Herr Nietzsche isn't a member of this forum.

My point is that the nature of polemic writing is to be hyperbolic.

My other point is that that entire post had nothing to do with gender differences or sexism, but rather the state of Western society. So if to talk about the state of Western society is sexism, then I think you need to check what sexism means. I gave examples of hypocrisy there.

And the world pretends to love men like Marcus Aurelius, but actually hates them to the core, for true morality disrupts hypocrisy and pulls the cover. And men are too afraid to look at their own faces, and will do anything to keep the veil covering it. They will then start speaking of the complete acceptance of life as it is - as if there was anything more in there than a covert pleading to accept immorality, to drop the pretence. For their heart truly lusts for what is unclean, and their mind only pretends that it is otherwise. They envy Trump, instead of pity him. Indeed, they condemn pity, as the emotion belonging to the weak. But it is only the strong man who can look down on another with compassion and pity, for only the strong man knows what the other lacks. The weak can only look up at what they deem to be the strong with envy. And the one they deem to be the strong shows what their real values are.

When theft, adultery, promiscuity, deception, and the like become the standard - then the immoral shall look up to people exemplifying these "qualities". Even as they condemn them - they shall condemn - but it will be only in speaking, for in reality they will secretly envy those people. For their hearts have not yet renounced evil - nor have their minds seen evil as evil - rather they persist in secretly seeing evil as good. — Agustino

How is this sexist for example?

If someone asks us why shall a good man support Trump - then we shall answer that Trump is the truth of man, and we want our brother to have an honest look at himself. How can we change the world if we refuse to look at our own face, maybe for the first time? Those cowards, some of whom make their presence felt in this thread by protesting against Trump, are pony-hugging liberals in disguise. They hate Trump because they hate themselves - they will refuse to see their own wretchedness reflected in Trump - so they have to get rid of Trump, only to suppress their own selves.

How utterly hilarious to see them crying about Trump slighting the Truth, when their favorite TV shows slight the Truth each and every day, and behold, they keep on watching? Have they just now awakened and opened their eyes onto the world? Have they been fast asleep, so drawn into their petty play not to know the world they're living in? One has to wonder how deep blindness and stupidity can go.

They would all like to be the overmen on Wall Street, only that they lack the strength - they lack the opportunity. If only power were placed in their hands. But being weak, they hide their desire from themselves - so that they may be able to live with themselves. Instead they promote a fake morality - a hypocritical morality - motivated by their ressentiment and hatred of themselves and of the powerful (whom they nevertheless want to emulate). So on the one hand they condemn theft - but on the other they reward the thief by doing business with him. On the one hand they condemn adultery - on the other they enjoy seeing it in their movies. With one hand they take away, and with the other, behind their backs so that their eyes do not see, they give back what was taken!

That is their pity, for they have never actually rejected immorality. They have just deceived themselves, thinking that they have rejected what is immoral. But they haven't. The sad part is that their so called morality is a reaction to immorality, and not authentic and in-itself, and has the same illusory and shadowy constitution that its parent has. That is why when push comes to shove, they shall once again resort to immorality. If their daughter can marry that unrighteous rich man, then they will immediately agree, and at once will have forgotten all their concerns about morality. — Agustino

How is this sexist?! :s

Nobody said those passages are sexist.

Can you understand that you can't appeal to doctors when you say that generally you distrust doctors and favour independent reasoning? It's not that hard, is it? — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, I generally distrust doctors and favour independent thinking (using your own brain). But what do you need to do to think independently? Don't you need to know medicine?! If you don't know medicine, how will you be able to think independently? It's not that hard is it?!

Nobody said those passages are sexist. — StreetlightX

Oh.

A polemic, sexist piece of writing. — StreetlightX

So based on 10% or less of that post, you call it a polemic sexist piece of writing, and yet nobody said it was sexist. Great.

No, that's not sexist. Context matters. It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. If that's sexist, oh dear, I don't want to show you what kind of comments Nietzsche and other great philosophers put out there.

Yes, it's sexist and arguably misogynist. You context didn't help things at all. It was sexist polemic writing, and its hyperbole to emphasize things doesn't change that. And many great philosophers have been very sexist; that doesn't help you.

But keep defending that sexist passage, Augustino. You'll just keep digging a hole you should probably start filling.

Yes, it's sexist and arguably misogynist. — John Harris

Care to explain why?

I already have. Go back and read.

I already have. Go back and read. — John Harris

Where?

I called the polemic, sexist piece of writing a polemic, sexist piece of writing.

I called the polemic, sexist piece of writing a polemic, sexist piece of writing. — StreetlightX

:s So then you did call it sexist, and then you said

Nobody said those passages are sexist. — StreetlightX

Great!

Yes, because you left out the polemic, sexist piece of writing with your selective quoting.

You can't honestly be this dense.

Yes, because you left out the polemic, sexist piece of writing with your selective quoting.

You can't honestly be this dense. — StreetlightX

Oh, so then the entire posting wasn't a polemic sexist piece of writing right? Now we're getting somewhere.

So don't you have to read the supposed "polemic sexist piece of writing" in the context of the rest of the post, which isn't a polemic sexist piece of writing? :s

Parts of it were sexist. Parts of it weren't. Seems reasonable to then claim that the post was sexist.

Just as if I were to say "London is the capital of England and women are inferior to men" then my statement would be sexist, even though my claim that London is the capital of England isn't.

