@Joek. I'll need proof of lack of autism. This is a heavily exaggerated example of what you've been asking from me. You're asking me to find people for evidence whose voice I'm...voicing, those with no opinion on the matter, those who don't give a portugal.
The things I have asked for evidence of, by my count:
* Your assertion that there are a group of "feminazis" that have accused Matt Taylor of being a woman hater.
* Your assertion that there are "SJW" forums where SJWs go to plot against gamergaters.
* That your various misrepresentations of my arguments are in any way supportable and not disingenuous strawmanning.
These three things are literally every single time I've asked you for evidence at all. It is self-evident that the burden of proof is on you to support all of those statements, especially since they are all unfalsifiable. If you think that asking for evidence of these statements is unreasonable, then you should retract them.
Your analogy also fails on one further point: your assertion that I am autistic would hold the burden of proof. My neurotypicality should be the null hypothesis.
Oh, and if it were meant to be a rhetorical point, maybe you should have made that clearer to start with. Asserting it now stinks of backpedalling.
This is one of the reasons why I have a problem with how you're going about all this. The 'proof' you show is nothing of the sort, there are no counterpoints included, the data is held in isolation. You can't just analyse things and call it proof. It's data. I don't think you're autistic at all, I was just using a gross example to illustrate a point.
I don't know what your point is, here. As seems to be so often the case. As best as I recall, the only thing I have described as anything even approaching "proof" is the fact that people saying that the shirt was problematic proved that people thought the shirt was problematic. If you don't accept that as a proof, then, well, I don't know what to say.
No, I'm allowed to use the word, because it's both technically meaningless and useful in this context where I differentiate between a person with realistic feminist goals and agenda, and a person who hates men and thinks women are superior as opposed to equal.
Yeah, saying that you're allowed to use offensive terminology to argue against a strawman position which you have utterly failed to show that anyone even holds does not make your use of the word any less offensive.
I'm not saying you aren't allowed to use it, I'm saying the use of the word is reprehensible because it minimises the suffering of people who actually endured Nazi rule.
Whether you agree or not, idgaf, this is how I've used it, it's shorthand, get it? The rest of that was because it seems your delicate eyes can't bear to read something distasteful so how would you cope dealing with something even more grim but also as important to talk about? Nothing to do with me being Jewish in particular, saying 'my people' was just me identifying with another group of oppressed people.
I mean, this is just meaningless personal attacks, but if it makes you happy...
Objectifying people as in thinking they are an object is not even a thing. Nobody without a basis in slavery looks at a person like they are a thing and not a person. It just doesn't happen, how the hell could it even happen, you'd have to ignore everything about them other than their existence. It just can't be done by a normal person. If you think it is so commonplace, you've not lived. You've not met enough people.
You are just being disingenuous here. You know what objectification is, I've defined it enough times. It's not just thinking of people like they are things, it's
treating people like you think they are things as well. For example, treating people like they are only valuable for their looks.
You seem to always take the stance that someone is either a feminist or anti-women. Only the Sith deal in absolutes (which I think is an absolute in itself...).
1. No, I'm not. I'm taking the view that your arguments, here and now, are anti-woman. I've made no comment as to whether it's possible to not be feminist and not be anti-woman.
2. Saying "only the sith deal in absolutes" completely fails to demonstrate anything. And is, you know, demonstrably wrong. Saying "the earth is 4.5bn years old" is an absolute statement. That doesn't stop it from being correct.
Why don't you tell me then what counts as objectifying women in real terms?
Appearing on television in front of millions of people wearing a top with pictures of women in anatomically improbable positions wearing leather fetish gear?
The entire porn industry maybe?
Not all of it, no. There does exist such thing as feminist porn. Lots of it, though.
What if actually nobody is asking you to 'save' them and you're hopping on a bandwagon because you read something by a journalist online.
What if you actually read what I was saying and realised that actually many women had complained about this? What if you either started arguing in good faith or at least stopped armadilloting all over feminists?
I'm not saying you are, I don't think you are at all actually, I think you're naive as to how the world works. Not everything is black and white, people aren't put into boxes, nobody is 'just' this that or the other, peoples beliefs are malleable and *everything* is dependent on criteria being met.
