Slutwalk

[Senethro]

Please, don't be detained on my account. I'm sure there are a great many matters more deserving of your attention.

[RedCelt69]

As a footnote to this, I'm done trying to make my position any clearer than I already have. Either you get it, or you don't. I mean, I left out enough dots for you to connect them yourself to make the picture. But no, the picture you created bore no resemblance to what was intended.

Jollytiddlywink, when you said that I had lost, you rather gave your position away. If it's a case of winning or losing (rather than convincing or debating) then you are bound to the idea that any acceptance of anything I've said is tantamount to a loss on your part, rather than a benefit. Your ego, then, won't allow anything but a negation of what I've suggested. And I'm not about to waste any more time trying. Perhaps, one day, some (or a little) of what I've said can be accepted by you as having some merit.

Or perhaps not.

<shrug>

[RedCelt69]

This post was made by Senethro who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

<fwat>

[Senethro]

As a footnote to this, I'm done trying to make my position any clearer than I already have. Either you get it, or you don't. I mean, I left out enough dots for you to connect them yourself to make the picture. But no, the picture you created bore no resemblance to what was intended.

I thought we understood your position and were telling you why it was wrong...?

Jollytiddlywink, when you said that I had lost, you rather gave your position away. If it's a case of winning or losing (rather than convincing or debating) then you are bound to the idea that any acceptance of anything I've said is tantamount to a loss on your part, rather than a benefit. Your ego, then, won't allow anything but a negation of what I've suggested. And I'm not about to waste any more time trying. Perhaps, one day, some (or a little) of what I've said can be accepted by you as having some merit.

Seriousface on, this is a low blow. This thread has been full of you telling people who identify with less privileged groups that advocacy of their groups is redundant and superseded. Indeed, your constant refrain of how they should say that they are the same as others implies they should shed their identities and assimilate.

Given that these groups acquired their rights through their own efforts, often conflicting greatly with a privileged establishment, can you perhaps be magnanimous enough to grant that accusing them of letting ego get in the way of serving in your Great Humanist Vision is a little fuckwitted? Just a little bit.

[G13]

(A note: again, there's a couple of posts from me in moderation, before the Sun 29th grouping, probably destined to be lost in the midst of the ongoing conversation.)

I think at this point I've demonstrated my position quite well enough, and I'm not inclined to overly repeat myself and argue about what people were and were not saying - I think it can be read.

One point of clarification, though: when I wrote "people who claimed to be feminists", which has been italicised in quotations, I meant it literally, in that, they stated that identification to RedCelt, as opposed to the other possibility, that is, that he assumed that they were. I used "claim" to try to put the emphasis on, that was what they were calling themselves, rather than us all wondering whether they really were or not. I absolutely did not mean it in the snide sense it's commonly used in, that is, "claim to be But They're Not Really". It was intended as a neutral statement on their self-identification, not a judgement on that identification.

Honestly, I'm frustrated at arguing ideology. I wouldn't say that it's a bad thing, but it's not my personal work. I'm very far from being the best person to defend feminism - and frankly, I don't like doing so. I prefer my time on things that might make a practical difference. I've taken this on because I felt that spreading the message that a person who identifies as a feminist is not necessarily - and actually, percentage-wise, is actually really unlikely to be - a dogmatic, sexist jerk, and that the popular representation of feminists as such is just wrong, was something worth doing.

I don't believe that someone has to identify as a feminist in order to believe in women's rights or to be working for gender equality. I would be happy to work under the identity of feminist with someone under the identity of humanist on any common aims we have, and I think that the different viewpoints can be a strength. However, I don't believe an umbrella movement (in this case, humanism) is capable, by itself, of adequately recognising and fighting for the rights of all groups within it, so I believe that feminism, LGBTQI* rights, anti-racism, disability rights, etc, all have an irreplaceable role. These groups don't just believe in the rights and equality, they take action to achieve it, as the status quo is unequal and only by change can we get closer to equality.

What I wonder is: if humanism can do such a good job by itself, tell me, RedCelt, what does humanism as a movement do to forward gender equality, and what do you do personally, as a humanist?

