Last Saturday, we lost one of America's pioneering feminists, Andrea Dworkin. She was most famous for her attack on pornography as the industry at the center of physical violence and cultural degradation. Dworkin did the unthinkable; she described pornography in graphic detail, unmasking the industry as woman-hating propaganda, violent in its practice and potently political in its cultural impact.
She also challenged America's narrow perpective on feminine beauty. She refused to participate in that cultural oppression.
Her efforts are greatly appreciated.
You mean the misandrist censor who was against all forms of healthy sexual expression, who claimed that pornography leads to rape (a silly unscientific fallacy unsupported by the evidence), who claimed that porn violates all women's civil rights, who claimed that all sex is rape, who claimed that it is not possible for men to get raped, and who claimed that even gay male porn is degrading to women? Sure, her efforts are greatly appreciated.
Circus sideshows jesters usually are.
And yeah, she shrugged off the oppression society places on women's looks. If you call combing your hair an oppressive habit.
But Luigi, tell us what you reallly think!
Yeah, I really gotta come outta my shell.
Andrea helped form the framework for our modern understanding of sexuality. She took an honest look at sexuality. She wasn't interested in pandering to male sexual fantasies. She forced us to look at the ugliness of violence and degradation of women. Men who consume materials which degrade women must be held accountable. This applies to not only violence against women. Tim Robbins, a very thoughtful sensitive actor, said we must question films which promote revenge killing such as the Kill Bill films.
How can anybody question Andrea's findings. In a world where millions of girls are enslaved in brothels and violence against women is epidemic. Andrea forced selfish males to consider the female's role in sexuality. Women were entitled to pleasure to. They are more than just objects for males to masturbate on and abuse.
Andrea helped liberate women and men. For that, we should all be thankful.
Unless one is a very impressionable human being, the Kill Bill films do not promote revenge killing. The movies about an international assassin who seeks revenge on her former assassin confederates for their attempts to kill her. Not exactly a very relatable situation, no? The movie is also about a resourceful and intelligent female character that basically kills or maims anyone that tries to take advantage of her. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't see it as condoning revenge. It's just too cartoony of a film to really take seriously.
How can anybody question Andrea's findings
Because her findings were those of a crackpot. All sex is rape? Gay porn degrades women? If she sounds like a loon, walks like a loon, and quacks like a loon, then I'm going to question her loony findings.
Rona: Andrea helped form the framework for our modern understanding of sexuality.
Luigi Novi: Dworkin has not contributed a bit to our modern understanding of sexuality. Our modern view of sexuality is one that acknowledges that sexuality isa healthy part of our lives, and can and should be expressed and discussed openly. Dworkin’s view on sexuality is 180 degrees out of phase with this, and exists on the fringe.
Rona: Men who consume materials which degrade women must be held accountable.
Luigi Novi: Accountable for what?
Rona: Tim Robbins, a very thoughtful sensitive actor, said we must question films which promote revenge killing such as the Kill Bill films.
Luigi Novi: In which the vast majority of characters killed were male, a point you refused to answer in a previous discussion about that film.
Rona How can anybody question Andrea's findings.
Luigi Novi: By virtue of the fact that they were unscientific, and rhetorical. Dworkin claimed that pornography leads to rape, that all sex is rape, that it is not possible for men to get raped, and that even gay male porn is degrading to women. All are false. So what else can any reasonable person not suffering from a mental disorder do than question her “findings”? I pointed out these “findings” of hers above, and you (big shocker here) ignored it.
Rona Women were entitled to pleasure to. They are more than just objects for males to masturbate on and abuse. Andrea helped liberate women and men. For that, we should all be thankful.
Luigi Novi: And how are women supposed to avail themselves to pleasure if all sex is rape, and if the male organ is inherently aggressive and violent, as Dworkin preached? Who has ever stated that women are just objects to be masturbated on? And in what way has she “liberated” women? She did nothing for women, except tell them that all sex was bad.
If Andrea had a fault, it was that she was brutally honest. Much sex is violent, brutal, and degrading to women. She is not a crackpot, but, in fact, an aclaimed feminist icon. Her books were an integral part of most womens'studies programs and should also be a part of every woman's library.
Most of her critics are Archie Bunker types and right-wing women oppressors. It would be beneath me to respond to their garbage.
Unfortunately, grossly insensitive males find violent and sexually degrading imagery of women to be arousing. In her own words, "Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right". I have pointed out some of the offenders. Quentin Tarentino is a prime example. His brutal films were the type of hateful garbage Andrea fought against. Who can defend a vile woman hater who features a "vagina-salesman" (From Dusk Till Dawn) in one of his films. If that isn't the most repulsive form of sexual objectification.
I'll end by quoting her again:
"Being female in this world is having been robbed of potential for human choice by men who love to hate us".
Wow. Manages to not describe anyone I've been related to or romantically involved with.
Quote:"Being female in this world is having been robbed of potential for human choice by men who love to hate us".
Consider me her critic, and not described in this manner.
Quote:Most of her critics are Archie Bunker types and right-wing women oppressors. It would be beneath me to respond to their garbage.
You again ignore the fact that Tarentino's most recent film Kill Bill featured a largely female cast; the main character was an independent woman who resists male attempts to dominate her body and soul. Tarentino came up with the idea in collaboration with a woman, Uma Thurman. I realize that this may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I find little evidence to indicate that Tarentino is a woman-hater.
I moved the anon post for being profane.
Profoundly profane and yes I knew she was dead. It just sounded better than the words that rhymed with shell which is where she no doubt wound up. But she was very messed in the head.
That kind of man hating crud that is flung around like so much monkey poo is very annoying and I am running out of bubble gum.
And Rona has had several opportunities to listen to reasonable discussion about this but doesnt do so. So I wave my hand and say feh upon it all.
Rona: If Andrea had a fault, it was that she was brutally honest.
Luigi Novi: And bigoted, narrow-minded, and intellectually dishonest. Shocking that she's your hero.
Rona: She is not a crackpot, but, in fact, an aclaimed feminist icon.
Luigi Novi: Many crackpots, dictators, and monsters throughout history have been “acclaimed.” Doesn’t mean much.
Rona: Most of her critics are Archie Bunker types and right-wing women oppressors.
Luigi Novi: And the others, such as myself, are simply level-headed, intelligent people who see her conclusions as the pseudoscientific garbage that it is.
Rona: It would be beneath me to respond to their garbage.
Luigi Novi: What a surprise. God forbid you respond to the problems that others point out in her (or your) arguments.
Rona: I have pointed out some of the offenders. Quentin Tarentino is a prime example. His brutal films were the type of hateful garbage Andrea fought against.
Luigi Novi: Despite the fact that more men were killed in that film than women, and despite the fact that this has been pointed out to many times before, a fact that you simply chicken out of responding to.
Rona: Who can defend a vile woman hater who features a "vagina-salesman" (From Dusk Till Dawn) in one of his films. If that isn't the most repulsive form of sexual objectification.
Luigi Novi: Anyone who realizes that characters in fiction are often bad guys, as almost all the ones in that movie were.
Rona: I'll end by quoting her again: "Being female in this world is having been robbed of potential for human choice by men who love to hate us".
Luigi Novi: “The greater the lie, the more people will believe it.” –Adolf Hitler.
Does quoting Hitler count as a violation of Godwin's law?
j/w
If Andrea had a fault, it was that she was brutally honest. Much sex is violent, brutal, and degrading to women. She is not a crackpot, but, in fact, an aclaimed feminist icon. Her books were an integral part of most womens'studies programs and should also be a part of every woman's library.
She to feminism what PETA is to animal rights activists. Such an over the top nut job that she gave the opposition ammo to use in the form of "people like her are what feminism is all about." The work of her and those like her turned feminism from the mainstream following that it had in the past into the epitaph it is today. These days even many women who believe in all of the basic principals of feminism says the famous "well I'm not a feminist or anything but I do believe in equal pay for equal work/reproductive freedom/sexual freedom/putting away rapists (even if they were on a date at the time)
Most of her critics are Archie Bunker types and right-wing women oppressors. It would be beneath me to respond to their garbage.
Is that really how you would characterize Luigi, myself and Benn?
So if all Dworkin's work is true, TrekGrrl and her sister are the products of rape?
Gee, that's news to me!
I could make some very rude commetns but I wont. Although if how my wife and I got our kids was rape it was certianly news to us too.
This Andrea person sounds like someone who had a very bad relationship at one point and then never got over it.
I hold suspect anyone who attacks one of the feminist movement's guiding lights. I now understand why some people have been a bit dense and unable to grasp the significance of film violence against women. Unfortunately, some Archie Bunker types are still around. Sad, really, since it's the 21st century. But what can we expect, when Christians pick another reactionary male to be their Pope. Another male who denies the abilities of women to be leaders (priests).
And what about violence against men? So, it's okay to portray a guy getting killed/beaten whatever, yet if you portray the same for a woman you're a monster? Talk about your hypocritical views. Just look at greek (I think) tales of women doing nasty things to men (ie The Sirens, Circe etc) I don't see anyone complaining about them, saying they're sexist.
Look, I'm all for equal opportunities, equal pay for a man and a woman that have the same qualifications (or at least are resonably close) and are going to be doing the same job, want sexual predators and criminals locked up etc.
I am however, against this man hating stuff. Or the type of situations where it's to the point where, if you opened a men only gym, people would be picketing it and everything screaming sexism, yet there are woman-only ones all over the place and no one minds.
A man finding a woman attractive is not a crime nor is it wrong. It is a perfectly normal biological and mental process. How one acts upon that attraction is what can make it right or wrong.
The 'all sex is rape' thing may in fact be an urban legend, see http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm . (Although this seems to be about a diffrent person, the quote may in this case be false as well).
Why are you all wasting your time here? It's clear that Rona has no wish to debate the matter. I too disagree very strongly with her views but I will save my fingers. Just ignore it and she will go away.
Most of her critics are Archie Bunker types and right-wing women oppressors. - Rona
So, do you prefer to be called "Dingbat" or "Meathead"? (I'm just kidding!! No, really!)
I think there is one point of misunderstanding here: It's about Rona's comments on the movie Kill Bill (which, as we all know, she so hates). Everyone, it seems, has taken notice of her comment, "Tim Robbins, a very thoughtful sensitive actor, said we must question films which promote revenge killing such as the Kill Bill films." But what seems to be overlooked is the sentence just before it: "This applies to not only violence against women." In other words, she doesn't seem to be descrying Kill Bill on the basis of the violence against women. Just the revenge angle. Of course, you've gotta wonder why Rona doesn't point this out herself? I would have if it was my comments. But that's just me.
Of course, Rona is under the impression that Quentin Tarantino directed From Dusk 'Til Dawn. He didn't. He was going to direct it. But he handed it over to Robert Rodriguez. Tarantino did write the screenplay (the story was written by Robert Kurtzman) and starred in it. But it's not really a Tarantino film. As for Cheech Marin's "Pu$$y Rap", I heard (and this may be wrong) that Cheech is the one who improvised it, thus blaming Quentin for it may be absolutely wrong.
Just some further comments.
"As for me, give me liberty or give me death."
Actually, my comments are strictly about Andrea Dworkin, my very least favorite academic (this week). Since this topic is about her passing, is it not?
The philosophy of "sex is male opression is violence is all rape" is very silly. Claiming Dworkin's critics are a bunch of Archie Bunker times is doubly so, as last time I checked I was a liberal atheist. Married to a Witch, no less.
I am such a white male opressor I have actually driven my wife to coven rituals. Witchcraft was intended and to some eyes even accomplished.
How Archie Bunker of me.
Dworkin's philosophies remain very, very silly.
Rona, do you still wish to tar me with that wide brush?
You're such a Neanderthal, Morgan, that you've even been in the same room as a bunch of working witches!
Okay, I really had nothing to add to this topic, except this is one of the silliest things I've ever read.
And how long have you been here?
For one thing, it's not just the left that has criticised the Kill Bill films. Last week, Bill O'Reilly condemned the Kill Bill films on The Factor. When both the left and the right are in agreement, it's obvious something is WRONG. Luigi keeps repeating the lie that I said all the victims in the films were female. I never said that ( the most sadistic and protracted suffering is reserved for females in those films, however). He also compares Dworkin to Hitler. This is very telling. For a generation, there has been continuous ugly attacks on feminism. Rush Limbaugh, year after year, denounces feminists as "Femi-Nazis". Anytime an oppressed people speak up, they are attacked and attempts are made to suppress them. But the comparison of Dworkin is doubly offensive since fighting anti-Sermitism was also one of her primary concerned. She also noted that sexism, violence, and bigotry are interrelated. The right wing which attacks feminism as being wrong also preaches how "Creationism" is right. Such voices of reason.
Luigi also claims feminists rely only on rhetorical evidence. WRONG. Every woman who has been the victim of abuse and violence has the factual evidence of their own abuse (they've seen what total pigs and monsters men can be). Those who work as victim advocates and in shelters for battered women see the evidence everyday. The crime statistics support them too.
I'm not saying you have too agree with every one of Dworkin's views. Upon her death, you could offer a few gracious words in support of a precious voice that has been silenced. Some right wing males don't value a woman with her own independent opinion. Their kind of woman is brain-dead such as Terri Schiavo.
Where did Luigi say any of that? He criticized Dworkin, not all feminists. Also the Hitler quote was relevant to the debate, not because he thinks or was trying to imply that Dworkin is a genocidal self-hating maniac. Oh and I have a great respect and admiration for women who have their own opinion. Women like Nadine Strossen, Suzy Bright, and Senator Barbara Boxer..
Every woman who has been the victim of abuse and violence has the factual evidence of their own abuse (they've seen what total pigs and monsters men can be).
And every guy who’s ever been cheated on, manipulated or henpecked by a woman has evidence of what bitches women CAN BE but that doesn’t make it true for all women.
Oh and BTW I have the original script for “From Dusk Till Dawn” and a version of the ••••• sales pitch is in it. Also I think that from dusk till dawn is one of the greatest exploitation films of all time and several of my female friends (fellow movie geeks) agree as well.
Rona, question for you, if all porn is against women than what about lesbian porn (I mean real porn for lesbians not “Girls Gone Wild Dorm: Room Fantasies XXVII” which uses lesbian acts to market to male fantasies.)
Well after talking to my wife about this and looking up some stuff on this Andrea person online with her my wife had this to say. "I'm glad the btch is dead she was very messed up."
Sorry, Rona, but while every death diminishes me, when it comes to Andrea Dworkin's views on things--particularly male-female relationships--I am strongly enough in opposition that I do not feel a precious voice has been silenced. Among the things she believed that I don't:
*Human culture was built on the rape of women
*Women should form their own nation-state to flee from male agression
*Conventional romance is a part of the violence against women
I had very little respect for her views, Rona, and the fact that people I think are nutjobs (like Limbaugh) agree with me is irrelevant. I still think Dworkin was wrong about a lot of what I read from her.
