Well, I made a novel point, and I accounted for the possibility of husbands who were good people and who didn’t beat their wives. And then you promptly ignored me and made the same point again while pretending I made a different point than the one I made. If you don’t want a circle, don’t do one. I told you, history isn’t all black eyes. You seem to have just completely pretended I didn’t say that.
I’m gonna be honest, I read “Traditional gender roles are abusive 100% of the time,” and didn’t bother to read anything else. Maybe that makes me the bad faith guy, but I feel like once I’ve taken one bite of the dinner and it tasted that obviously wrong, I don’t need to just keep eating and hope it gets better.
I just went back and skimmed your whole comment. Okay, so you’re talking about the abusive legal structures that often went alongside consenting traditional roles. Yes, those are fucked, as I already said. If you are against those, I am with you on that, and I am aware that people sometimes call those “traditional” as a way of excusing them. As I already said, that’s not what I am doing and not what I am talking about.
We’re saying, I think, more or less the same thing, as far as what parts are okay and what parts are not. Although you’re still framing it in a way that seems like it’s making this blanket statement about the other grouping that would never be okay directed at a queer or otherwise “friendly” grouping.
I see your points through the semantic fog. You had it at a problem of definitions and it doesn’t appear to have gone away. One side defending personal intent and the other highlighting historic institutional malaise. Very little actually discussing, you both just happened to be making adjacent points in the same topic for the most part.
They’re right in their analysis of the mores and norms that the system allows, even if their claim of no good people existing under a broken system is absurd.
You ain’t in bad faith, it’s more exhausting to get pinged by friendly IFF misreadings than extreme ideological opposites nowadays. That whole leftists eating leftists series of jokes applies somewhat.
Yeah dude. Everyone’s just looking for an enemy to dunk on. It’s like “Aha! I got one!” and they get all excited to debunk some kind of imaginary shit that no one involved in the conversation is saying.
Tbh your comments are all leading with pretty incindiary lines and just casting “dude” onto whoever is pretty fucking annoying, regardless of how much one might argue “it’s gender neutral”
And I’m squarely against dunk culture, these are just some friendly requests 🙂
Yeah, you’re not wrong. I tend to use “dude” and “man” and the like and it’s probably not a good idea even when we’re not talking about gender and misogyny specifically.
Well, I made a novel point, and I accounted for the possibility of husbands who were good people and who didn’t beat their wives. And then you promptly ignored me and made the same point again while pretending I made a different point than the one I made. If you don’t want a circle, don’t do one. I told you, history isn’t all black eyes. You seem to have just completely pretended I didn’t say that.
I’m gonna be honest, I read “Traditional gender roles are abusive 100% of the time,” and didn’t bother to read anything else. Maybe that makes me the bad faith guy, but I feel like once I’ve taken one bite of the dinner and it tasted that obviously wrong, I don’t need to just keep eating and hope it gets better.
I just went back and skimmed your whole comment. Okay, so you’re talking about the abusive legal structures that often went alongside consenting traditional roles. Yes, those are fucked, as I already said. If you are against those, I am with you on that, and I am aware that people sometimes call those “traditional” as a way of excusing them. As I already said, that’s not what I am doing and not what I am talking about.
We’re saying, I think, more or less the same thing, as far as what parts are okay and what parts are not. Although you’re still framing it in a way that seems like it’s making this blanket statement about the other grouping that would never be okay directed at a queer or otherwise “friendly” grouping.
Edit: Made less inflammatory
I see your points through the semantic fog. You had it at a problem of definitions and it doesn’t appear to have gone away. One side defending personal intent and the other highlighting historic institutional malaise. Very little actually discussing, you both just happened to be making adjacent points in the same topic for the most part.
They’re right in their analysis of the mores and norms that the system allows, even if their claim of no good people existing under a broken system is absurd.
You ain’t in bad faith, it’s more exhausting to get pinged by friendly IFF misreadings than extreme ideological opposites nowadays. That whole leftists eating leftists series of jokes applies somewhat.
Yeah dude. Everyone’s just looking for an enemy to dunk on. It’s like “Aha! I got one!” and they get all excited to debunk some kind of imaginary shit that no one involved in the conversation is saying.
Tbh your comments are all leading with pretty incindiary lines and just casting “dude” onto whoever is pretty fucking annoying, regardless of how much one might argue “it’s gender neutral”
And I’m squarely against dunk culture, these are just some friendly requests 🙂
Yeah, you’re not wrong. I tend to use “dude” and “man” and the like and it’s probably not a good idea even when we’re not talking about gender and misogyny specifically.
Ooh I kind of want to read the inflammatory one!
Eh. I was trying to keep it productive. Railcar8095 already made in a nicer way the point that I made in an argumentative way and then deleted.
This summarizes the problem with your argument. You have such biased opinion that this is what you consider giving a concession.
Same energy as “I didn’t say ALL trans groom children”, basically.