Relevance. This point doesn't have any.
On the shirt: It's clearly a piece of artistic design, designed by a woman I'm sure you're aware,
This is utterly irrelevant. As I pointed out
in my last post women are not a monolith and the fact that one woman, whether or not she designed the shirt, doesn't see the problem with it has no bearing on whether a) other women do (some did!) or b) whether there is a problem.
saying he shouldn't have worn it is trying to censor it.
No it's not, and you know it. It's not even trying to censor him. It's asking him to show a modicum of forethought before appearing on TV in a way in which he will have more impact on the general population than a single other thing he does in his life. It's asking him to be a reasonable person. What it absolutely is not, is censoring him.
Even if the interviewer had said that he couldn't come on air wearing that, it still wouldn't have been censorship, because freedom of speech does not require everyone to give a platform for your views. If Jubal became sick of my going on about this and banned me, that also wouldn't be censorship for the same reason.
Start censoring art and you're on shaky ground.
Not censorship.
The only people it offends are people that are *looking* to get offended by anything and everything. If there are people that have so little going on in their lives that they feel the need to get angry over a shirt then yeah, they have too much time on their hands. 'They' did not tell you, some of them wrote something online.
This point is as irrelevant as it was when I dismissed it last post. You have asserted that anyone who finds anything that you don't find problematic, only finds it problematic because they are looking to get offended. It's from your point of view extremely convenient, because it absolves you from having to think about why there might be a problem, but it's fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
Suggesting that posting what you feel about something online is different from telling people what you feel about something is at best self-evidently ridiculous.
Many, many, many more don't give a portugal about the shirt.
Enough people in Germany didn't give a portugal about Jews, the disabled, gypsies, queer people, communists, socialists, and trade unionists that the Nazi party were able to spend 12 years trying to get rid of these groups with increasingly severe methods. By your logic, the Nazis were absolutely right to do those things because most people didn't care that they were doing them.
CONCLUSIONYour position:* You have throughout this debate failed to give any evidence of any of your assertions. When pressed, you have suggested that asking for evidence of your assertions is unreasonable.
* The only harm that you claim feminists to have done to you when talking about Matt Taylor's sartorial choices is talking about Matt Taylor's sartorial choices where you might have a chance of hearing about them. I have contended that your right not to hear about it does not trump their right to talk about it, and that furthermore you could trivially have avoided hearing about it.
* You have multiple times misrepresented my views, and when pressed failed to either acknowledge that or show where I have held that view.
* You have claimed that because some people don't care about the shirt, therefore the only people who care about it are "looking to get offended" and don't matter.
* You have further claimed that I want to censor Matt Taylor's shirt.
My position:* The backlash against those who made comments about the shirt was far out of proportion to the original comments, including death threats and the attempt to get a woman fired. Both of which claims I gave examples of.
* There is a demonstrable negative effect on women when they perceive themselves to be being objectified. I linked to a peer reviewed study demonstrating this.
* That at least some women feel that they have been objectified. This follows from the fact that there has been a debate about the shirt caused by some people making blog and social media posts about the fact that the shirt can be read as objectifying women.
* That therefore, from the two above points, the shirt has caused some level of harm.
* That therefore, from the above, Matt Taylor should have thought about what shirt he was wearing. That furthermore, his bosses in ESA should also have thought about the shirt that he was wearing. One of them should have realised that the shirt was problematic.
* That the fact that either no one thought about whether the shirt was problematic, or predicted that some people would think that the shirt was problematic, is itself evidence of a culture at ESA which is not friendly to women in STEM fields, and that this is a problem.
I haven't yet claimed explicitly, but am going to now:
* Your consistent use of the language of objectification "assets", "sexual object" and so on is anti-feminist and anti-woman. Your claim to think that feminism is important does not align with your other words and actions.
* Your consistent misrepresentation of my point and unwillingness to deal with the substantive points of my argument is indicative that you are arguing in bad faith.
Unless you actually engage with the substantive points I have made, this is the last I have to say to you on this topic.