Oh and one last thing I have to say about all this. There is nothign wrong with a strong woman. I come from farm country and one of the desireable traits in a woman is that she is capable and self-reliant. But that she knows how to feminine as well.
Some men don't help out with the housework but the smart ones around here do. And there are women who help out with the farm chores. This is pretty much commonly accepted behavior by both genders around here.
What is sick and disgusting is when someone psychotic like Dworkin who ,from everythign i have read from her and about her, hated men and just generally hated anythign that didn't fall within her narrow point of view.
Feminazi is different from being a strong woman. A strong woman is confident, takes no BS but gives no BS. She lives her life by her rules taking and giving what she will and gains the respect of those around her. She shows weakness as well as strength and she does traditional as well as untraditional female roles.
When both the left and the right are in agreement, it's obvious something is WRONG.
Or when both the far right and the far left is aginst you perhaps it means that you are doing something right.
The violence perpetrated in Kill Bill is DONE by a woman. Women in the film also engage in such sadistic acts as cutting off the heads of people, poisoning people to death with snakes, and breaking someone's heart apart. Tarentino is many things, but I don't think he a misogynist.
Rona: I hold suspect anyone who attacks one of the feminist movement's guiding lights.
Luigi Novi: Which sounds suspiciously like the Cult of Personality.
The fact that you personally hold Dworkin in high esteem doesn’t mean that mainstream feminism does.
Rona: I now understand why some people have been a bit dense and unable to grasp the significance of film violence against women.
Luigi Novi: And that is…?
Chris Booton: The 'all sex is rape' thing may in fact be an urban legend, see http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm . (Although this seems to be about a diffrent person, the quote may in this case be false as well).
Luigi Novi: I stand corrected. But Dworkin did equivocate on the issue:
Dworkin replied: "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself.
So if all sex is not rape, why does she say that all intercourse is violent?
Rona: For one thing, it's not just the left that has criticised the Kill Bill films. Last week, Bill O'Reilly condemned the Kill Bill films on The Factor. When both the left and the right are in agreement, it's obvious something is WRONG.
Luigi Novi: No, not necessarily. It just means that isolated people on each side of that spectrum agree. It doesn’t change the fact that their statements are questions of opinion and taste, or that the arguments that they put forward are filled with fallacies.
But hey, if both sides agree in criticizing something means that that something is WRONG, then explain this to me: Dworkin was hated and reviled for her unscientific conclusions by people on all points along the political spectrum, including on the right and on the left, and including mainstream feminists. Would this mean that “something is WRONG” with her views?
(I’m guessing you won’t be answering this question, right?)
Rona: Luigi keeps repeating the lie that I said all the victims in the films were female.
Luigi Novi: Nope. I never said that. Try again.
Rona: the most sadistic and protracted suffering is reserved for females in those films, however.
Luigi Novi: Really? Hordes of men being disemboweled, having their limbs severed, or slowing dying by snake poison isn’t protracted? For that matter, what does protraction have to do with it? The point is, the majority of the people killed in the movie were male, which makes your argument about the film being anti-female flimsy.
Rona: He also compares Dworkin to Hitler.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Didn’t do that either.
I used a quote to show that using quotes, in and of itself, does nothing to lend credence to one’s argument, or the person being lauded.
Rona: She also noted that sexism, violence, and bigotry are interrelated.
Luigi Novi: Quite telling, given how bigoted Dworkin herself was, and how bigoted you have acted towards others on these boards yourself, Rona.
Rona: Luigi also claims feminists rely only on rhetorical evidence.
Luigi Novi: Nope. I never made any such claim. This is a knowing and blatant lie on your part, Rona, and it’s easily discredited. What I said was that Dworkin relied on rhetoric. Dworkin does not equal “all feminists,” since feminists are a broad group of people with wildly varying views on many things. Dworkin and MacKinnon are on one end of the spectrum, with Steinem or Friedan further along it, and others who are pro-pornography on the opposite end. The exchange you seem to be trying to twist and manipulate is this one:
Rona: How can anybody question Andrea's findings.
Luigi Novi: By virtue of the fact that they were unscientific, and rhetorical.
Nowhere did I ever say that relying on rhetoric was the exclusive domain of all “feminists,” and there is no way any reasonable, intellectually honest person would ever look at my statement and interpret it to mean that. You’re simply not an honest debater, Rona, and I’m calling you on it. But hey, if you can actually point to a quote where I actually said this, then I invite you to do so.
(I fully expect, however, that you’ll refuse to do so, just as you normally do when your fallacies are refuted.)
Rona: Every woman who has been the victim of abuse and violence has the factual evidence of their own abuse (they've seen what total pigs and monsters men can be). Those who work as victim advocates and in shelters for battered women see the evidence everyday. The crime statistics support them too.
Luigi Novi: Factual evidence of one’s own abuse, of battered women that one works with, and of crime statistics, do not support the idea that all intercourse is violent, that men cannot be raped, that gay male porn degrades women, or that porn leads to violence.
Studies have been conducted showing that there is zero link between porn and aggression. The only ones that showed otherwise were unscientific ones conducted a priori by people who wanted to make this determination at the outset, such as the Meese Commission. Anti-porn feminists point to rapists who use porn, apparently ignorant of the Correlation/Causation Fallacy, which notes that correlation of two things (Men using porn and raping) does not mean causation (that one is caused by the other). They also fail to note that if you want to prove that porn causes rape, you need to show how those who view porn become rapists, when any statistical analysis of a large group of men who view porn shows that not even 1% are rapists.
But if you have arguments or evidence to the contrary, please present them.
Rona: I'm not saying you have too agree with every one of Dworkin's views. Upon her death, you could offer a few gracious words in support of a precious voice that has been silenced.
Luigi Novi: I feel very little motivation to pretend that I hold a bigot like Dworkin in as high esteem as you do, Rona, and will no more offer a pretense of grace than I would if Fred Phelps bought it, or for that matter, than you seem to do with your fellow posters here.
Luigi (and Benn and the others),
maybe we should move parts of the discussion to a seperate board, since I haven't heard of or read about Dvorkin before Rona mentioned her, and now the issue is too muddled for me to find out.
But as a feminist, (not a radical one), and not a men-hater (I do have a fiancee), but wishing to shoot some idiots to the moon ,
I'd like to make a comment about the porn issue. while I haven't heard about studies of adult men, and am aware of the correlation fallacy, several studies indicate that male teens are influenced by aggressive porn (esp. seen on internet, or illegal movies) - during that part of their lifes when they try to find role models and to integrate sex into their personal life. They get the wrong impression that girls/women like to be treated brutally, that "no" doesn't really mean "no", etc. (They also feel under immense pressure to live up to the male images and "sizes" portrayed in porn.)
here is the article from the critiacl net-newspaper telepolis; the article is in german, but mentions an australian study and provides links.
this is an article about a french study in the same newspaper, mentioning also a rape of a teen girl by a teen gang.
Of course, the standard caveat applies: porn won't turn a normal teen into a raving rapist, and a teen with the necessary guidance by his parents, counselors etc. won't by influenced only by porn... but how many teens have a proper home (not material, but being cared for)? How many strong, positive male role models are there for teens to orient themselves as to how to treat women and cope with sex? (Esp. now that USA under Bush has taken a big step towards puritanity again, and good sex education is neglected or banned.) Etc.
... but how many teens have a proper home (not material, but being cared for)? How many strong, positive male role models are there for teens to orient themselves as to how to treat women and cope with sex?
Actually, I'd say most of them. What you read about and see on the news tends to be the exception, otherwise it wouldn't be newsworthy.
Moreover, constanze, most porn isn't aggressive, and doesn't invovle violence.
Luigi,
I don't know how most porn is like - I never watched any. However, if violent porn is popular among teens (like ten years ago all those violent movies with extremly detailed brutal scenes, or video games which portrayed too realistcally killing people), then the teens will watch these, and not the "soft-porn".
ScottN,
I don't have statistics, but I think too many teens are emotionally neglected, or have other troubles at home. I wasn't thinking only of the teens who shoot a school or similar, but of the many who have severe problems, but not severe enough to be noticed and mentioned on the news.
Constanze, teens shouldn't be viewing ANY porn AT ALL, except (in the U.S.) for 18 and 19-year olds, since 18 is the age of adulthood here in the States. Even "soft-core" porn would be rated "R" (Restricted--no one under 17 allowed), and should not be viewable by children. If teens are viewing any kind of porn at all, I'd say that that's the problem.
It's not allowed over here for under-18s, either. But that doesn't stop teens from getting porn easy on the internet. Just as ten, fifteen years ago, teens shouldn't see R-rated violence movies, or play R-rated, violent video games, but get access to them because the fathers/uncles leave the VHS cassettes lying around, or because an older brother/cousin/ friend rents it for them.
I just remembered these two studies, since you asked about negative effects of porn. The effect is there; despite it's already forbidden.
Actually some of the appeal of porn IMO is the forbiddeness of it. Teens are confused and curious both at the same time and with too much prudish hiding of sex and sexuality they don't know where to turn or get conflicting images/messages from their peers and older siblings as well as the media among other places.
This is not to say that teens should be shown all kinds of porn or have gift subscritions to playboy for their 13th birthday (at least wait for their 16th like my uncle did for me) but that an honest and supportive attitude towards sex and sexuality should be a part of raising children (sort of like what my parents did). Then maybe by teaching that sexual activities are nothing mysterious but a part of a healthy caring mutually consenting and supportive relationship (violence most definately can be excluded from that) Just my opinion and the way I feel.
And as for positive role models I think there are still quite a few around but with the media focusing on the negatives and all the various extreme groups trying to jockey for control it isnt profitable to acknowledge that.
I know I am trying to be a positive role model for my kids like my father was for me.
Rona:For a generation, there has been continuous ugly attacks on feminism. Rush Limbaugh, year after year, denounces feminists as "Femi-Nazis".
No, he denounces man-hating crackpots like this Dworkin psycho as feminazis.
Pro-woman =/= feminazi
Militant man-hating crackpot == feminazi
He's only explained this approximately 2 zillion times over the years, but that doesn't matter. I suspect you'll ignore that just like you ignore anything anytime someone points out something that doesn't agree with your rants.
Ah, there's that feeling. Validation. I don't even have the logins to do anything about it, either.
Quote:I suspect you'll ignore that just like you ignore anything anytime someone points out something that doesn't agree with your rants.
Is it true they're making a porn flick called "Porkin Dworkin" in her memory?
I have to disagree with what you said about Rush XD. He criticized women who were a lot more mainstream than Dworkin with the lable feminazi. Personally I think the worst thing Dworkin was that she was so far off people like Rush used her to deamonize all feminists by claiming they are all like her.
It's very sad reading all the cruel comments about Andrea. As feminist Julie Bindel noted; "She was the most maligned feminist on the planet; she never hated men". Even crueler is the fact that she was often attacked for her appearance. Luigi sank to that level and mocked her for not combing her hair. Actually, she did comb her hair; she just had frizzy hair. Many women of her ethnicity have frizzy hair. Luigi's attitude reflects his own bigotry. Andrea wasn't denouced by mainstream feminists. Just click on Susie Bright's Journal; she gives a glowing review of Andrea's work.
Andrea's most vicious critics never even bothered to read her books. Luigi finally corrected himself by noting Dworkin never said "all sex is rape". He's obviously never read her book "Intercourse" (1987). Andrea was also the furthest thing from a man-hater. The Gaurdian noted that "People were startled by her gentleness and vulnerability".
It's time to stop the hate and try some understanding.
Point:
Counterpoint
Quote:"Being female in this world is having been robbed of potential for human choice by men who love to hate us".
Quote:As feminist Julie Bindel noted; "She was the most maligned feminist on the planet; she never hated men".
I think this discussion should be moved to another board. Perhaps Luigi could create a discussion board and repost the comments there then delete this section. This board is for tributes, not arguments.
Rona: Even crueler is the fact that she was often attacked for her appearance. Luigi sank to that level and mocked her for not combing her hair.
Luigi Novi: No, I was mocking you with a bit of sarcasm. You brought up the issue of her supposedly refusing to be oppressed by standards of beauty, and I merely pointed out that her hair is unkempt to opine that having an appearance that’s professionally presentable is hardly oppressive.
Rona: Actually, she did comb her hair; she just had frizzy hair. Many women of her ethnicity have frizzy hair. Luigi's attitude reflects his own bigotry.
Luigi Novi: If you think that people of certain ethnicities have some type of excuse for unkempt hair, then it would seem that bigotry is more a problem for you than for me, Rona, since I don’t make such broad generalizations about people of certain ethnicities.
I also find myself less than impressed with with an accusation of bigotry by someone who claims that all horror fans are “brutes,” or derides people who live in the South or who listen to Toby Keith, or Dworkin critics as mostly “Archie Bunker types,” and who generally goes out of her way to pass judgment on people and things with little or no knowledge or perspective of them, often ignoring contextual information that puts her accusations in a different light, deliberately distorting other people’s words, and refusing to admit it when others point out the flaws in her arguments. Bigotry, Rona? Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Try again.
Rona: Andrea wasn't denouced by mainstream feminists. Just click on Susie Bright's Journal; she gives a glowing review of Andrea's work.
Luigi Novi: And because Susie Bright gives a glowing review of Andrea's work means that all mainstream feminists view Dworkin similarly? Nope, sorry, wrong answer. You are again confusing one person with entire group. Above you confused Dworkin with “feminists,” when you took my comment about Dworkin’s rhetoric as representative of feminists as a whole. Now you’re concluding that the review of one feminist represents all mainstream feminists.
Try again.
Rona: Luigi finally corrected himself by noting Dworkin never said "all sex is rape". He's obviously never read her book "Intercourse" (1987).
Luigi Novi: True. Then again, you obviously didn’t read the quote in which she stated that all intercourse is violent, even though it came on the heels of the admission you mention here. (Or can we assume that you did read it, but simply chose not to respond to it because it’s damning to your argument about Dworkin not being a misandrist?)
Rona: It's time to stop the hate and try some understanding.
Luigi Novi: “First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” –Matthew 7:5
Since I’ve long-adopted the policy of moving boards only after the thread in question has died down, I will do so with this one, and move it to Dworkin’s own board when traffic on this thread ceases, Rodney.
Mark, your comments are always very thoughtful. Andrea's quote about women being robbed of their potential is a point also being made by many commentators recently. I included a reference (in another post) to the issue of women being denied the opportunities to become priests in the Catholic Church. How can it be denied that a patriarchal organization is denying women opportunities. It's not a small issue in a organization with over a billion followers. Conservatives are also determined to overturn abortion laws in the US.
