board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Sun 09 Dec , 2018 8:47 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu 08 Feb , 2018 2:06 pm 

Joined: Fri 10 Aug , 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 1490
yovargas wrote:
I have not read the very long article as I am fatigued about this topic but that seeing quote certainly doesn't do much to think that this person is interested in a reasonable, fair-minded discussion.


I find it pretty disturbing when people read a snippet from a very long and thoughtful article, admit they haven't read the full article, and then judge the intent of the article based on two sentences. That, to me, is one of the biggest problems with internet discussions these days.



Frelga, I agree that her argument there is exaggerated and/or not entirely logical (maybe poorly argued?) and I don't entirely agree with her, as I said earlier. But what's malicious about it?


Edited a couple of times for clarity - not obvious what I was responding to - and once for a typo. :)

_________________
It is this we learn after so many failures,
The building of castles in sand, of queens in snow,
That we cannot make any corner in life or in life's beauty,
That no river is a river which does not flow.

- Louis MacNeice, Autumn Journal


Trump Warns That Democrats Would Drag Nation Back to Days of Tolerance and Decorum


Last edited by aninkling on Thu 08 Feb , 2018 3:10 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 08 Feb , 2018 2:07 pm 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7878
Location: Ireland
I agree with you aninkling. I think its safe to say that "escaping the echo chamber" as a concept hasn't really worked.

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 08 Feb , 2018 2:29 pm 

Joined: Fri 10 Aug , 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 1490
I'm not too surprised, Alatar. It's easier to stick to our own ruts (I can be guilty of it myself) and I wasn't expecting miracles. All the same, I still think the exposure to other viewpoints is good in itself. At least, you realize that not everyone thinks the same way as your own in-group.


But I think I'm going to forget about this thread myself, except maybe to post an article once in a while and let people either read it or ignore it, as they like.

_________________
It is this we learn after so many failures,
The building of castles in sand, of queens in snow,
That we cannot make any corner in life or in life's beauty,
That no river is a river which does not flow.

- Louis MacNeice, Autumn Journal


Trump Warns That Democrats Would Drag Nation Back to Days of Tolerance and Decorum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 08 Feb , 2018 3:07 pm 

Joined: Fri 10 Aug , 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 1490
Speaking of which, I had this article bookmarked a long time ago, but kept forgetting to post it. It's from the Atlantic and discusses illegal immigration.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
Quote:
How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

In the past decade, liberals have avoided inconvenient truths about the issue.


The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.

_________________
It is this we learn after so many failures,
The building of castles in sand, of queens in snow,
That we cannot make any corner in life or in life's beauty,
That no river is a river which does not flow.

- Louis MacNeice, Autumn Journal


Trump Warns That Democrats Would Drag Nation Back to Days of Tolerance and Decorum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 09 Feb , 2018 12:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14177
aninkling wrote:
I find it pretty disturbing when people read a snippet from a very long and thoughtful article, admit they haven't read the full article, and then judge the intent of the article based on two sentences. That, to me, is one of the biggest problems with internet discussions these days.


Considering that I can't read everything everywhere, I'm not sure what other metric you think I should use to decide what is or is not worth reading.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 09 Feb , 2018 12:15 pm 

Joined: Fri 10 Aug , 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 1490
yovargas wrote:
aninkling wrote:
I find it pretty disturbing when people read a snippet from a very long and thoughtful article, admit they haven't read the full article, and then judge the intent of the article based on two sentences. That, to me, is one of the biggest problems with internet discussions these days.


Considering that I can't read everything everywhere, I'm not sure what other metric you think I should use to decide what is or is not worth reading.


But you've missed the whole point of escaping the echo chamber. If you actually want to do that, you need to read and consider other viewpoints before forming an opinion and commenting. Which means reading the entire essay first.

You can use whatever criteria you like to decide what you want to read. I ignore a lot of articles. These days, that includes nearly everything about MeToo or the latest man to be accused of sexual assault or harassment. But that means I don't comment or think I know what something is about until I do a little research and reading. When Lali brought up Aziz Ansari, I searched for an article from a reputable news source so I'd have some basis for responding. Because the first thing I found was an editorial, I later went back and looked at other sources, including "Amy's" original account, before deciding whether or not I agreed with Lali.

