  Your think you're making a point but you're just rehashing shut you've apparently forgotten.
  
  Great!
  So can you give me a single example of a scenario where a woman could:
  assess an interaction she had with a man,
  deem his behaviour to be "misogynistic",
  not be a sexist herself?

664 comments