I never meant to convey that I thought all sex was violent. For many women who have suffered violence (including me), Andrea was an eloquent voice for victims of abuse. It was an affirmation that someone cared deeply about the issue and wanted to effect change. Some of her ideas on pornography are dated, since they were published in the seventies. Much of todays' porn is just as offensive too. I think many women are offended by some of the porn they read about. Simulated rape films, simulated snuff films, "Bukaki" (sp?) films where 25 men masturbate on a woman. Is anyone going to tell me this is great stuff?
I don't think most women even identify with the women in these films; bleached-blond painted bimbos with huge breast implants who want to engage in any behavior imaginable. The wives I know don't like these films. Beyond the issue of not being satisfied, sex can also be painful. One woman I know has had serious complications from her husband (who is hugely endowed) and insists on rough sex. Sex shouldn't result in a trip to the doctor. No one addressed another issue I brought up; the countless girls around the world who are enslaved in the nightmarish world of brothels. Twelve year old girls with severe vaginal injuries and HIV are an outrage EVERYONE should be disgusted by.
I'll admit I don't watch many of the same films that others here like. I prefer watching independent movies on the Sundance Channel and IFC. Many documentaries have been shown about abuse, violence, brothels, and even strippers (who don't lead the lives depicted of them in mainstream movies). When, ocassionally, I am exposed to a mainstream horror film with brutal violence, I am usually appalled.
Luigi sometimes resorts to nastiness in his comments about me. He not only tries to convince me I'm wrong, he's even suggested I read a book about being crazy. He's a bit like an Ayatollah; he's right and everyone's wrong. Everyone else believes in "fallacies" (the most over-used word in his lexicon).
I doubt that anyone here isn't disgusted by:
a. Young girls in brothels
b. Abusive sex
c. Simulated rape films and their ilk
These are things that are disgusting and work needs to be done in combatting them. Nobody would probably discount Dworkin's work in defending the abused and working for reform in these areas.
The arguments were more about Dworkin's, I don't know, world philosophy in general. Not having read her stuff, I can't say I'm an expert, but from her quotes, it seems sort of cynical, fatalistic, which I don't think is good for a sense of communication between the sexes. My argument with you was basically about what I perceived as a misrepresentation of the movie Kill Bill and its director.
And Luigi, I agree with most of your points, but the unkempt hair thing was kind of a cheap shot.
I can see Luigi reprimanding himself, Mike! [sarcasm mode off]
Thanks for the clarification BTW, Luigi, although I must wonder what the point of moving it when the discussion has died down is? I'm not saying you're wrong- you are free to do what you want on your own boards- but I just wonder why wait?
Not that I need to defend Luigi but Rona, like Brian Webber before you, the reason Luigi attacks you is that you never present evidence in your case and you make brash, sweeping statements without backing it up. It has been my experience that he resents people who do this. He's simply holding you to account as any good debater does (and Luigi is one of the finest I have ever read here or anywhere- you debate him at your own peril...)
...should never be a descriptor of a board moderator. You of course do not mean personal attacks but still. Debates that are attacks aren't really debates, are they?
Quote:[T]he reason Luigi attacks you...
Simulated rape films, simulated snuff films, "Bukaki" (sp?) films where 25 men masturbate on a woman. Is anyone going to tell me this is great stuff? Rona
Rona, I believe the term you're looking for is "Bukkake." And no, I wouldn't call any of that stuff "great," but I would point out that they are all examples of the margins of current pornography, and should not be used to illustrate examples of the industry as a whole.
Taking the fringe to represent the whole of anything is a dangerous game. The dark fringes of porn are not good and not something that even I as a very open minded person consider worthy.
But as for wives and porn mine sees nothing wrong with watching a nice adult video now and again with me. And she has been a victim of abuse (her first husband and I are still not allowed to be within 50 feet, or yards I forget which the court said, of each other) but has gotton over it with love, help and her own strength showing her that not all men are evil scum sucking pigs, and that sexual relations can be normal, healthy, wild, passionate, special, loving and tender and if done properly all in the same evening. ;-)
As for Luigi after having crossed swords with him before on a few things I have to say that while he can be a bit zealous in his technique, so can we all. But he is a master at what he does and I find him a worthy opponent.
Sex shouldn't result in a trip to the doctor. No one addressed another issue I brought up; the countless girls around the world who are enslaved in the nightmarish world of brothels. Twelve year old girls with severe vaginal injuries and HIV are an outrage EVERYONE should be disgusted by.
For many women who have suffered violence (including me), Andrea was an eloquent voice for victims of abuse.
Simulated rape films, simulated snuff films, "Bukaki" (sp?) films where 25 men masturbate on a woman. Is anyone going to tell me this is great stuff? Rona
I hate to bring this up but if you initial posts on this whole Dworkin thing you attacked Quinten Tarantino's films and than made sweeping generalizations about what pornography is. Now you are talking about Bukaki/Bukkake films. I've never even heard of such a thing and I'd wager that 9 out of 10 people you said "Bukkake" to wouldn't have either. Kind of makes it hard to say that's represenative of what porn is when you example is so far out of the mainstream most people don't even know what it is. That would be like someone trying to say that all liberals are like you, when I think I speak for most of us when I say that is not the case at all.
Rodney, apparently Luigi doesn't mind pulling his "facts" out of his ass (excuse the language). He attributes ideas to Dworkin that she never said. He's trying to pretend that his own bias reflect facts when they don't. Feminists have seen the same disrespectful tone aimed at them year, after year. We know when someone is being objective or not. He labels my posts as "rants". His mean-spirited posts are "sarcasm" on the other hand. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, again.
But it is right that this topic is over. I have no interest in responding to insults and mistruthes.
OK, Children. The Name Calling STOPS NOW.
You could always be a Roving Mod...:-P
As a Roving Mod, I'm not exactly sure what to delete if necessary. Let me just say for all parties involved:
*Debate issues, not people. I will say it one more time and any further post from ANYONE that is a harmful comment about a person, ad hominem comment about a person, etc. will be dumped. That includes me so let me know.
ScottN would be a great Roving Mod, he's level-headed and always around.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Rona: I never meant to convey that I thought all sex was violent.
Luigi Novi: No one said you did. What I pointed out was that Dworkin did. Why you have trouble reading a plain assertion like this and understanding it without distorting it, Rona, I have no idea.
Rona: For many women who have suffered violence (including me), Andrea was an eloquent voice for victims of abuse.
Luigi Novi: I myself have suffered violence. And yet, I’ve never said that sexual intercourse is a “means of physiologically making a woman inferior”, or that marriage is a “license to rape”, as Dworkin did, nor have I ever treated the people here with the lopsided vitriol that you have, Rona.
Rona: I think many women are offended by some of the porn they read about.
Luigi Novi: Well then does it stand to reason to ask why they read it in the first place?
Rona: Simulated rape films, simulated snuff films, "Bukaki" (sp?) films where 25 men masturbate on a woman. Is anyone going to tell me this is great stuff?
Luigi Novi: I wouldn’t know. I don’t watch such things. To each their own, Rona.
Rona: I don't think most women even identify with the women in these films; bleached-blond painted bimbos with huge breast implants who want to engage in any behavior imaginable.
Luigi Novi: I think anti-porn feminists who put down porn actresses as “bimbos” are themselves hypocrites, since they themselves have an oppressive view of women in that they don’t feel such women are able to make their own decisions for themselves to work in porn, simply because it is a choice that the feminists disagree with. The message from this is that either you agree with these anti-porn feminists’ view of pornography—or else you’re a bimbo. Just chalk it up as one more group of which Rona has bigoted views, I guess.
Interestingly, one former porn actress, Asia Carrera, is a certified genius who performed the piano at Carnegie Hall twice before the age of 15, and as a member of the Mensa Society, has an IQ of 155. Bimbo that she is.
Rona: The wives I know don't like these films. Beyond the issue of not being satisfied, sex can also be painful. One woman I know has had serious complications from her husband (who is hugely endowed) and insists on rough sex. Sex shouldn't result in a trip to the doctor. No one addressed another issue I brought up; the countless girls around the world who are enslaved in the nightmarish world of brothels. Twelve year old girls with severe vaginal injuries and HIV are an outrage EVERYONE should be disgusted by.
Luigi Novi: None of this has anything to do with porn.
Rona: When, ocassionally, I am exposed to a mainstream horror film with brutal violence, I am usually appalled.
Luigi Novi: Because naturally, you are forced to watch these films, cannot get up and leave or turn the channel or turn the TV off when you realize what type of film it is, and sometimes even watch their sequels—even when you hated the first one in the series.
Rona: Luigi sometimes resorts to nastiness in his comments about me.
Luigi Novi: Sure, Rona. I’ve lobbed loads of bigoted insults at Southerners, fans of Toby Keith, fans of horror films, Dworkin critics, porn stars, etc, but I’m the nasty one. I also deliberately distort other people’s words, lying about what they say, attack them with ad hominem arguments, I never respond when they clearly point out flaws in my arguments, or even when they ask simple questions in the interest of open discourse, and hell, I even accuse people of acting like an Iranian tyrant cleric who runs a theocratic dictatorship simply when they disagree with me. Yep, that’s me. You sure have me figured out. I’m the nasty one.
Rona: He not only tries to convince me I'm wrong, he's even suggested I read a book about being crazy.
Luigi Novi: Um……when did I do this? What book was this? I don’t recall ever suggesting anyone read a book about being crazy (I don’t recall even reading one), nor suggesting any book of any kind to you at all, Rona? Care to elaborate on this? Where and when did I suggest a book to you? And which book was this?
Rona: He's a bit like an Ayatollah; he's right and everyone's wrong.
Luigi Novi: Not really. I just know how to present my arguments in a manner that is coherent and internally consistent, without resorting to flawed reasoning, and do others the courtesy of asking them to present arguments—or to answer mine—explaining why I’m wrong. When people point out mistakes I make, make convincing arguments to the contrary, or offer possibilities that at least constitute valid points against my position, I always conceded it to them. The book I’m writing on the various “nits” in Star Trek, for example, is FILLED with alternate viewpoints that others here have offered for the nits I’ve pointed out for episodes and movies, and I’ve even deleted some of mine entirely when information was pointed out convincing me that they were entirely without merit. As far as you’re concerned, Rona, I and others have politely asked you on countless occasions to provide information supporting your arguments, and refuting ours. You’ve simply refused to do so. And as moderator of three different topics here at Nit-C, I’ve encouraged not only suggestions, but criticism as well, and on more than one occasion, after some discussion, have acceded to some of these ideas, even when I was not necessarily convinced of the rightness of it. Hell, I’ve even refrained from deleting your insults toward me in your recent posts, since I’m more of a let-them-hang-themselves-with-their-own-rope kinda guy. In general, I’ve given people props here for both making good counterarguments against me, and for being of good character.
Can you say the same, Rona?
Rona: Everyone else believes in "fallacies" (the most over-used word in his lexicon).
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say you believed in fallacies. I indicated that you employ them in your arguments, which clearly you do. I also don’t recall indicating that this applies to “everyone,” as I only point it out fallacies when some people use them, not when they merely disagree with me. If you perceive that this phrase shows up often in my responses to you Rona, it may be because you subscribe to them so copiously, which is a shame. It might behoove you to look them up to study them in order to make your arguments stronger. I recommend Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things, or if you prefer, looking up logical fallacies using a search engine.
MikeC: And Luigi, I agree with most of your points, but the unkempt hair thing was kind of a cheap shot.
Luigi Novi: Read it in the context of the remark by Rona to which it was a response, Mike.
Rodney Hrvatin: Thanks for the clarification BTW, Luigi, although I must wonder what the point of moving it when the discussion has died down is? I'm not saying you're wrong- you are free to do what you want on your own boards- but I just wonder why wait?
Luigi Novi: I got a few complaints from some of the regulars here for moving threads-in-progress because they, unlike me, do not use the Last Day function to see ongoing discussions (with which a moved thread wouldn’t really cause much confusion), but the “New Messages” function (which apparently does). After discussing it with them, I decided to move boards only after the discussion has died down. If you have any further suggestions on this, Rodney, I’m all ears.
Rodney: Not that I need to defend Luigi but Rona, like Brian Webber before you, the reason Luigi attacks you is that you never present evidence in your case and you make brash, sweeping statements without backing it up. It has been my experience that he resents people who do this.
Luigi Novi: That, in itself, doesn’t get me upset enough to “attack” someone. It is when someone is abusive towards others as Rona is—and even refuses to answer to others for it—that I tend to resent more.
R: As for Luigi after having crossed swords with him before on a few things I have to say that while he can be a bit zealous in his technique, so can we all. But he is a master at what he does and I find him a worthy opponent.
Luigi Novi: Thanks, R. That’s very nice of you.
Rona: Rodney, apparently Luigi doesn't mind pulling his "facts" out of his *** (excuse the language). He attributes ideas to Dworkin that she never said.
Luigi Novi: Mmmmmmm….sorry, but not quite. I attributed one quote to her that was later pointed out that she did not say, one that is widely misreported has being attributed to her (not merely misreported by me), and having admitted this and thanked Chris Booton for his correction (ya know, because I think I’m right and everyone else is “wrong” ), every other quote by Dworkin is accurate, unless you can inform me otherwise. Thus, your use of the phrases “facts” and “ideas” (plural), are obvious exaggerations, one that you can’t back up, as usual. The two quotes from her in this post, for example, are from her obituary on page 15 of the April 25, 2005 Time magazine. Since you referenced that very issue on the Ann Coulter board because Coulter was the cover story, can we understand that you own that copy, or did you just pass it by in a store? If the former, flip it open to page 15. (But feel free not to answer this point, Rona.)
Oh, and Rona, as moderator of the PM boards, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use profanity. I can overlook your flaming and ad hominem attacks upon me for the time being, since I personally prefer to refute them than censor them—but please think of the children. Some of the posters here, like ScottN’s daughter, are minors, and I shudder to think of the damage your language might cause to them. I’d hate to have to edit or delete your posts if that continues, after all, since some parents here may object.
Rona: He's trying to pretend that his own bias reflect facts when they don't.
Luigi Novi: Examples, please.
Rona: We know when someone is being objective or not.
Luigi Novi: Can you enlighten us with the criteria in question?
Rona: He labels my posts as "rants".
Luigi Novi: Nope. That was XD, in his Friday, April 22, 2005, 1:10 am post. (I say this in the spirit of checking one’s “facts”, after all.)
Rona: His mean-spirited posts are "sarcasm" on the other hand.
Luigi Novi: No, Sarcasm is that other guy. I’m Luigi.
Oh wait. You were saying that I was employing sarcasm—uh, yeah, that’s true.
Rona: Hypocrisy rears its ugly head, again.
Luigi Novi: Again, can you provide examples of hypocrisy on my part, Rona? (By contrast, I can back up that claim with examples of that behavior on your part, some of which are in this post.)
Rona: But it is right that this topic is over. I have no interest in responding to insults and mistruthes.
Luigi Novi: What about counterarguments that refute your arguments? Any chance of responding to those? No? Oh well…
I understand the context in which you replied to it, Luigi, but it's still a cheap shot, in my opinion.