That's all I have to say in this discussion. But since you responded, I wanted to give you the courtesy of a reply.

_________________
It is this we learn after so many failures,
The building of castles in sand, of queens in snow,
That we cannot make any corner in life or in life's beauty,
That no river is a river which does not flow.

- Louis MacNeice, Autumn Journal


Trump Warns That Democrats Would Drag Nation Back to Days of Tolerance and Decorum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 09 Feb , 2018 11:07 pm 
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
Posts: 19973
Well, I can't read the full article because I'm not a subscriber, so there's that. :shrug: :neutral:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb , 2018 12:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14177
aninkling wrote:
But you've missed the whole point of escaping the echo chamber.


The whole point of escaping the echo chamber is that one should read articles that contain objectively false statements and fallacious arguments? I would avoid reading such an article regardless of whether I thought I agreed or disagreed with it and in fact, this is probably the case here as there is a good chance I would agree with much of this author's opinion. But regardless of the opinion being expressed, I would still rather it be done with honest arguments instead of false ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb , 2018 7:15 pm 

Joined: Fri 10 Aug , 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 1490
Sorry, Lali. I assume you mean the Harper's article? It wasn't behind a firewall when I posted it - I read it as a direct link from an economics news source - but the main Harper's page seems to have gone behind a firewall since then. I just checked the main page and I can't access that.


Try this if you want to read it - it works for me. Go to the article discussing it in The National Review and click on the "essay" link in paragraph 2. There might be usable links in other sources, too, but when I did a search, this was one of the safer-seeming sources (or, at least, one I recognized as legit).
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456120/katie-roiphe-harpers-essay-common-sense

_________________
It is this we learn after so many failures,
The building of castles in sand, of queens in snow,
That we cannot make any corner in life or in life's beauty,
That no river is a river which does not flow.

- Louis MacNeice, Autumn Journal


Trump Warns That Democrats Would Drag Nation Back to Days of Tolerance and Decorum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 10 Feb , 2018 8:42 pm 

Joined: Fri 10 Aug , 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 1490
I might as well post this old editorial now, too. Some people might be interested. Perhaps not a surprise that some of us who read the recent article said "mostly, yes, I agree," but also "wait a second - that's a bit farther than I can go" at a few points. :)
https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/08/this-round-to-katie-roiphe/197178/
Quote:
This Round to Katie Roiphe

As I read Katie Roiphe's elegant essay "My Newborn Is Like a Narcotic," I thought back to my days in her classes at New York University, where I found her to be among the best professors on an exceptionally talented faculty. ... Professor Roiphe encouraged me to learn how polemic can improve a piece of writing. Just as a mother who otherwise refrains from spanking her toddler might do so for shock value to imprint the particular lesson that one doesn't run out into the street, Katie believed that even the most fair-minded writer must sometimes twist the rhetorical knife so that the distracted average reader, skimming along in multitasking mode, is jolted into actually engaging the argument at hand.

Though Prof. Roiphe's style isn't my own, I think it suits her wonderfully, admire most of her writing, and consider myself a more formidable writer for learning how to incorporate flashes of her style into my own work. I've also noted that she's used polemic more sparingly as her own career has progressed. In fact, I'd argue that she's long since tuned her arguments pitch perfect.

...Prof. Roiphe is an exceptional writing talent, and her academic endeavors are largely concerned with advancing the understanding, appreciation and influence of exceptional women writers. You'd think that would make her a friend to feminists, but apparently offering the slightest critique of movement feminism is enough to provoke intemperate, factually inaccurate attacks that either willfully or negligently misrepresent the substance of the piece at issue. I can't help but be reminded of the way that certain folks on the right react anytime that movement conservatism is criticized. Let me assure the feminist left that they proceed in the same manner at their peril.

_________________
It is this we learn after so many failures,
The building of castles in sand, of queens in snow,
That we cannot make any corner in life or in life's beauty,
That no river is a river which does not flow.

- Louis MacNeice, Autumn Journal


Trump Warns That Democrats Would Drag Nation Back to Days of Tolerance and Decorum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 11 Feb , 2018 12:08 am 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7878
Location: Ireland
yovargas wrote:
aninkling wrote:
But you've missed the whole point of escaping the echo chamber.