I could give you a long list of what feminists generally, and I, personally, under the identity of feminist, do; I'll save it for now, as I'm interested in what you can list.

[G13]

*puts on full-feminist-identity hat*

What Senethro said at 6.54.

It happens oh-so-often: someone who has all the big identities working in their favour (white, man, cis, straight) expects minority-identity people to Understand What I Am Saying without appearing to return the same courtesy. Well, no, bucko, and the reason for that is, the whole damn world is made for people like you; people with minority identities spend our entire lives having to live in the world according to your perspective, having to hear the world the way you present it. In a conversation about minority identities, we expect our experiences As minority identities to be heard, and not to have to agree with a white cis straight man a-bloody-gain. And if that hurts your white cis straight man self, you know, that's not the end of the world, because you can retreat to the rest of the world. You're used to people Understanding What You Are Saying because that's how it works for you out there in the world, so it's one hell of a shock when it's different. We experience it all the damn time.

*takes off hat*

That's not to say that a white, straight, cis man automatically has a great life and everything he ever wanted. Of course not. It's saying that the world sees this image and his experiences as the "default" human being.

A man who declares himself anti-feminist is most commonly misogynistic and against true gender equality, which may explain the strong reactions against RedCelt here and on some of his dates. Personally, I believe he does support equality, but has a mistaken vendetta against feminism which he is unwilling to reconsider, and find him somewhat arrogant in his refusal to question whether he may be mistaken, that approaches other than his own may be valid, or that other experiences of the world may be different to his own.

[QueerCommunist]

So RedCelt, if humanists were ever so egalitarian and 'all inclusive', why did and do the the Freemasons* categorically exclude women and how can we understand the raging racism and sexism of enlightenment thinkers like Kant or Rousseau?

[Anon.]

What does "fwat" actually mean? Is it an abbreviation, or something onomatopœic?

[jollytiddlywink]

What does "fwat" actually mean? Is it an abbreviation, or something onomatopœic?

I formed the impression that it was the sound made by the collision between redcelt's delusions and ignorance.

[RedCelt69]

[Anon.]

What does "fwat" actually mean?

This was a genuine question.

[SeniPhrone]

It's the sound of a humanist dehumanizing his opponents by saying they are as insects.

[jollytiddlywink]

G13, I encourage you to make an account for yourself here. That way your posts won't need to wait for moderation, and, with any luck, you'll hang around and keep posting. It's always nice to read well-written and thoughtful posts, spiced here and there with a bit of passion. Oh, and I'm glad you liked my joke about straight people miffed at being denied pink triangles. Its nice to be appreciated

Redcelt:
I think that people have, broadly speaking, three objections to what you are arguing for in this thread. I don't think anyone is arguing that you're not actually for equality (although I note that you seem unwilling to declare yourself anti-LGBT campaigners as you declared yourself anti-feminist). As I see them, here are the objections:

1. Saying that all movements should come under humanism is an entirely theoretical proposition, and not one which I find terribly convincing. One reason that particular groups, like the Suffragetes, or gay rights campaigners, or the NAACP, form around a particular agenda is that its a very effective way of getting things done. If you asked 100 people in the UK today if they support equal rights for women, I suspect you'd find they'd all say 'yes.'
Then ask how many of them actively pursue equal rights; you'll find that few people go out of their way to bring about what they are in favour of. Moreover, among those who actively pursue that goal, the proportion of 'feminists' is likely far higher than among the population who support equal rights but don't do anything about it. The same goes for LGBT rights; I know lots of people who support equality, but who don't go to parades or write to MPs, while a select few gay rights campaigners do those things, and make the progress.
Being theoretically in favour of equality for all is superb, but it doesn't necessarily get anything done. Those who have the most to gain from changing the system are the ones who set about changing it. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." didn't prompt Jefferson to free his slaves and then treat them as equals, or try to get his wife the vote. By and large, it was black people and women who won for themselves the measures of equality they have now.