1. Rona said women are offended by the porn "they READ about"--not "read." One can read about porn and not actually read porn.
2. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
3. Finally, I'm not sure how else to phrase it, but PLEASE discuss topics and issues, not other posters. Comparing someone to the Ayatollah and accusing someone of being a bigot are not exactly within good cheer. I hate to be the wet blanket, but we should be on topic, which actually isn't even Andrea Dworkin and pornography...
No problem Luigi. You're welcome.
First of all, why am I supposed to engage in a debate over comments Dworkin never made? She never said "all sex is rape" or "all sex is bad". Where did you get those statements from? Why do you fail to point out the historical context of Andrea's work. She started to speak out in the late 1960's about the abuse of women, at a time when it wasn't talked about. She helped make the public aware and helped start a movement in which laws were changed. She didn't help liberate women? Really? According to you? Tell that to the women affected.
You said she was "repudiated by mainstream feminists". Really. Her texts were used in University gender studies programs across the United States and in Canada and England too. I was assigned to read one of her books in college . Amazing, for a woman repudiated by the mainstream. Feminists from Gloria Steinem to Susie Bright have praised her.
What wasn't mainstream was her appearance. So what if she wasn't a former Playboy bunny as Steinem was? Your argument about hair was discredited long ago. Those who hated Angela Davis attacked her for her hair too. Dworkin wasn't an IBM office worker. How did her appearance not meet professional standards? She was an author and and activist. Her appearance and hair made her all the more endearing to those who loved her. Einstein's hair was messy, but that made him all the more lovable (guess his hair didn't meet the University standards where he taught). But then again, those who hate Dworkin would never find anything lovable about her.
That brings us to the issue of those who oppose her. Sorry, but starting in the seventies, many of her critics were Archie Bunker types. Conservative polititians and the Religious Right joined in. In the 80's, the Moral Majority crusaded against Dworkin and other feminists. Today's religious right is still attacking feminism, but with a renewed zeal. I'm not going to debate any totally irrational opposition to her. Opposition which doesn't contain a speck of reason (sorry, because God told you isn't a reason).
REST OF PARAGRAPH DELETED. I'M NOT KIDDING AROUND, FOLKS. DEBATE ISSUES, NOT PEOPLE.
If you're going to point out a porn star, why not tell the story of "Linda Lovelace". She later stated that she was coerced into making "Deep Throat".
The Dworkin you describe isn't the person I'm familiar with.
AGAIN, REST OF PARAGRAPH DELETED.
I never said that I agree with all of Dworkin's ideas. Like any opinionated figure, not all of her ideas are accepted. For a non-feminist example, I'll give HBO's Bill Maher. I agree strongly with his criticisms of Bush, religion, and pro-environmental stance. However, when it comes to other issues, I totally disagree with him. He doesn't believe in marriage or kids and doesn't find older women attractive. That dosen't mean I totally discount him and don't value his opinions. As with everything in life, we take the good with the bad. Even many of Andrea's critics accept the fact that some of her more extreme opinions came from her mindset of being an abuse victim. She had a good heart.
Not everything she said I agree with. Most feminists hold that opinion about her. But to hatefully dismiss her life and work as some sort of Stalinist-type monster, that's intellectual dishonesty and a blind refusal to admit she did much good.
Rona: How pathetic that someone uses such reasoning. Equate a feminist with a brutal oppressor such as Hitler and Stalin.
As a non-American I have very little knowledge of the current topic, but I'd just like to point out that Luigi never compared Dworkin to Stalin in any of his posts. You came to that conclusion on your own, by speculation and demonization of his viewpoints. ("Why don't you see things my way? Ahh, you must hate my point of view. To you I'm some kind of Anti-Chirst, right? It's childish to call me a satanist." <--- example)
In fact the only post mentioning Stalin on the entire page is in your last post.
*tap* *tap* Attention! Attention all shoppers! Could Good Cheer please return to the Customer Service Desk. Good Cheer, please return to the Customer Service Desk.
Oviously it ain't over til its over.
Rona: But it is right that this topic is over. I have no interest in responding to insults and mistruthes.
If you're going to point out a porn star, why not tell the story of "Linda Lovelace". She later stated that she was coerced into making "Deep Throat".
That she did, but I hardly think that one person proves much of anything about the whole industry. I can talk about many young boys who were forced to engage in homosexual acts by priests but that doesn't mean that all religious leaders, or even all cathlic leaders, are evil sexual predators.
The Dworkin you describe isn't the person I'm familiar with. She is almost another Stalin in your eyes. Ah, that explains why I'm a part of a "Cult of Personality"...Lady Stalin and her Stalinist followers. How pathetic that someone uses such reasoning. Equate a feminist with a brutal oppressor such as Hitler and Stalin.
Wait a second, he mentioned "cult of personality" which has been used to discribe everyone from Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh to GW Bush and u jump right to he called you a Stalinist?
Also lets not forget that Luigi's war on falacious arguments is not politically motivated, he's argued the works of Michael Moore and Anne Coulter; not to mention rights and lefts here like Peter (R) and Brian Webber (L).
Rona's post has been edited by me for breaking the good cheer rule by attacking a fellow poster. Anyone that responds with a post that attacks Rona or any other fellow poster will similarly be edited.
MikeC: I understand the context in which you replied to it, Luigi, but it's still a cheap shot, in my opinion.
Luigi Novi: Sorry you feel that way, Mike, so I guess we’re gonna have to agree to disagree. While I applaud women who don’t allow themselves to be oppressed by the ridiculous standards of the fashion and entertainment industries—industries that would have women believe that looking anorexic is attractive—I don’t think this includes combing your hair for public appearances. That’s not intended as a cheap shot. It’s intended as my opinion regarding standards of dress for professional purposes. To each their own.
MikeC: Rona said women are offended by the porn "they READ about"--not "read." One can read about porn and not actually read porn.
Luigi Novi: I stand corrected. Still, is this anything like the people who were offended by Dogma or The Passion of the Christ or Chris Offili’s “Sensation” exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art without ever watching them?
MikeC: …accusing someone of being a bigot are not exactly within good cheer.
Luigi Novi: Because the concept of good cheer is moot at that point. It is expressing bigotry that is the offense, not making the observation when someone does so. Are you saying that we shouldn’t respond when someone makes numerous bigoted remarks at entire groups of people? The point upon which the rightness or wrongness should be adjudicated is whether the accusation is supported by evidence/reason. Not the mere making of the accusation itself.
Rona: First of all, why am I supposed to engage in a debate over comments Dworkin never made? She never said "all sex is rape" or "all sex is bad".
Luigi Novi: But she did make OTHER such statements of a similar logic, many of which I included in my prior posts, including two that I formatted in blue in my last one—all of which you are ignoring. You are again using a tiny minority sample to exaggerate the whole. We’re not talking about whether she said all sex is rape. Chris Booton already provided the link discrediting that point, and I conceded that to him, and even mentioned it again in my last post. That matter has been dropped, Rona, and we are now focusing on the things she did say, but you keep going back to the one statement that was shown to not have been made by her. Why is this, Rona?
Rona: Where did you get those statements from?
Luigi Novi: Didn’t you use the link Chris Booton provided? And if you’re referring to those two quotes in my last post, I mentioned that they were quoted in the April 25, 2005 Time magazine. Why do you ask such questions when the information that answers them is in our posts?
Try reading them.
Rona: Why do you fail to point out the historical context of Andrea's work. She started to speak out in the late 1960's about the abuse of women, at a time when it wasn't talked about. She helped make the public aware and helped start a movement in which laws were changed.
Luigi Novi: Because the historical context of her work does nothing to support her more radical and unscientific beliefs, and is therefore irrelevant. But again, if you can illustrate to me how believing that sexual intercourse is a “means of physiologically making a woman inferior”, or that marriage is a “license to rape” somehow is pardonable by the “historical context” of her work, I’d be interested to read it, Rona.
Rona: She didn't help liberate women? Really? According to you? Tell that to the women affected.
Luigi Novi: There are (and have been) many people in the feminist movement, of which she was one, and they also share in the accomplishments that have been made in the struggle for gender rights. Most of them, however, were people with reasonable views based on equality, did not advocate unhealthy views against sexual expression, and did not tarnish their accomplishments by promoting the belief that sexual intercourse is a “means of physiologically making a woman inferior”, or that marriage is a “license to rape”, as Dworkin did.
Rona: You said she was "repudiated by mainstream feminists". Really. Her texts were used in University gender studies programs across the United States and in Canada and England too. I was assigned to read one of her books in college.
Luigi Novi: Rona, the fact that you seem to have difficulty comprehending is that in this immense society of ours, a person can be praised by one group, political philosophy, section of society, or movement, and denounced by others. The fact that there are people who praise Dworkin only shows that it takes all kinds. It doesn’t change the fact that there are also those who denounced her. This is true of many, if not all major figures in history. For every person who praised Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, or JFK, there were those who hated them. There are people who actually consider themselves fans of Charles Manson, for crying out loud. So what? It does nothing to validate anything he says or does. (And before you react by accusing me of comparing Dworkin to Manson—I’m not. I’m making the broader point that merely having supporters does not validate your conclusions.)
You say colleges used her courses? So what? Many in academia openly advocate communism, too. You say you were assigned one of her books. So what? I checked out a feminism-oriented literature course in college, and dropped it after just the first day because the teacher was an obvious close-minded misandrist who would not tolerate views that were contrary to her own. Arguing that a person’s views are validated simply by virtue of the fact that there are those in society who supported them is a canard.
The fact remains that Dworkin’s more extreme views were unscientific, rhetorical, hateful, and contrary to a healthy appreciation of sexuality.
Rona: Feminists from Gloria Steinem to Susie Bright have praised her.
Luigi Novi: Feminists have also denounced her. You focus on the former, but attempt to ignore the latter, as if only the former is true.
Rona: What wasn't mainstream was her appearance. So what if she wasn't a former Playboy bunny as Steinem was? Your argument about hair was discredited long ago.
Luigi Novi: How so? By whom? When was this?
Rona: Those who hated Angela Davis attacked her for her hair too. Dworkin wasn't an IBM office worker. How did her appearance not meet professional standards?
Luigi Novi: She was a public speaker who appeared unkempt when she appeared in public.
Rona: That brings us to the issue of those who oppose her. Sorry, but starting in the seventies, many of her critics were Archie Bunker types. Conservative polititians and the Religious Right joined in. In the 80's, the Moral Majority crusaded against Dworkin and other feminists. Today's religious right is still attacking feminism, but with a renewed zeal.
Luigi Novi: And you conveniently leave out the fact that she was also denounced by liberals as well. Gee, I wonder why?
Rona: I'm not going to debate any totally irrational opposition to her. Opposition which doesn't contain a speck of reason…
Luigi Novi: Don’t kid yourself, Rona. You refuse to debate any opposition to your views, including well-made and rational refutations of your points that are based entirely on reason.
MikeC: REST OF PARAGRAPH DELETED. I'M NOT KIDDING AROUND, FOLKS. DEBATE ISSUES, NOT PEOPLE.
Luigi Novi: Mike, what paragraph was this? What was the statement?
Rona: If you're going to point out a porn star, why not tell the story of "Linda Lovelace".
Luigi Novi: Because it wasn’t relevant to the point you brought up about porn actresses being “bimbos”. If Lovelace is somehow relevant to that, can you explain to me how?
Rona: She later stated that she was coerced into making "Deep Throat".
Luigi Novi: Which was an obvious lie on her part, given the evidence to the contrary, and after she made this false accusation, she went back to porn to make more money. Again, is there some particular reason you left that part out, Rona?
Rona: The Dworkin you describe isn't the person I'm familiar with.
Luigi Novi: It’s easy to be unfamiliar with someone if you deliberately choose to ignore the information that others present to you about them.
Rona: She is almost another Stalin in your eyes. Ah, that explains why I'm a part of a "Cult of Personality"...Lady Stalin and her Stalinist followers. How pathetic that someone uses such reasoning. Equate a feminist with a brutal oppressor such as Hitler and Stalin.
Luigi Novi: I did no such thing. I merely opined that anyone who says “I hold suspect anyone who attacks [Dworkin]” sounded like The Cult of Personality. The idea that this statement means I’m equating her to Stalin, simply because that phrase was coined by Kruschev about Stalin, is simply another bit of your Astroturf Logic, and another example of your inability to form coherent reasoning, Rona. It is simply a frequent flight of fancy on your part to deliberately distort other people’s words, and come up with the most vitriolic interpretation of them possible. It remains that anyone who holds another person to be so infallible or inerrant that they choose to “hold suspect” anyone who criticizes them is engaging in cult-like thinking.
Rona: Even many of Andrea's critics accept the fact that some of her more extreme opinions came from her mindset of being an abuse victim.
Luigi Novi: Which does not mean that they were empirically valid. Being a victim of violence doesn’t mean that you have proof that porn causes aggression, nor does Dworkin’s abusive marriage mean that all marriage involves rape, or that all intercourse involves violence or female inferiority.
Rona: But to hatefully dismiss her life and work as some sort of Stalinist-type monster, that's intellectual dishonesty and a blind refusal to admit she did much good.
Luigi Novi: If blind refusals to admit something you’d rather not are something you are offended by, Rona, then why do you not answer the counterarguments that appear to refute many of your points, which came from not only me, but from other people on this board as well?
MikeC: Rona's post has been edited by me for breaking the good cheer rule by attacking a fellow poster. Anyone that responds with a post that attacks Rona or any other fellow poster will similarly be edited.
Luigi Novi: Thanks, Mike. But for future reference, please move any questionable passages to the Dump, rather than delete them, so I can review them. You can also abstain from editing any attack by Rona on me personally, since I prefer to refute her statements rather than censor them, as I made clear in my last post.
Sorry Luigi, but regarding the hair argument, you're wrong.
Consider Einstein. He was horrendously unkempt all the time, including public appearances, yet this was irrelevant to his message. Similarly, Ms. Dworkin's public grooming is irrelevant.
I never said it was relevant to one's "message." It is only relevant to the notion that it is a form of "oppression." Dworkin may have been admirable in choosing to wear overalls, for example, rather than bend to societal pressures to wear business suits, but combing one's hair is hardly "oppresive," IMO.
Um Grim. Chillicothe Police Officer Larry Cox was killed in the line of duty over the weekend. He was pursuing a suspect who had robbed a BP station at gun point. The suspect shot and killed officer Cox and managed to escape capture. Police are still investigating. The last time an officer was felled in the line of Duty in Chillicothe was 1926.
Bummer of a way to end such a good string.
Ladies and gentleman, the gulf between myself and nitcentral.
Quote:
Quote:MikeC: …accusing someone of being a bigot are not exactly within good cheer.