The whole point of escaping the echo chamber is that one should read articles that contain objectively false statements and fallacious arguments? I would avoid reading such an article regardless of whether I thought I agreed or disagreed with it and in fact, this is probably the case here as there is a good chance I would agree with much of this author's opinion. But regardless of the opinion being expressed, I would still rather it be done with honest arguments instead of false ones.


Which argument was false and dishonest?

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb , 2018 2:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14177
Quote:
If on some subterranean level of this conversation all men are presumed guilty, then all women are innocent, and I guess my question is, Do we really want that innocence? What is the price of it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb , 2018 5:41 am 
A green apple painted red
User avatar

Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Posts: 3421
Location: Out on the banks
IAWY
I don't give a frying quack about innocence. I care about women feeling safe in public spaces where men feel safe (hence the hypocrisy of the argument about a man going into a dangerous neighborhood - we are talking about spaces where only women feel threatened). I care about women having access to the same lucrative professional opportunities as men do, and about women being secure in knowing that no one has the right to touch them without their explicit permission. I'm OK with their being dire consequences for those who try to take those things from women as a group. Even if that includes ending a "career" of a man long past the age of retirement for contributing to the society where men decide when a woman deserves to be assaulted.

_________________
GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb , 2018 9:30 am 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7878
Location: Ireland
Wow. Well that's... unreasonable. Can't see any common ground for discussion there.

Frelga wrote:
I don't give a frying quack about innocence.

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb , 2018 9:45 am 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7878
Location: Ireland
yovargas wrote:
Quote:
If on some subterranean level of this conversation all men are presumed guilty, then all women are innocent, and I guess my question is, Do we really want that innocence? What is the price of it?



That's pretty straightforward. If you make the argument completely reductive on one side, then you must do the same on the other. You can't assume all men are monsters and all women are angels. Its a farcical approach.

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb , 2018 4:29 pm 
A green apple painted red
User avatar

Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Posts: 3421
Location: Out on the banks
Alatar wrote:
Wow. Well that's... unreasonable. Can't see any common ground for discussion there.

Frelga wrote:
I don't give a frying quack about innocence.
yovargas wrote:
Quote:
If on some subterranean level of this conversation all men are presumed guilty, then all women are innocent, and I guess my question is, Do we really want that innocence? What is the price of it?
I thought it was clear that I was referring to the metaphysical innocence in the paragraph above and not the courtroom-verdict guilt or innocence.

_________________
GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 12 Feb , 2018 7:45 pm 
Garrulous Griffon
User avatar

Joined: Fri 05 Nov , 2004 12:21 pm
Posts: 2147
Location: Moving away from the madding crowd
Okay, I see what Alatar is saying but in my opinion it misses the mark, because:

The issue isn’t assuming all men are monsters and all women are angels. That would be a ridiculous thing to assume. I think we can all agree on that.

The issue is believing women when they speak up about abuse, harassment, and assault. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that until very recently, men were usually the ones believed.

Why, Donald Trump, president of the United States, was throwing shade at women accusing Rob Porter just last week, despite the fact that there is photographic evidence of abuse! And remember the NFL, where it took a shocking video before they would do something about Ray Rice? Alatar may not be aware of that case, since the NFL isn’t a UK thing, but it is worth reading about. The men running the NFL just assumed their male player’s story was the truth and his fiancee’s was a lie. How about Brock Turner? A plea about how this poor young man’s life was impacted by being a sexual predator lead to a sweetheart slap on the wrist for him as the male judge dismissed the impact statement by the female victim.

Now, Mr Trump is a bit behind the times with his reaction, but that is how these things used to be treated: the person believed was the man, not the woman.

The judge whose heart moved when hearing the plea of a young student-athlete from his alma mater, but stayed still for a woman victim’s plea, is facing a recall effort. So there's that.

The men from the NFL had this excuse: it would cost some of them a lot of money if they acted against Ray Rice, and what is a woman’s words against cold hard cash? Fortunately enough people were appalled when the video leaked that they had to do something --- or they would have lost money.

So yeah, I’m sure that all comes a cross as a bit bitter and harsh. But dammit, being on the female side of this crap is bitter. Take the male reaction to this kind of stuff, the reaction to the prick of false accusation, the sense of unfairness ( “all women are innocent now?????” ) and multiply that by thousands, by real evidence, by lifetimes of frustration at being treated unequally, and see how far that gets you towards understanding a bit of the female rage around this topic.