2. Saying that all movements should come under humanism is a theory that has theoretical problems, noted above. It also has, as far as we can tell, rather severe practical problems. You can't (or at least, you haven't yet) point to any example of humanism or humanists taking an active roll in advancing equality. I emphasise again ACTIVE roll. Saying that Stonewall wouldn't have been necessary if everyone was a groovy humanist dodges the question. Most people in the UK today are groovy humanists, in that they support equality for women and LGBT folks and everyone else. But equality still isn't here. And as for you asking how I know that there weren't humanists at the Pride Parade in Moscow, I'll tell you how I know. There were, according to all the reports I can find, very few people there. No more than 30. They are all identified as "gay rights campaigners." Not so much as a hint of humanists. All those identified by name are gay rights campaigners, Dan Choi, Peter Tatchell and the like. At this point, it's really up to you to provide proof that humanists are doing something rather than asking everyone else to prove a negative case. And I respectfully suggest that a fair bit of evidence of a large number of humanists doing lots of stuff is required, as there is no shortage of evidence of what the LGBT rights movement has achieved for itself.

3. You do your own "I believe that all people are equal" "we are all the same" case absolutely no good by calling people who don't entirely agree with you fuckwits who live lower down the evolutionary tree, moths to a flame, people without a full deck of cards, kittens playing the piano... the list of belittling insults is extensive, and involves a surprising quantity of calling humans non-human.
For all that I disagree with macgamer, I've got to admit that I've never seen him call anyone a half-evolved idiot. Nor have I ever seen him respond to people's questions and arguments with sound-effects or photos of kittens. He at least has the courtesy to actually read what people have argued, and attempt to address their points in written English.



I thought, in the name of debate and some level of civility, that I'd have a go at refocusing this on the central issues as they appear to me, rather than see the thread degenerate into sniping from both sides (a descent in which I can't claim innocence, I know).

[Hennessy]

I'd like to edit this if it seems like I'm taking sides (I'm not). I'd just like to say that those who comment without logging in could be anyone - as such they are cowards and not worthy of opining - no matter how gracefully - on the debates of registered members. Grow a backbone before you post - it's the minimum of requirements here.

[Senethro]

Its obviously me on my mobile device, innit?

Also, most sinners could be anyone.

[Hennessy]

So why are you registered Senethro?

When you can slip into another identity as easily as unregs can though you can make any point from any perspective and subvert the whole idea of a reasonable debate. I didn't even read what G13 and Queercommunist have written. They could be the same person, or different people, or one side of one person, or many sides of many people.

Unaccountable, innit?

Takes 2 minutes to register - then I'll read what you have to say. Till then you're just white noise.

Like this:

[Anon.]

I've never understood the idea that unregistered users aren't worthy of a hearing. Surely what's important to the debate is the point being made, not who's making it?

[Senethro]

So why are you registered Senethro?

When you can slip into another identity as easily as unregs can though you can make any point from any perspective and subvert the whole idea of a reasonable debate. I didn't even read what G13 and Queercommunist have written. They could be the same person, or different people, or one side of one person, or many sides of many people.

Unaccountable, innit?

Takes 2 minutes to register - then I'll read what you have to say. Till then you're just white noise.

I do'nt see how registering an account does anything for what you said, but it sure makes it easier to post and stay logged in on.

Besides, when have you ever been interested in reasoned debate?

Also all this "you're appealing to base emotions and that's a logical fallacy" crap is for sissies, good arguments should have some guts behind them, I'm not playing Dungeons and Dragons with arguments and I'm certainly not trying to be Aristotle, I'm attacking someone who is so wrong it makes my blood boil. I'll leave the fancy argumentative swordplay to those gentlemen and women whose interests lie that way.

You just look like you'd rather vent about some women really actually being sluts, or people making documentaries and articles that make you angry.

[Hennessy]

Totally flattered that argument had such an impact on you Sen. Leaves me wondering how many sinners have trawled through my post history at some point.

I'm not sure how it comes across to you but that snippet basically says I argue for things I believe in rather than arguing for the sake of trying out different points of view or testing what I've learned in my PY module this week. It doesn't say anything about hating reasoned debate, it just deplores the stylising of arguments to the point of illegibility.

The fact you were able to go back and look up such a brilliant little paragraph (did I really write that? My stuff gets better with age ) gives you another good reason why people should be registered - so we know what they've said in the past in relation to a topic. A history gives you a personality doesn't it?