Luigi Novi: Because the concept of good cheer is moot at that point. It is expressing bigotry that is the offense, not making the observation when someone does so. Are you saying that we shouldn’t respond when someone makes numerous bigoted remarks at entire groups of people? The point upon which the rightness or wrongness should be adjudicated is whether the accusation is supported by evidence/reason. Not the mere making of the accusation itself.
Sorry, Luigi, I will move offending messages in the future, rather than delete them. The trouble with this one is that Rona made a very large post in which only a few paragraphs were offending; is there a way to only move part of a post?
Also, I'm sorry, but I disagree on the decision not to remove posts that are ad hominem to you. While I understand wanting to appear fair, NitCentral's policy is not to tolerate ad hominem or insults. Having them appear, even for the purpose of refutation, I believe, is a violation of that policy. We shouldn't have to refute insults because there shouldn't be insults.
I also still maintain that calling someone a bigot is not conducive to good cheer. You may have a point, you may have an extremely valid point. But the purpose of these boards is to discuss issues, not people. I agree with Mark wholeheartedly in this regard.
I also feel that this paragraph by you is somewhat out of line (offending parts in capital letters)
"The idea that this statement means I’m equating her to Stalin, simply because that phrase was coined by Kruschev about Stalin, is simply another bit of your Astroturf Logic, and another example of your INABILITY TO FORM COHERENT REASONING, Rona. It is simply a FREQUENT FLIGHT OF FANCY on your part to deliberately distort other people’s words, and come up with the most vitriolic interpretation of them possible. It remains that anyone who holds another person to be so infallible or inerrant that they choose to “hold suspect” anyone who criticizes them is engaging in cult-like thinking."
Certainly you had a valid right to respond to Rona's post about the Stalinist comparison. You refuted it nicely. In my opinion, there is no reason to descend further, however, and say Rona is unable to coherently reason or uses frequent distortions. Those comments are not conducive to good cheer and will undoubtedly only result in more arguing. Perhaps I am just a lone voice here, though. My point is that there is a line between discussing and refuting issues and discussing a person.
So, Luigi is hung up on "marriage is a license to rape" and it's supposedly not part of a historical argument. You're wrong again, and prove your ignorance of the issues. It used to be the law that a man could legally rape his wife and she couldn't prosecute him. You conveniently ignore this fact. You also fail to acknowledge that activists like Dworkin helped to change laws. You also ignore practically all of history. Wives used to be considered the property of their husbands and the husbands were free to treat them however they wanted. Women had little legal recourse.
You state you couldn't be bothered with hearing feminist views in a class because of your own biased reactions to a feminist professor. That speaks volumes about your attitudes towards feminism. Your initial post about Dworkin attributed ideas to her that she never said. Again, as with your college "course", you couldn't be bothered with being familiar with Dworkin. You've never read any of her books, but you're an expert on her. Actually, what your post reveals is a collection of cliches that have been used against feminists in general. This was reinforced by your own admission of not wanting to hear the viewpoints of a feminist professor.
I also mentioned the Religious Right's opposition to feminism because it brings up a huge point not discussed yet. Most opponents of feminism denouce them as "lesbians". It's an easy ploy to stir up hate. The Republican party is still using this (a good examination of this was last week's Frontline report on Karl Rove). Most women who describe themselves as feminists are't lesbians, but it's an easy tactic to descredit them as "radicals and extremists". Religious figures routinely use their programs to denounce feminists. They've even described NOW as an extremist organiation. There has even been some implication of this in the posts (such as asking if I was impregnated through "artificial insemination"). Luigi also attributes Dworkin as saying that "gay porn is degrading to women". She never said that, but it's a useful statement in turning gay men against feminists. Feminists have raised some legitimate issues. An element of the gay male population has expressed a disgust with female genitals and sexuality. They also consider women not to be important in their world. It really is ludicrous to imply that feminists are oppressing gay men in any way.
Luigi, your statement that Angela Davis had an "unkempt" appearance is considered to be offensive by many people. I never considered "Afros" to be unkempt. Actually, an Afro requires careful grooming and maintainance.
Let's go through this:
1. Your point about the historical context of marriage is a good one.
2. The comment about artificial insemination was not meant to imply lesbianism, as far as I can tell, but was rather referring to your comments about sex being violent and abusive.
3. Luigi never called Angela Davis unkempt. He called Dworkin unkempt.
Michael Jackson's kids have a frozen pop, according to Debbie Rowe. I always knew it. Them kids are white!
Five yard penalty for speculation about poster's motives. Fouth down!
Quote:That speaks volumes about your attitudes towards feminism.
Sorry, Mark. What would you suggest for posts that feature only a small amount of offensive content? Just a warning or a total dump?
According to Phil, it's the whole thing. (So sayeth the instructions on the first page of the Dump.)
Those rules are to avoid exactly this sort of trainwreck. Five pages of closely reasoned argument can be easily derailed by two lines of "and, you're a ninny to boot".
I did have one exception, though. When it's the moderator of the topic I tried to work it out with them privately and then if that doesn't work I brought it up with Phil. Only once so far.
Good grief, I've becoming quite the scold in my old age, haven't I? I think I'll bow out now.
Thanks, Mark. I felt in that case, the offending parts were clear enough to remove, but I understand the point and will do so in the future.
Could we please move on from this. Dworkin may have had a few good points, she may have had a few bad points. Everyone has a few of each. Heck Mousallini even made the trains run on time.
But this argument has gone on beyond the point of absurdity and can only be resolved by a pie fight now. Please choose your flavor and meet on the field of honor.
There has even been some implication of this in the posts (such as asking if I was impregnated through "artificial insemination"). - Rona
Whoa!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAY out of context there, miss. I'm the one who made the artificial insemination comment and I absolutely did not mean to imply lesbianism in that comment. I was refering to, as MikeC correctly noted, were the comments about sex being abusive and violent. (The incorrect "all sex is rape" concept.) The lesbian angle was the furthest thing from mind when I said that. Quite frankly, I'm rather offended to have my words distorted in such a manner. An apology, or even a mea culpa would be nice. But please, in the future do not take my words out of context.
"As for me, give me liberty or give me death."
You state you couldn't be bothered with hearing feminist views in a class because of your own biased reactions to a feminist professor.
Whoa hold the phone here, what he said was:
So what? I checked out a feminism-oriented literature course in college, and dropped it after just the first day because the teacher was an obvious close-minded misandrist who would not tolerate views that were contrary to her own.
In other words, the teacher was a man hater and closed minded and refused to listen to any other views that went against her own. Ironically, she was guilty of the very things you accuse him of being guilty of.
Please do not twist his words.
Criminy. Morgan suggested I check out this thread again, and he wasn't kidding when he said that it was a train wreck.
It's like a train wreck of clowns, to be precise.
Let's see - the points that have been made thus far (I offer no opinion, I'm merely trying to summarize for those who have strained eyes from all the eyerolling):
1) Rona is a staunch defender of Andrea Dworkin, who held the opinion that sexual intercourse is violent by its very nature. I'm not clear on how to have sexual intercourse that isn't violent by its very nature, but that's neither here nor there.
2) Luigi is in the opposite corner of the ring, and appears to believe that Andrea Dworkin was a femi-nazi or a nut. It's hard to tell by the end of his three screen posts that includes refutations of every single word every written.
3) Rona's a bigot.
4) Luigi is a fool.
5) Rona is illiterate and is incapable of comprehending certain facts that may or may not be made clear.
6) Luigi is biased against Strong Women (I'm not clear on if he's afraid of them too).
And everyone else is somewhere in between.
Have I missed anything?
Fare thee well, Good Cheer. Say hello to Brevity for me.
Actually I was thinking more of a train wreck of clowns that hit a truckload of hot air.
Hence the reason I still think Luigi should move all these posts over to a special board. It has gotten beyond a joke now. I don't see any point in waiting until it has "died down" (it shows no sign of doing so).
If Luigi is worried about people not being able to follow the discussion then I suggest he leave a link on THIS board to the new board.
Mark Morgan: When someone on this board makes a bigoted response, I believe the correct response is to ignore it and ask a mod to deal with it.
Luigi Novi: Do you believe it’s wrong to tell the poster that the comment in question is bigoted, and therefore, wrong? Isn’t that what the moderator ideally would do anyway if he/she were to deal with it?
MikeC: The trouble with this one is that Rona made a very large post in which only a few paragraphs were offending; is there a way to only move part of a post?
Luigi Novi: Good point. Hadn’t considered that. When in doubt, Dump the whole post, I guess. (If the offense is towards me, however, I’ll deal with it myself.) Thanks again, Mike.
MikeC: We shouldn't have to refute insults because there shouldn't be insults.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, when does a statement constitute an insult, and when is it merely a logical fallacy or unreasonable argument that one may choose to refute? The problem with this thread is that the arguments regarding Dworkin appeared to be somewhat entrenched with the personal attacks and the distortion of others’ words. Me, I think the best solution to lies is the truth, rather than censorship. In addition, I didn’t want deletion of Rona’s post to provide the appearance of personal motives on my part in executing my mod duties, so I figured I’d just bite my lip and provide my reasoning why her attacks were unsupported. I assure you I’d be less generous with attacks upon someone else.
MikeC: I also still maintain that calling someone a bigot is not conducive to good cheer.
Luigi Novi: Do you feel this way regarding references to Dworkin as such, or to anyone? I’ve made the observation that Rona has made bigoted remarks about more than one group of people on this board, while stopping short of calling her a bigot. Split hairs in the view of some, I suppose, but I hoped a distinction could be made between objectionable behavior and declarative insults. In other words, Rona, is presumably a nice person with good qualities, but who has unfortunately made very questionable comments here at Nit-C, and has never directly responded to criticism of them.
MikeC: I also feel that this paragraph by you is somewhat out of line (offending parts in capital letters)
"The idea that this statement means I’m equating her to Stalin, simply because that phrase was coined by Kruschev about Stalin, is simply another bit of your Astroturf Logic, and another example of your INABILITY TO FORM COHERENT REASONING, Rona. It is simply a FREQUENT FLIGHT OF FANCY on your part to deliberately distort other people’s words, and come up with the most vitriolic interpretation of them possible. It remains that anyone who holds another person to be so infallible or inerrant that they choose to “hold suspect” anyone who criticizes them is engaging in cult-like thinking."
Luigi Novi: Again, why is it “offensive” to point out someone else’s offensive behavior? This makes no sense! Pointing out the use of incoherent reasoning is unjustified? The phrase “flight of fancy” is unjustified? If we’re going to promote good cheer as an overriding rule, then naturally, we have to point out when it’s being violated. There’s no “cheerful” way to point out “uncheerful” behavior without using simplistic talk or euphemism.
MikeC: In my opinion, there is no reason to descend further, however, and say Rona is unable to coherently reason or uses frequent distortions.
Luigi Novi: Yes there is, Mike, and the reason is that she does so. We’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this. When she constantly distorts my words and those of others, what do you recommend we do?
Rona: So, Luigi is hung up on "marriage is a license to rape" and it's supposedly not part of a historical argument. You're wrong again, and prove your ignorance of the issues. It used to be the law that a man could legally rape his wife and she couldn't prosecute him. You conveniently ignore this fact.
Luigi Novi: No, I simply acknowledge that it’s no longer the law, and mischaracterizes the current state of marriage. In case the quote I was provided by Time magazine was miscontextualized, are you saying that Dworkin was only talking about marriage historically? If so, can you provide me with reference to support this? If so, then I will concede that she was misquoted on this.
Rona: You also fail to acknowledge that activists like Dworkin helped to change laws. You also ignore practically all of history. Wives used to be considered the property of their husbands and the husbands were free to treat them however they wanted.
Luigi Novi: I do not ignore this. I simply observe that it doesn’t mean that all sex is violent, or that porn causes aggression.
Rona: You state you couldn't be bothered with hearing feminist views in a class because of your own biased reactions to a feminist professor.
Luigi Novi: No, I did not state that. You simply distorted my statement about that class.
Again.
Rona: That speaks volumes about your attitudes towards feminism. Your initial post about Dworkin attributed ideas to her that she never said.
Luigi Novi: And many others that she did, to which you apparently have no answer.
Rona: You've never read any of her books, but you're an expert on her.
Luigi Novi: Nope. I never said I never read any of her books. Nor did I ever say I was an expert on her. That’s simply your Straw Man.
Rona: This was reinforced by your own admission of not wanting to hear the viewpoints of a feminist professor.
Luigi Novi: I never made any such admission. Your words. Not mine.
Rona I also mentioned the Religious Right's opposition to feminism because it brings up a huge point not discussed yet.
Luigi Novi: And as I pointed out, you conveniently omitted the fact that she was also denounced by liberals, feminists, and people who were not part of the R.R., so as to obscure the fact that she was criticized from more than one side of the sociopolitical spectrum—which in light of your comment that “When both the left and the right are in agreement, it's obvious something is WRONG.”—bears mention.
Rona: There has even been some implication of this in the posts (such as asking if I was impregnated through "artificial insemination").
Luigi Novi: Benn was responding to your statement that “Much sex is violent, brutal, and degrading to women”, and asking if your situation was a minority exception. His post was composed quite politely, in fact, with important qualifiers to that effect (which naturally, you ignored):
Please keep in mind that I don't mean this to be an ad hominem attack, and I hate to be so impertinent and personal here, but given how often Rona keeps saying that "Much sex is violent, brutal, and degrading to women" and that she's married and has a child (maybe even children), I can't help wonder about her own sex-life. Was the child conceived through artificial insemination? Or do you, Rona, actually have filthy, disgusting, degrading sex with your significant other? I mean, seriously. Of course, I assume that we'll be told that you've found the one exception to the very insulting generalization you and Andrea Dworkin espouse. The rest of us are women-haters.
Rona: Luigi also attributes Dworkin as saying that "gay porn is degrading to women". She never said that, but it's a useful statement in turning gay men against feminists.
Luigi Novi: It’ s possible that I was wrong about that. This article, on the other hand, may indicate that she and her husband believed this. (WARNING: The page provided is mostly a discussion of the issue, but contains at least one passage featuring graphic pornographic descriptions of sex.)
Rona: Luigi, your statement that Angela Davis had an "unkempt" appearance is considered to be offensive by many people.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t make any statement about Angela Davis. The comment in question was about Dworkin. In reviewing my last post, I see that your mention of Davis was for some reason included in my quote of your subsequent mention of Dwokin in the subsequent sentence (a misjudgment or error on my part in composing that post), but my response was in regards to the latter, not the former. I apologize for that exchange being unclear.
R: Could we please move on from this. Dworkin may have had a few good points, she may have had a few bad points. Everyone has a few of each. Heck Mousallini even made the trains run on time.
Luigi Novi: Actually, that’s a myth too.
Benn: Quite frankly, I'm rather offended to have my words distorted in such a manner.
Luigi Novi: Ya think?
MJ: Luigi is biased against Strong Women (I'm not clear on if he's afraid of them too).