_________________
moment's hurt may harm or scar
but not inert nor beaten are
those who look and see afar
the healing hand of morning's star.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 13 Feb , 2018 10:06 am 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7878
Location: Ireland
Frelga wrote:
Alatar wrote:
Wow. Well that's... unreasonable. Can't see any common ground for discussion there.

Frelga wrote:
I don't give a frying quack about innocence.
yovargas wrote:
Quote:
If on some subterranean level of this conversation all men are presumed guilty, then all women are innocent, and I guess my question is, Do we really want that innocence? What is the price of it?
I thought it was clear that I was referring to the metaphysical innocence in the paragraph above and not the courtroom-verdict guilt or innocence.


This may be semantics but I didn't think she meant "innocence" in the sense of unaware, but in the sense of having their own agency and culpability.

But again, I feel like we're shouting past each other in the dark here. The purpose of this thread is to try to see other views, not to keep shouting loudest about how those views are WRONG! There's two entire boards at your disposal if you want people to agree that women have been and are still regularly unfairly treated. Don't think anyone is arguing that. The point of this well thought out and well reasoned article is that we can accept that without swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. Have any of you read it?


Griffon64 wrote:
Okay, I see what Alatar is saying but in my opinion it misses the mark, because:

The issue isn’t assuming all men are monsters and all women are angels. That would be a ridiculous thing to assume. I think we can all agree on that.

The issue is believing women when they speak up about abuse, harassment, and assault. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that until very recently, men were usually the ones believed.

Snip

So yeah, I’m sure that all comes a cross as a bit bitter and harsh. But dammit, being on the female side of this crap is bitter. Take the male reaction to this kind of stuff, the reaction to the prick of false accusation, the sense of unfairness ( “all women are innocent now?????” ) and multiply that by thousands, by real evidence, by lifetimes of frustration at being treated unequally, and see how far that gets you towards understanding a bit of the female rage around this topic.


But that's kinda the point Griffy. In any other thread, yours is the "right" and expected reaction. The point of this thread is to try to look past that and see the other side, even when you don't agree. Actually, particularly when you don't agree. Its easy to see the validity of arguments you agree with. Much harder to acknowledge the validity of ones you find distasteful, particularly at a gut level.

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 13 Feb , 2018 10:45 am 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7878
Location: Ireland
Coincidentally, this popped up in my Tech feed today about the #NotNolan campaign (which I confess I was previously unaware of). I think it's a pretty balanced article and I'd be curious to see what others, and particularly Griffy, think of this one.

https://kotaku.com/sex-pong-and-pioneer ... 1822930057

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 13 Feb , 2018 1:46 pm 

Joined: Fri 10 Aug , 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 1490
Along the same lines, another article to consider - but about art rather than gaming.

The New York Times is behind a firewall, but I think you can register and read a small number of articles for free.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/arts/design/chuck-close-exhibit-harassment-accusations.html
Quote:
Now, museums around the world are wrestling with the implications of a decision, by the National Gallery of Art in Washington, to indefinitely postpone a Chuck Close exhibition because of allegations of sexual harassment involving potential portrait models that have engulfed the prominent artist in controversy. Mr. Close has called the allegations “lies” and said he is “being crucified.”

The postponement news on Thursday has raised difficult questions about what to do with the paintings and photographs of Mr. Close — held by museums like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Tate in London and the Pompidou in Paris, as well as by high-spending private collectors — and whether the work of other artists accused of questionable conduct needs to be revisited or recontextualized.

It is a provocative moment for the art world, as the public debate about separating creative output from personal conduct moves from popular culture into the realm of major visual artists from different eras and the institutions that have long collected and exhibited their pieces.


(Though Alatar's article has additional aspects to consider, beyond how/ whether personal behavior affects the value of the product.)

_________________
It is this we learn after so many failures,
The building of castles in sand, of queens in snow,
That we cannot make any corner in life or in life's beauty,
That no river is a river which does not flow.

- Louis MacNeice, Autumn Journal


Trump Warns That Democrats Would Drag Nation Back to Days of Tolerance and Decorum


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group