You just look like you'd rather vent about some women really actually being sluts, or people making documentaries and articles that make you angry.

Please God then post your own thread. I give this forum the digital equivalent of a pity fuck every couple of weeks or so by putting up stuff I hope will get a debate going. So far apart from piling in on Redcelt nobody seems to want to talk about anything, unless you count the constant bitching and using unregs.

[RedCelt69]

I think that people have, broadly speaking, three objections to what you are arguing for in this thread.

I'm always wary of people who claim to be speaking on behalf of others. Unless you've had a meeting, agreed on some key points and had yourself declared as the spokesman. Otherwise, how about you describe your own objections, rather than attempt (that grand old logical fallacy) argument by numbers.

I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again: truth is not democratic.

1. Saying that all movements should come under humanism is an entirely theoretical proposition

Damn and blast anyone who suggests a way of improving things, eh? I'm not suggesting that demonstrative people become less demonstrative. I'm suggesting that they are demonstrative under a unified banner. Minorities would achieve more if their voice was less of a minority. A unified voice, demanding that all humans be treated like humans (by other humans) rather than their subset being given equality. Rather than the three readily-provided minority positions, how about dwarfs being treated more fairly? Or gingers? Or albinos? Or any other minority position by which that position really is a minority - with practically zero representation.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." didn't prompt Jefferson to free his slaves and then treat them as equals, or try to get his wife the vote. By and large, it was black people and women who won for themselves the measures of equality they have now.

By and large? Are you aware of the work of non-blacks and non-females towards that aim, or don't they matter? My blog page contains (among other portraits) JS Mill and Mark Twain. Both men were very vocal in the support of female equality. You'll find very few feminists listing either man in their history of the movement.

And as for you asking how I know that there weren't humanists at the Pride Parade in Moscow, I'll tell you how I know. There were, according to all the reports I can find, very few people there. No more than 30. They are all identified as "gay rights campaigners." Not so much as a hint of humanists.

Is a person's belief system existent upon their beliefs, or upon the labels they give themselves? For all you know, all 30 of those people were humanists. For you to say that none of them were was a position based on... what (other than projection)?

evidence of a large number of humanists doing lots of stuff is required

Not by me, it isn't. I'm proposing how humanism can be, not how it is or how it was... as it has had various meanings since the days of Socrates. It already does campaign, but saying that the campaigning isn't loud enough or prolonged enough does nothing whatsoever to challenge the idea that all minority campaigners united under humanism isn't a better and much stronger fighting position.

3. You do your own "I believe that all people are equal" "we are all the same" case absolutely no good by calling people who don't entirely agree with you fuckwits

And here, your fuckwittery outshines itself (and gives me cause to tell you as much). I don't call everyone who disagrees with me fuckwits. Never have done, never will do. There are lots of people who simply disagree with me, but do so without completely misunderstanding my position. If someone tells me that 2+2 isn't 4, then I'll call them a fuckwit. If they can agree on the basic premises, but disagree on matters of opinion... I don't think of them as fuckwits. I think of them as people with differing opinions. And that's a good thing. In fact, that's a very good thing indeed. It would be a boring world if everyone had the same views.

Fuckwits are the ones who completely fail to grasp the basics, use logical fallacies, or... y'know, a whole list of potential things that demonstrate that they are, indeed, fuckwits.

Intelligence is not a binary state. It is on a sliding scale. To some, you most definitely wouldn't be described as a fuckwit. To others you would. Unless you have some bizarre notion that everyone posting and reading here are on a tableau of identical intelligence... you shouldn't be too surprised when you're called on it by someone more intelligent than you. And, based on your performance in this thread, you're not teetering on any apex.

For all that I disagree with macgamer, I've got to admit that I've never seen him call anyone a half-evolved idiot. Nor have I ever seen him respond to people's questions and arguments with sound-effects or photos of kittens. He at least has the courtesy to actually read what people have argued, and attempt to address their points in written English.

I've not been counting (and I sometimes skim-read) but I believe that you've raised macgamer's name twice in this thread now. My guess would be that you're wishing that I was just as much of a fish-in-the-barrel to debate with as he, but you're a tad peeved that you're (to use your parlance) losing this one.