Luigi Novi: I adore strong women. I could never see myself with a milquetoast one.
Good to hear from you again, MJ.
Quote:Actually I was thinking more of a train wreck of clowns that hit a truckload of hot air.
Quote:MJ: Luigi is biased against Strong Women (I'm not clear on if he's afraid of them too).
Luigi Novi: I adore strong women. I could never see myself with a milquetoast one.
Luigi, I think it's possible to refute distortions without appearing snide or resorting to personal attacks. For example, your last post contained nice, concise refutations of Rona's points without generally referring to her inability to be coherent or her "frequent flights of fancy." In my opinion, those comments are not refutations, they are insults. You can refute the point without attacking the person. There's no cheerful way to point out not good cheer? I respectfully disagree. You could have simply refuted Rona. You could have said, "I dislike how you are distorting my points." Your language, in my opinion and in my eyes, seemed to be an attack on Rona, not her points. Perhaps I am alone in this and that is why I only pointed it out to you and did not delete them.
I'm not a censorship person myself, but I didn't take a Roving Mod job to play ducks and drakes with censorship. I enforce the rules of Nitcentral, one of the roles is good cheer, there were complaints about the lack of good cheer, hence...sorry, but that's how I see it.
You can call Dworkin a bigot as much as you want. She doesn't post here. Calling Rona bigoted, on the other hand--not cool.
Rona: He labels my posts as "rants".
Luigi Novi: Nope. That was XD, in his Friday, April 22, 2005, 1:10 am post. (I say this in the spirit of checking one’s “facts”, after all.)
And I stand by that. The vitriol and contempt Rona often shows in her posts for anyone who doesn't see things her way makes them seem like rants to me. For example her posts on subjects as varied as horror movies, Andrea Dworkin, and Quentin Tarrentino.
Rona: He's a bit like an Ayatollah; he's right and everyone's wrong.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! While I might say that describes a certain someone here, it sure wouldn't be Luigi. I may not always agree with him, but I sure don't get anything like that from him.
Luigi Novi: Again, why is it “offensive” to point out someone else’s offensive behavior?
Mark Morgan: See also: never let anything ever go, ever.
Luigi Novi: This makes no sense!
Mark Morgan: See also: we must refute everything all the time, line by line.
Luigi Novi: Pointing out the use of incoherent reasoning is unjustified?
Mark Morgan: See also: using trigger words like "incoherent" that reify into anger.
Luigi Novi:The phrase “flight of fancy” is unjustified?
Mark Morgan: See above about trigger words.
Lugi Novi: If we’re going to promote good cheer as an overriding rule, then naturally, we have to point out when it’s being violated.
Mark Morgan: well, there's always diplomacy and tact.
Luigi Novi:There’s no “cheerful” way to point out “uncheerful” behavior without using simplistic talk or euphemism.
Mark Morgan: Or diplomacy, tact, and a sense of humor. Note the difference between this lenghty multicolored thing and my simple "penalty" joke, above.
R: Could we please move on from this.
Mark Morgan: You must be new here.
Mark Morgan: and what a pain in the butt all that colored quoting is! I'm going to go this weekend and deliberately design controls to keep this all out of Unreason! What a mess!
Ok first off: Luigi I know Moussalini didn't make the trains run on time he made them run on rails, but I was trying to think of a really bad perosn and somethign nice to say about them. How about these examples: Hitler liked dogs, Stalin had a really cool moustache and Dubya is from Texas.
A train wreck of clowns hitting a truck of hot air. I like it. Very pythonesqe.
Green is defiantely my color. I wanna be in green next time you do one of those big rainbow posts.
Mark Morgan I have been here almost a year now I think. Time is infinte, I am finite, I lost my watch. So does it really matter?
And to continue the theme song
"MJ How do you stop this crazy thing?"
Um, guys? Most of the material in the past 23 posts don't seem to pertain to Andrea Dworkin. Since we're opining on what should and should not be posted, may your humble PM moderator please express the notion that most of that was not a legitimate addition to this otherwise brand-spanking new board that I spent all night putting together with nuts, bolts and screws from the Nit-C Instruction Manual?
MikeC: Luigi, I think it's possible to refute distortions without appearing snide or resorting to personal attacks. For example, your last post contained nice, concise refutations of Rona's points without generally referring to her inability to be coherent or her "frequent flights of fancy." In my opinion, those comments are not refutations, they are insults.
Luigi Novi: Then we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Mike, since pointing out that someone does not use coherent reasoning is not an insult, IMO. I will, however, continue to try composing my posts in as non-pejorative a manner as possible.
MikeC: You can refute the point without attacking the person. There's no cheerful way to point out not good cheer? I respectfully disagree. You could have simply refuted Rona. You could have said, "I dislike how you are distorting my points."
Luigi Novi: Which is a separate habit of hers from her habit of using fallacious reasoning. In instances where she distorted others’ words, that’s pretty much all I pointed out that she did. In addition, I disagree with the use of the phrase “I don’t like,” because it argues from an emotional or aesthetic viewpoint (“This is not to my liking”), rather than a factual one (“This is not what I said”). I prefer to stick to facts, not questions of personal taste.
MikeC: You can call Dworkin a bigot as much as you want. She doesn't post here. Calling Rona bigoted, on the other hand--not cool.
Luigi Novi: So when she makes broad sweeping, prejudicial comments about entire groups of people—how do you recommend we respond?
XD, thank you.
Mark Morgan: See also: using trigger words like "incoherent" that reify into anger.
Luigi Novi: “Incoherent” is not a trigger word. When used to describe a line of reasoning that lacking construction, connection, order, clarity or harmony (the definition of the word “incoherent”), it is perfectly justified, particularly when the use of the word is be backed up with a counterargument that illustrates why it is thus (which I always do), as opposed to not doing so, which may make the use of the word seem rhetorical (which I tend not to do). If someone uses an unrealistic idea or fantastic notion, the same applies for “flight of fancy.”
Mark Morgan: well, there's always diplomacy and tact.
Luigi Novi: Which Rona has always ignored.
When someone makes broad, sweeping, prejudicial comments about entire groups of people, you point out that you are or someone else is offended. You refute the argument. If need be, you go to a moderator. I do not believe that calling the offending person a bigot does anything other than enflame the argument. Just because you feel that someone ignores diplomacy and tact does not give you the license to be undiplomatic and tactless back.
That said, I understand where you are coming from; I just tend to agree with Mark: There's a difference between debating and arguing.
When someone makes broad, sweeping, prejudicial comments about entire groups of people, you point out that you are or someone else is offended.
So it's not wrong in and of itself? It's only wrong if someone says something? The idea that I can only mention the wrongness of calling horror fans "brutes" or insulting Southerners or Toby Keith fans if an actual Toby Keith fan or horror fan says something, and that I cannot point out the statement in question is bigoted--is wrong. In addition, let's say we use this flowery, euphemistic PC Orwellspeak that you're suggesting, and just say, "That's offensive". The poster may then respond by saying, "Why is it offensive?" Won't it be appropriate then to say, "Because it comes across as a bigoted/offensive/prejudicial remark against this/that group of people."?
Moreover, what good does expressing this do if the poster in question has a history of simply ignoring such admonitions?
I do not believe that calling the offending person a bigot does anything other than enflame the argument.
Except that I never called her a bigot. I said that her comments and behavior in those instances was bigoted. She herself may otherwise be kind and open-minded person who does not see all other groups as such, but who suffers from occassional lapses in etiquette or tolerance for others.
Just because you feel that someone ignores diplomacy and tact does not give you the license to be undiplomatic and tactless back.
Agreed, which is why I never did so, given that calling bigoted remarks bigoted remarks does not constitute lack of diplomacy or tact, so long as the assessment is accurate/reasonable in its description. It is only the remarks themselves that do.
(And Mike--or any RovMod--please check out the Datalore(TNG) board.)
Luigi, thanks for the heads up.
Now...
1. You may call it flowery Orwellspeak, I call it being civil. What you described to me is entirely how someone should behave: You pointed out that an expression was offensive and provided a reason why (I/someone else was offended). There is no need to descend any further in my opinion. If said poster ignores such statements, then that is what moderators are for, to issue warnings/dump posts that are offensive.
2. I agree that it is probably acceptable to call someone on uttering bigoted remarks if such comments are indeed bigoted. I will also say that one should be EXTREMELY careful in doing so and I would recommend, in fact, finding a different way of refuting/objecting to the offending language. I am not saying you are wrong; I am saying that I am not entirely convinced it is the most conducive route to good cheer.
3. I also feel that if you say someone uttered bigoted remarks, you are at the very least insinuating that that person is bigoted.
Luigi posted a link to a site with hard-core pornographic descriptions. It's hard to believe that's condoned at NitCentral (and I'm the one who is always being offensive). And Luigi, please be able to differentiate between Dworkin and McKinnon.
...and stop the phoney anon posts you make as XD.
Luigi probably should have put a warning up; I'm not sure if there's a rule about putting a LINK to a place that has possibly offensive material.
Also, Luigi is not XD, unless he uses another computer for the XD posts--the IP numbers are different. The syntax and style are also different too; the only similarity is that XD also uses multicolor analysis of posts.
Quote:[M]ay your humble PM moderator please express the notion that most of that was not a legitimate addition to this otherwise brand-spanking new board...
Quote:Mark Morgan: well, there's always diplomacy and tact.
Luigi Novi: Which Rona has always ignored.
Quote:An element of the gay male population has expressed a disgust with female genitals and sexuality. They also consider women not to be important in their world.
Luigi probably should have put a warning up; I'm not sure if there's a rule about putting a LINK to a place that has possibly offensive material.
I'm reminded off the incident a few years back when "Peter" posted a link to a web page with pictures of aborted fetuses. The general concensus, as I recall, was that he shouldn't have done so, whether he placed a warning before it or not. So, when it comes to posting links to potentially offensive/obscene material, where is the line drawn?
Quote:So, when it comes to posting links to potentially offensive/obscene material, where is the line drawn?
That surprises you?
Quote:Um, guys? Most of the material in the past 23 posts don't seem to pertain to Andrea Dworkin.
Just for the sake of accuracy, IIRC Peter actually posted pictures on Nitcentral. It was the reason that the Chief then decided to take away that option from everybody.
Mark Morgan, why are you a nitpicker if picking nits (read that as pointing out tiny flaws) is maddening to you?
Thanks for the clarification, Callie. I never saw the pictures, I just had a hazy memory of reading the reaction to them to go off of. I had forgotten the little detail that the pictures were actually posted here. That would make a difference. Thanks again.
At what point does a "debate" become so excessively one-sided, it's not longer a debate. A fifteen to one debate isn't a debate. In terms of numbers and power inequity it more closely resembles the dynamics of a gang-rape ( that's not meant to be offensive, it's meant to be put in a term some males can understand). The leader of the pack shouldn't always be admired, and the victim isn't the one who should have to explain herself.
In this case there is no "victim". Both you and Luigi are in the wrong, and both of you could have walked away from it.
A debate is a discussion between two or more people. You happen to have a viewpoint that is not shared by the rest of the people here. That's fine, but just because you have the unpopular viewpoint, doesn't mean that it becomes a gang rape; in fact, it puts the onus on the so-called victim to explain her viewpoint because she is the minority viewpoint.
Also, putting the words "that's not meant to be offensive" does not make your incredibly unnecessary and inaccurate analogy of a gang rape any more palatable. In case you haven't noticed, the last third of this thread has been several people attempting to lower the tensions of this debate, including several suggestions to Luigi that he may have been out of line in his comments to you. Your gang rape comment is likely to do nothing but restart the argument. There is nothing wrong in taking a minority viewpoint and arguing against a majority. To equate it to gang rape is completely wrong.
I'm sorry, but the whole "gang rape" analogy seems to exist for one reason - to ask for sympathy for Rona and to confer on her the status of victimhood. (Okay, so that's two reasons.) Moreover, it's a very cheap shot and very insulting, whether Rona says "that's not meant to be offensive" or not, she should know it is.
"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
Nor how maddening it is that you debate by painstakingly responding to every point that you can find any flaw in at all? - Mark Morgan
Much as I may respect Luigi's obvious intelligence, this is something he does that I find very annoying. It seems to me to be little more than a rather heavy-handed debate tactic. The idea seems to be to inundate one's opponent with pages of debate counterpoints in order to win the argument. I just honestly don't believe it's necessary to go into each and every posts - to tear apart each and every sentence someone writes and put it under a microscope and dissect it to pieces. I just honestly think Luigi could accomplish his goal of providing a counterargument, of refuting another's debate points without resorting to such a heavy-handed tactic.
Mark Morgan, why are you a nitpicker if picking nits (read that as pointing out tiny flaws) is maddening to you? - NSetzer
I don't know about Morgan, but I don't see what Luigi is doing as simply nitpicking. It's more of a debate tactic that seems to be designed to win the argument by having the biggest post. Luigi often seems amazed that Rona or whoever does not provide a counterargument to every counterargument he has raised. But what he seems to fail to realize is that not everyone has time to go through all the pages he posts and not everyone has the desire to dissect every dotted eye and punctuation mark in another person's posts. Moreover, because of the size of his posts, many points can easily become lost in the crowd of words Novi is using. If this is the case, then creating these monster posts that he does is highly counterproductive.
Besides, I don't see Mark posting very many nits. He tends towards debate rather than nitpicking.
Just some thoughts.
"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
Oh, colors are fun. Let's play the Trigger Words Game:
"A fifteen to one debate isn't a debate. In terms of numbers and power inequity it more closely resembles the dynamics of a gang-rape ( that's not meant to be offensive, it's meant to be put in a term some males can understand). The leader of the pack shouldn't always be admired, and the victim isn't the one who should have to explain herself."
So Mark, are saying you have an intrinsic aversion to the use of colors in postings? 
(I honestly can't believe that "black" is a color format option. Yet, I used it in the previous post.)
I cannot believe I just read a post in which Rona equates this whole thread to everyone gang raping her.
I. Cannot. Believe. That.
Words alone cannot express my utter distaste and disgust.
Just...
Easy there. It's okay. Want a cookie?
Sure
Um, guys? Most of the material in the past 23 posts don't seem to pertain to Andrea Dworkin....
Ohhhhh. And I really preferred the MJ/MarkM thread soo much (bringing back loads of good cheer.. )
Say, Luigi, if all posts need to be relevant , can you please create a new MJ/MarkM board? (With Benn's color posts included... )
Quote:Say, Luigi, if all posts need to be relevant
MikeC: I also feel that if you say someone uttered bigoted remarks, you are at the very least insinuating that that person is bigoted.
Luigi Novi: We are all human beings, and therefore, prejudicial thinking is hardwired into our brains. We are all, therefore, capable during times of stress, anger, or lapse of intellect or courtesy, of making remarks that with greater reflection, or observation from others, may seem well…“unenlightened,” if you prefer. A bigot, on the other hand, is someone who consciously subscribes to such theories about entire groups of people, proudly and gladly making such comments on habitually and without any forethought or shame, and stands behind such things as a matter of belief. I do not believe this necessarily describes Rona.
I posted no pornographic links. Please do not make accusations like that here unless you have evidential support.
Where is this post? Has it been dumped? I don’t see it in the Dump.
Rona...and stop the phoney anon posts you make as XD.
Luigi Novi: I have not made any anonymous posts here, nor have I ever posted as “XD.” A sampling of XD’s posts shows IP addresses like 12.75.31.71, with variation of the last four digits. My posts, which for the past month have been made at the Union City Public Library, all seem to have the IP address of 198.31.189.134. Feel free to ask any Roving Moderator to corroborate this fact, Rona.
Continue to attack me in this manner, Rona, and I will be forced to delete your posts, and should that not suffice, ban you from Political Musings. Please do not force me to do this.
MJ: On another note, ain't it funny how anyone we don't like and/or totally and utterly disagree with is a bigot?
Luigi Novi: Who are you referring to? Who has argued this?
MJ: To me, that's irrelevant. Just because you feel it is ignored does not mean that it's okay to abandon it, especially because you are a Moderator.
Luigi Novi: My point was that the fact that it is ignored means that it isn’t working.
Citations, MJ? Yeah, she ignores that too. Moreover, are you really comparing the above phrase, with its comparatively diplomatic language, to the types of things Rona says about groups of people? When she insults fans of Toby Keith, or calls porn actresses “bimbos,” which are matters of opinion, what is there to cite? Again, if she doesn’t cite evidence (in matters of fact), or listen to polite admonitions (in of matters of opinion/insults), what exactly does saying, “Cite?”? accomplish?
Does it surprise me, Mark? In and of itself, no. The fact that much of the exchange was between a moderator and former moderator who’ve been known to admonish others for OT posts did.
As for “burying them in bland phrasing”, I did no such thing. Those were the actual definitions of those words.
Mark Morgan Nor how maddening it is that you debate by painstakingly responding to every point that you can find any flaw in at all?
Luigi Novi: Now ho’s using emotional trigger words? First, I don’t respond to every point that I “can find any flaw in at all”, I respond to items that I believe merit one. This includes things that I both disagree with and agree with. Your description of this is just a negative mischaracterization. Second, why would I find this maddening? It’s a discussion board! Why do you continue to portray your aesthetic response to my posts as somehow violating an objective measure of behavior?
Rona, why is it that Benn’s statement that his comment about artificial insemination was not meant to be offensive did nothing to prevent your being offended by it, but now we’re supposed to give credence when the same qualifier is used by you, Rona?
As far as my posting style, Benn and Mark, I absolutely do NOT answer individual items with any intent of “winning” the debate, nor do I think having “the biggest post” would do this. That’s a very cynical view of debate, and if use poor argumentation in a small post, or in a big one, it’s still going to be exposed as such by those who know how to do so. Why you find it so difficult to consider that I’m being totally sincere in the choices I make regarding which statements to respond to and how, I don’t know. But I don’t believe in the philosophy of “winning” debates, particularly with someone who choose to ignore most of the refutations you provide. You don’t have to respond to “every” counterargument. Responding to some of them—at least the ones that seem best argued and that seem to refute the initial statements—would seem to be a reasonable expectation. All Benn and Mark seem to be doing is attacking my personal choices in composition of posts in a way that is entirely a matter of taste.
At what point does a "debate" become so excessively one-sided, it's not longer a debate. A fifteen to one debate isn't a debate. In terms of numbers and power inequity it more closely resembles the dynamics of a gang-rape ( that's not meant to be offensive, it's meant to be put in a term some males can understand). The leader of the pack shouldn't always be admired, and the victim isn't the one who should have to explain herself.
Rona, I know u weren't here back than but when most of us argued aginst Peter (an arch conservative) back in the early days of nitcentral was that also like a gang-rape? How about when Luigi and several others argued aginst Brian Webber's points? Or does that only apply when the minority person is a woman, or more importantly does that only apply when the minority person is you?
1. I believe Luigi, Rona was referring to your link posted on Wednesday, April 27th, the link about gay male pornography. The link is not pornographic, but it DOES contain graphic descriptions of pornographic acts and profanity. In my opinion, the link was not offensive, but it probably deserved a warning from yourself as to the content. Just my two cents.
2. I also don't understand how if a person ignores a rule, that means the rule isn't working and thus requires someone else to break the rule. That means the rule gets enforced--posts get dumped, warnings are issued. If someone shoots someone, that doesn't mean the law about not shooting someone doesn't apply and I should just run over and shoot the shooter. Again, just my two cents.
3. What does saying "cite" accomplish? Easy. It establishes your basic point--i.e., Rona's statements were sweeping and unfounded, while at the same time being brief and to the point. Everyone understands the point being made and no fuel is added to any potential argument.
4. I will let Mark and Benn respond to your comments about their suggestions. Let me just say that I find nothing wrong with your posting style in general; I feel that occasionally in this thread you have used rather argumentative language that has not been conducive to good cheer. I registered my feelings, you disagreed, and I decided to leave it at that. Take of that what you will.
Quote:Who are you referring to? Who has argued this?
Quote:My point was that the fact that it is ignored means that it isn’t working.
Citations, MJ? Yeah, she ignores that too. Moreover, are you really comparing the above phrase, with its comparatively diplomatic language, to the types of things Rona says about groups of people? When she insults fans of Toby Keith, or calls porn actresses "bimbos," which are matters of opinion, what is there to cite? Again, if she doesn’t cite evidence (in matters of fact), or listen to polite admonitions (in of matters of opinion/insults), what exactly does saying, "Cite?"? accomplish?
The Toby Keith reference is to a comment made (almost a year ago, actually) by Rona on the Freddy v. Jason board. If you can stomach that thread, you can find it there in living color.
Ahhh...I'll pass, thanks.
As far as my posting style, Benn and Mark, I absolutely do NOT answer individual items with any intent of “winning” the debate, nor do I think having “the biggest post” would do this. - Luigi
It sure seems that way sometimes, mi amigo. You have indicated that "sparring" with Rona is useless. (You have numerous times predicted that she would not respond to a point you make, indicating the futility of making your counterargument.) Yet, every time she makes a post you rip through it sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. Since you seem to feel that Rona is not going to respond to your generally well-reasoned arguments (at least not in the same point by point manner), why bother? But there is something that seems to compel you to dissect the posts you are responding to.
I dunno. I do wonder what's the point in performing what sometimes seems to amount to an autopsy on whichever post you are debating? My feeling is that it's to win the argument. I could very well be wrong and probably am wrong. (Like that's a rare occurrence on these boards.) But, I mean, come on! MikeC and I both posted responses to Rona's mischaractization of the phrase "artificial insemination". Yet, you have found it necessary to essentially repeat what we both said in one of your responses to Rona. Now, either you're not reading anyone else's posts or... Well, what's the point of the redundancy? (My post was admittedly redundant. However, I was the one who used the phrase, therefore I felt I should be the one to respond to it. Even if Mike did a good job of it. [Not to take anything away from Mike.]) And that's not the first time I've made a point in a debate only to see you make the very same point. (Kinda gives me an inferiority complex. But that's neither here nor there.)
The weird thing is that while you have characterized the debate style you use as a matter of personal taste (and I can agree with that), you have not explained why you've made that choice other than to deny that it's not to overwhelm your opponent. Please note, I'm not asking for a response to that. Matter of fact, I do plan to pretty much shut my mouth and never again make another comment about your posting style on these boards. It really ain't any of my business.
BTW, I really am not sure it's fair to lump Mark Morgan's comments with mine like that. I'm not speaking for Morgan, nor have I ever claim to. I'm not even certain whether he agrees or disagrees with my comments about your posting style. For all we know, he may be rather offended to find my comments representing his own viewpoint.
"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
MJ
Cause we're just SOOO political.
I didn't mean necessarily on the PM board. Wasn't there a sink board on "The Sun, the Wind ..." about "Nitcentralia: the Movie" once?
I just meant that if you got your own (Soap-opera) board, there'd probably some fans with the popcorn
Rona,
I'll ignore the rape comment (MJ already expressed the opinion of a woman about it, and several of the others level-headed posters mentioned it), but I think you are seeing things a bit one-sided here.
As fellow woman, I'd like to offer my two cents of advice to you (if I may - no offense meant!)
I think it's more the manner of your postings that Luigi esp., but some of the cooler guys (Benn, Mike, Mark etc.) disagree with, and not the issues themselves.
I bet if you try to make some assertions or definitions about feminism itself (without using upset language) then many people here would agree with you.
For example purposes only:
In history, married women have long been considered more the property of their husbands than equal partners. The tireless work of many feministis has changed the perception of the general public on that, as well as the lawmakers have changed legislation, so that today, rape in the marriage enviroment can be persecuted.
Luigi agreed to sth. with a similar content earlier. I just phrased the disclaimers ("many feminists" not only Dvorkin; general public - not everbody/nobody etc.) to show how a post should be neutral and non-offensive to the people here.
Personally, I can understand that a post about a topic which excites one isn't as well thought out or neutrally formulated as it should be (because that happens to me, too. Funny, isn't it, that theoretically, there's all the time in the world to compose a post, but in practice, we often respond on the spot?)
But if you're upset and get insultive and denounce general groups of people, even posters well-meaning to your arguments get turned off.
Hear that, Benn? We be cool.
In Building Communities With Software Joels Spolsky has a point of view about quoting posts. Please bear with the long quote; I'll be saying more at the end:
Joel's site is a glory of wonderful discussions over all sorts of hot-button topics but careful moderation and smart software design and it's really a nice place to go if you're a programmer. (I am not.)
Quote:Q. Why don't you show me the post I'm replying to, while I compose my reply?
A. Because that will tempt you to quote a part of it in your own reply. Anything I can do to reduce the amount of quoting will increase the fluidity of the conversation, making topics interesting to read. Whenever someone quotes something from above, the person who reads the topic has to read the same thing twice in a row, which is pointless and automatically guaranteed to be boring.
Sometimes people still try to quote things, usually because they are replying to something from three posts ago, or because they're mindlessly nitpicking and they need to rebut 12 separate points. These are not bad people, they're just programmers, and programming requires you to dot every i and cross every t, so you get into a frame of mind where you can't leave any argument unanswered any more than you would ignore an error from your compiler. But I'll be damned if I make it EASY on you. I'm almost tempted to try to find a way to show posts as images so you can't cut and paste them. If you really need to reply to something from three posts ago, kindly take a moment to compose a decent English sentence ("When Fred said blah, he must not have considered..."), don't litter the place with your <<<>>>s.
I've said before that I don't want to debate. Luigi doesn't respect that. He intentionally posts comments which I feel are intended to anger me. I guess that's his method of initiating a debate. As to the fact of whether he likes Dworkin or not, I don't care.
I do care when someone posts totally inaccurate remarks about someone who I felt has done good (help change laws in which women had no legal recourse). I'm not trying to restart a debate, but Luigi's initial post on Dworkin mentioned a whole collection of ideas Dworkin never said. Other posters responded to HIS own inaccurate remarks. After many posts, I asked him where he got the ideas in that initial post? He stated he got them from a link mentioned by Chris Booten. Luigi posted his remarks on a Friday. Chris made his post the next Tuesday. Did Luigi use a time machine (and I'm the one accused of making "flights of fancy"). The quote Luigi made didn't pertain to any of those ideas. Instead, bizarrely, he quotes Andrea mentioning sex should be "reciprocal". Where, in 2005, is that a controversial idea? Maybe not in Saudi Arabia (which has a disgraceful record of oppressing women in 2005; women can't vote or even drive a car. Mention those facts to Bush who just tip-toed, hand-in-hand, through the blue bonnets with the leader of that appalling regime). Andrea realised that many women are still very oppressed and much work still needs to be done. Apparently, some feel the issue isn't important. Just throw out some more "feminists are man haters" rhetoric.
Luigi incessantly picks at my statements. I could spend all day and do the same to his remarks. But what purpose does that serve? ( I could have carried on about such insignificant facts as Luigi claiming he made no statement about Angela Davis having an "unkempt" appearance. Direct quote from Luigi: "She was a public speaker who appeared unkempt".) That's the level of his debates. I really don't want to play an extended game of "he said, she said". That's silly.
He also expresses a total disrespect for any source I note. He claims mainstream feminists have repudiated Dworkin. When I mention mainstream feminists who have praised her, he claims they are individual voices and are not important. The fact that Dworkin's books are used by University programs across America is also dismissed. I read her books at school in the early 90s. Dworkin had been around for more than twenty years. That is more than enough time in which her work could have been discredited.
So, I look to the quality of Luigi's sources. He doesn't accept well-known feminists such as Susie Bright and Gloria Steinem praise for Dworkin. So what are his sources for "discrediting" Dworkin. He posts a link to an absolutely vitriolic personal blog by a nobody. I logged on expecting a scholarly article, instead I found an obscene rant filled with explicit gay pornography (from a supposed woman who is a militant defender of gay male porn...What? Where does he find this stuff). Talk about using fringe figures to justify an argument. It's also appalling to lead people to a site with pornography, especially to persons who have said they don't like pornography.
Luigi wants to drag me down into the mud to debate. He enjoys a fight. I don't. Some of the other posters (such as Mark) made interesting remarks I wanted to respond to. I even wanted to praise R for his support of an abused woman. Instead, I was distracted by Luigi's remarks. If I don't respond to his remarks, I'm portrayed as some sort of coward who is avoiding his supposed facts.
Also, it's mentioned about comments being made in good cheer. In addition to the insults Luigi weaves into his posts (which others ignore), there is a piling on of remarks by others. Is it fair for ten other people to jump in and attack me? Is it "good cheer" to ask me, "...do you, Rona, actually have filthy, disgusting sex with your significant other?. I never said sex was filthy and disgusting. I specified that abuse of young girls in brothels, rape, and abuse are disgusting. I said that porn featuring simulated rape and killings and extreme degradation of women was disgusting. How does that translate to all sex being "filthy and disgusting".
It's enough when one person misrespresents me, but when person after person does that, it's more than enough. It's unfair.
Does anybody else find it hilarious that I posted an 852 word post about how poor it is to argue by quoting...and started it with a 241 word quote? Ah, consistency, my old enemy We meet again.
I had meant to mention this so I will now: the stuff personally attacking Rona and her sex life was and remains inappropriate.
Still not a gang rape. But out of line.
You know what's cool? I'm not a moderator, just a guy, and my opinions don't matter much. Take what you want and leave the rest.
Fans? Us?
Wow. I'm just flattered, Constanze.
I have seen no cite from you, Rona (but it could just be lost in the twelve screen postings by everyone). Please bear in mind that cites aren't generally "such-and-such said this and that and that too," without either a link to some place that said evidence can be examined (or if it's in a book, listing the book and page number). Think of it as a research paper. It makes your arguments that much stronger.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that any attacks against you are inappropriate and out of line, but criminy. Couldn't you have just said that (see: your latest post) instead of comparing it to a gang rape? THAT was just as inappropriate, and quite highly disgusting too.
I missed the post in question on my first go round (because by the time I got here? Screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen after screen of arguments). I saw it mentioned in other posts, and even if I disagreed with what you were posting, THAT comment made me sympathetic towards you, 'cause it IS an inappropriate comment. But your comparision to a gang rape killed all such sympathy.
I suspect you might find that to be the case more than anyone realises.
That I somehow missed it then makes me question my own ability as a Roving Mod ('cause really, it should have been dumped). I will do so now, but I do realise the damage has been done to a huge degree.
And Morgan? Just for that, I'm not only opening the window and turning on the fan, the fan will be in the window ON HIGH. 'Cause, you know, tomorrow is the start of MAY!
Heat-loving freak.
Is it "good cheer" to ask me, "...do you, Rona, actually have filthy, disgusting sex with your significant other?. - Rona (With apologies to Mark Morgan.)
Out. Of. Context. Again. I cannot believe it is so difficult for you to grasp my meaning in that post. You insist on reading into it a slam against you time after time. I suppose I should just apologize for that post and ask the moderator to remove it - because you apparently are incapable of understanding my intentions when I made that post. You continuously insist on seeing it as a personal attack and refuse to see it as anything else. Period. In your mind, I have just flat out done what I did not intend to do - I insulted you.
That post was a response to this sentence you posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 08:49 am: "Much sex is violent, brutal, and degrading to women." Those are your very words, Ma'am. I was making a comment about that statement. I was not trying to insult you. I was not trying to say you were a lesbian or anything else you want to twist that post into.
Tell you what, since you are completely unable to comprehend what my intentions were and are bound and determined to glean nothing but insults from it, how about we just get a moderator to delete that post? Will that make you happy?
I've said before that I don't want to debate. - Rona
Then. DON'T. Debate. See how easy that is? But keep in mind that once you make your post here, many of us will comment on your posts - both positively and negatively, as the situation compels us to.
"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
Hear that, Benn? We be cool. - MikeC
I don't know about you, Mike, but I hear that so rarely, I find it hard to believe. Thanks for the compliment, Constanze!
"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
hey someone start a mjenkins/mark morgan room...
as Spock would say: Fascinating
1. You don't want to debate? Could have fooled me. When you make statements on a DISCUSSION board, expect that people will discuss and debate. There's a difference between a good debate and an argument and we try to enforce that, but to say you don't want to debate is not enough. You clearly are debating. Don't start something you have no intention of finishing, please.
2. I think you may still be confused as to what happened regarding Luigi's original post. Luigi (erroneously, as he has said) posted that Dworkin said all sex is rape. Chris corrected him. Luigi responded to Chris' refutation, but pointed out that Dworkin said all sex is violent instead. Dworkin DID say sex should be reciprocal, a very logical concept. In that same paragraph, she also said: "Penetrative intercourse is, by itself, violent." Not being a Dworkin expert, I don't know what she means by that, but those are her exact words. If you could enlighten us about the context of such statement, that would be great.
3. Luigi's unkempt comment was referring to Dworkin. It was a little unclear because he quoted the sentence about Angela Davis as well, but the comment was definitely about Dworkin.
4. If you don't want to respond to Luigi's comments, then don't. Go ahead. Don't. I don't think you're a coward at all. But the fact remains you made statements that Luigi objected to and wanted to debate. That happens on discussion boards. Fair warning. Thus, when other people may object and debate to you, it is not "piling it on"--it is a discussion. I admit that Benn's comment may have crossed a line and I probably should have taken care of it then (I think Benn is right, though, in that you are taking offense at it for inflated reasons). But what else about the discussion was an attack or piling it on? Who misrepresented you aside from this one statement?
We're not supposed to start things we don't intend to finish? When did that change? Darnit, people, I *said* I want meeting notes for any meetings and I want them the same day!
You three over there in the back? You're fired!
Sorry if anyone was offended by the April 27th link. I didn’t notice anything there that I thought would’ve triggered anything. Had I done so, I assure you I would’ve included a warning.
And thanks for the vote of confidence vis a vis my posting “style”, Mike.
MJ:Wait, so are you saying that because she's acting in a certain manner, you're entitled to act in the same manner?
Luigi Novi: No, I’m asking you what saying, “Cite” will accomplish. I don’t recall saying anything about acting in the same manner, nor was I aware that I have acted this way. Are you saying that I make broad stereotypical comments about groups of people? Or that I don’t answer counterarguments?
Benn, I wish you would talk to me about these feelings rather than bring them up for the first time while speaking of me in the third person. As I recall when Peter complained about my argumentation and how I was supposed to argue in order to “win arguments,” I responded that I don’t believe in the concept, since I see debate as an exchange of ideas, and that if it is possible for an argument to be refuted in any way—and this is another thing I’ve openly opined many times here at Nit-C—it can only be done so on the basis of the merit/strength/logic/reason of the counterargument. Express distaste for my posting “style” if you wish, but please do not attribute ulterior motives or cynical debate philosophy to me. Trying to overwhelm someone by post length would be a form of dishonesty, in my view. I would also appreciate it if you did not exaggerate my complaint about her not responding to any of my counterarguments into one about not responding to all of them. I respond to Rona because I feel—and yes, I’ve stated this too—that paralogia, fallacies, and lopsided arguments require a response. It is important even if one does not anticipate a response. I choose the quote-and-response exchanges to post because those are the ones that I want to respond to. There’s a subjective element to the choice, sure, but who else should make those choices when I’m composing my posts?
I will attempt, nonetheless, to make more discriminating choices in that regard.
I mentioned the matter of the artificial insemination comment because of one angle or point regarding it that no one else mentioned: That you used a “non-offense qualifier” that she ignored, but that she then used one when using the “males can understand gang-rape” comment. Again, opine that it was not necessary for me, but please do not accuse me of an ulterior motive. (Speaking of which, isn’t such an accusation not conducive to good cheer, and possibly an ad hominem argument? Just asking.)
Yes, Mark, words have power and mystery to them. I recommend reading Peter David’s essay on that point in his But I Digress column. It is one of the columns in the book collecting many of his columns. What we need to acknowledge here is that how a word comes across to one does not come across that way to another. If I want to describe a stereotypical or prejudicial comment leveled at a large group of people, how exactly should I respond to it?
Rona, if you don’t want to debate, why come to a discussion board? I respect your right to make a post without responding to others, or even reading the posts of others, but then why do you react to others here at all? Why, for example, do you post after I do, and refer to things that I never said? It’s not like you simply made one post and then left Nit-C forever, right? You continue to stay here and react to the reactions. Why is this? Why will you not concede when I point out that you I never said certain things that you accuse me of. By dropping outrageous accusations and such, and without responding when definitive proof is offered to disprove them, refusing to respond will naturally have the appearance of intellectual dishonesty or cowardice on your part. Indeed, the reason some may have initially labeled you as a troll when you first starting posting here is because your posts do give at least the apperance of somehow who is simply trying to provoke others. Why else would you use such an inflammatory metaphor like gang-rape to describe a group of people merely disagreeing with another, and then say that you used it because men will understand it. You say you feel my posts are intentionally made to anger you. Would you be surprised if I told you that your posts look that way to me? Why else would you make the accusation that I’ve been posting anonymously as XD without any proof, and ignore the evidence I provided that would show that I’m not XD, when most people would agree that making false accusations without proof and refusing to admit it when it’s debunked is immoral? If my comments are simply made to provoke, then why not show everyone how flimsy my arguments are by simply pointing out where they’re flawed, untrue, unreasonable, etc.? By not doing so, accusations against me like this one are
You have every right not to debate if you wish. But when you make a comment or accusation that someone challenges—particularly if it constitutes accusing someone else of saying something or doing something that they did not—then honesty and decency REQUIRE you to respond when they present to you their side of the story, and evidence that your accusation may have been unfounded. On numerous occasions, you have deliberately misquoted myself and others, and you continued to do so in your last post. By not responding to the evidence or counterargument in which I illustrate quite clearly that your accusations are not only false, but wildly and obviously so, you revealing yourself to be one-sided and quite “unfair” yourself. You don’t drop harsh words and misquotes against others continuously and then say that, “Oh, I don’t really want to debate.” When you do this, this sounds simply like, “I don’t want anyone to prove me wrong because I can’t admit that.”
Choose not to respond to others if you wish. You do not, however, have the right to put words into other people’s mouths, to make false accusations, and generally, to violate the stated rules of Nit-C and PM and ignore admonitions by others when you’ve done so. When you insist on doing this, it makes you look like someone who doesn’t wish to get along with the other posters here.
To sum up in response to miscellaneous statements from your last post:
-My initial post on Dworkin contained several ideas that she promoted, only one of which was incorrectly attributed to her, which I later conceded.
-I never said that the ideas in my initial post on topic (which I understand is the one you’re referring to?) were from Chris’ link. You are again inventing statements that no one ever made. What I said is that Chris Booton provided the link that proved that the attribution of the “all sex is rape” comment to Dworkin was an urban legend, and Dworkin quote about intercourse being naturally violent.
- I didn’t say sexual reciprocity was a controversial idea. You again quoting selectively. The full quote I provided is:
Dworkin replied: "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself.
The questionable portion that I called into question is the part about intercourse being violent by its nature.
-You again misrepresent the item about Angela Davis with more selective quoting. The exchange went thus:
Rona: Those who hated Angela Davis attacked her for her hair too. Dworkin wasn't an IBM office worker. How did her appearance not meet professional standards?
Luigi Novi: She was a public speaker who appeared unkempt when she appeared in public
After you complained about this, I explained in my April 27th post that the “she” I was referring to was Dworkin, and apologized for sloppily and inexplicably including mention of Davis in that quote. I never heard of Angela Davis. I don’t know what she looks like. MikeC also acknowledged this. You are simply ignoring these facts.
-I did not say the mainstream feminists like Bright and Steinem are “not important.” I said that one feminist doesn’t represent all of them, and that even though some praised her, others denounced her, in furtherance of the fact that she was denounced by many on all sides of the spectrum.
-The link did not have any pornography on it. That is simply untrue. Your ad hominem remark about the source being a “nobody” is also noted as such, and is another example of you ignoring Dworkin’s questionable views on sex.
I will respond on page deux, which I created to spare my computer.
Ah... the reasons I stay away from PM and RM.
I see some of Rona's points... some of Luigi's... and a LOT of everyone else's.
I do have one thing to point out from Luigi's and Rona's latest posts:
The link did not have any pornography on it. That is simply untrue. - Luigi Novi
You might want to rethink that statement in the light of fairness and truth. While the article itself wasn't pornography, it certainly cited lengthy passages from pretty explicit pornographic material.
It's enough when one person misrespresents me, but when person after person does that, it's more than enough. It's unfair. - Rona
Three words: I-RO-NY!
1. I don't think MJ is accusing you, Luigi, of not responding to arguments or using illogic. She IS, however, suggesting that you, like Rona, occasionally fall into a disobedience of the "keep in good cheer" rule during your arguments.
2. Benn's "accusations," as you put it, are nothing more than him wondering if you are just interested in winning arguments. I don't see them as ad hominem at all.
3. I believe you can respond to a stereotypical and prejudicial comment like this:
"That's a rather offensive statement. Not all porn actresses are bimbos." Simple, to the point, and no fuel added to any potential flame wars. But that's just my two cents.
4. Finally, your link was not pornographic in nature, but it DID contain two excerpts from two pornographic magazines that contained sexually explicit language. I am not sure if Rona is referring to this.
I read Andera Dworkin's last article, which was published in The Guardian('s) Weekend suppliment, last Saturday.
The autobiographical article dealt with her attempts to live with osteoarthritis,& the various treatments she had to undergo,to try to stop it's progress, including surgery...
The article was in my personal oponion, scathing about New York State's drug perscription policy, with regard to anagelsic/painkiller medication.
Ironically, she felt she was "healing" in her own words...
(She was given so much Actaminophen(Paracetamol), as part of her anagelsics, that her pharmacist sucessfully argued to her consultant, that the liver damage caused to her as a result of the Actaminophen, was a far greater danger to her health, than putting her onto stronger, but potentially addictive medication...).
What? WHAT?
Quote:No, I’m asking you what saying, "Cite" will accomplish. I don’t recall saying anything about acting in the same manner, nor was I aware that I have acted this way. Are you saying that I make broad stereotypical comments about groups of people? Or that I don’t answer counterarguments?
Quote:Re: the query about asking for citations
Wow, I was mistaken for a Luigi alias? I'll take that as a compliment, even if it wasn't intended as such.
But no, I'm not, I'm just a guy who's been coming here for a while but never managed to come up with a name, so I either use Anonymous when the checkbox is there or just make something up if it isn't. In this case I was still laughing at Luigi's original blasting of Dworkin, and thus used "XD", one of many internet shorthand laughter indicators.
Yes, I do color code when replying to someone, but that's just because when I saw Luigi doing it, I thought it looked nicer than how I had been doing it to that point, with italics. So I stole it. Might as well steal from the best, right?
Mark Morgan --
So your use of 'maddening' and the Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 09:17 am post on "Part Un" are basically just statements that you personally do not like the quoting method and so no one should use it based solely on your taste? Because that's how they come off despite your inclusion of the phrase "Reply to posts however you want in any style you want", especially since you state that Luigi's style is suboptimal without any reasoning other than you and Joels Spolsky don't like it.
I don't see how Joels Spolsky's point of view is relevant, seeing how it's an opinion, even if he is an expert. In fact, in the linked article he insists that 'Quoting, with the ">" symbol, is a disease that makes it impossible to read any single thread without boring yourself to death by re-reading the whole history of a chain of argument which you just read in the original, seconds ago, again and again and again.' Whereas, if the quotes are offset or colored, you can easily identify them and skip right over them.
Darth, I reviewed the page again, and found what I believe is the paragraph in question. Since my first use of that page involved only using the browser's Find feature to look for words relevant to the issue of Dworkin's views of gay porn, and since reading the first half of the page when skimming it yesterday did not reveal it to me (I am pressed for time now that I'm using the library for computer activities, and the branch I was at closes at 5pm on Saturdays), I missed it. I again apologize for missing that, and to anyone offended by that passage, including you, Rona. When I have a home computer, I am generally able to read the entire thing. I'll have to be more careful now. I have now included a warning in that post above. Thanks.
Also, I have deleted most of the posts regarding Mark Morgan and MJ's OT matters, and the board created for them here in Political Figures.
After making this post initially, I saw that someone created a second board, so I closed this one, and moved that second board as a subtopic under this one.