Yes, he would have been right if I made that assertion in a context which leaned itself to be interpreted as a categorical statement. But in the context of the rest of the writing, which is just exaggerated for polemical and rhetorical effect, it cannot be interpreted as anything else but hyperbolic. — Agustino

Perhaps others have a different opinion, but for me hyperbole tends to significantly lessen an argument's overall effect. Maybe among the general populace it works better than moderation and subtlety, but I'd imagine it's unnecessary and even counter-productive here.

I also vaguely recall the debate form which these quotes were drawn, and remember thinking to myself something along the lines of, "This is unfortunate since I really respected the intelligence and character of this guy."

But anyway, I think you're a great poster overall, and I can appreciate those like you who challenge dominant values and beliefs. JS Mill's On Liberty has always resonated with me a great deal, and I appreciate seeing ideas defeated rather than silenced.

It's not that hard to realise that saying "they're not doctors" is not a refutation of SX's citations, is it? Especially, if you are someone who favours independent thinking over the title of "doctor". There's no reason to suppose SX's authors didn't get it better than "doctors" or than you. — Πετροκότσυφας

Do the authors that SX cited work in the field of medical research? My point in replying to SX was not that his citations have no value, but rather that the issue is a lot more controversial than he wants to claim it to be:

On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour — StreetlightX

it is also fair to allow posts that perpetuate those myths to stand, if only so that others can expose them for the myths that they are — StreetlightX

So apparently he thinks these things are definitely myths which need to be exposed and shut down, even though many who engage in medical research have uncovered scientific evidence that there exist biological differences between the sexes. I linked him to several articles that he has ignored. Instead, he will hold tight to his prejudice.

So don't you have to read the supposed "polemic sexist piece of writing" in the context of the rest of the post, which isn't a polemic sexist piece of writing? — Agustino

Doesn't make a difference. But I've reached the limit of your equivocations. You're on notice for what is and is not considered sexist here, whether you like or agree with it.

Parts of it were sexist. — Michael

Okay, so let's discuss this from the ground up then. Why do you think that specific part was sexist?

Is it because the word "all" was used with regards to the women on TV?

While we are discussing the guidelines, here's a copy of a PM I sent to a moderator (no response yet):



Hi, I have a quick question about the forum guidelines: what exactly counts as a nazi sympathiser?

1) Being a nazi
2) Promoting being a nazi
3) Not having any strong opinions on nazism, including not having anything against it
4) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to their opinion
5) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to spread their ideas
6) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to, well, do anything, including killing people
7) Justifying nazism with cultural relativism

The first two and last two probably count, but especially #2 and #3 are unclear. What about the last one as a provocative thought experiment? #justcurious
-BlueBanana

I meant #3 and #4 in the previous.

Hi, I have a quick question about the forum guidelines: what exactly counts as a nazi sympathiser?

1) Being a nazi
2) Promoting being a nazi
3) Not having any strong opinions on nazism, including not having anything against it
4) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to their opinion
5) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to spread their ideas
6) Being against nazism but thinking they have a right to, well, do anything, including killing people
7) Justifying nazism with cultural relativism

The first two and last two probably count, but especially #2 and #3 are unclear. What about the last one as a provocative thought experiment? #justcurious
-BlueBanana — BlueBanana

Let me tell you what counts towards being a Nazi. We all remember our friend who was unfairly banned for "being a Nazi", even though he was no Nazi:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/57934#Post_57934

Apparently if you hold some right-wing views that's sufficient.

So, if I claim that there exists a biological difference between men and women and post an article from a medical/scientific journal in support, am I being sexist?

If you have to waste my fucking time to ask a question like that, consider just not posting ever to err on the side of caution.

... interesting. We are not allowed to say something is morally more wrong than nazis because then nazism is more acceptable than that?

I don't know if they cite medical research. An you don't know either, as it seems. — Πετροκότσυφας

Well they clearly can't cite the research I've cited, because that would be against their own assessments. Furthermore if they do, it might be only to criticise it, but since the research is reporting facts - biological differences - they'd have to deny them.

And, if your point was that SX and his citations make the issue seem a lot less controversial than it is, you failed miserably in expressing that, since all you did was to call the citations pseudo-scientific — Πετροκότσυφας

Some of them are pseudo-scientific since they're not written by scientists with expertise in medicine, neuroscience, and the like.

but I guess they have value, eh? — Πετροκότσυφας

As someone's thinking about the issues, yes of course. They'd be an interesting perspective, but if they deny scientific facts, as SLX made it sound, then they're certainly wrong. When it comes to what the facts are, we should listen to researchers who actually work in the domain, not philosophers.

just not posting ever to err on the side of caution. — StreetlightX

Ah, so that's your goal. I see.

We are not allowed to say something is morally more wrong than nazis because then nazism is more acceptable than that? — BlueBanana

It seems so.

The whole premise of the statement and the value by which the polemic functions is sexist. It's outright rape apology, drawn out of the notion a women is their for whatever the rich man wants to do. Any question of what a women thinks or is interested is rejected in favour of assuming a (the problem is merely defined by you saying "all," but any) woman wants some sort of sexual attention just because a man is rich/famous and he wants to harass them.

Even a woman who was attracted to a famous rich man would fall under these concerns. Attraction is not the same as a desire to engage in sexual activity, let alone sexual activity in a public space (or close to a public space) with a famous rich man who you're never going to see again.

The whole premise of the statement and the value by which the polemic functions is sexist. It's outright rape apology, drawn out of the notion a women is their for whatever the rich man wants to do. Any question of what a women thinks or is interested is rejected in favour of assuming a (the problem is merely defined by you saying "all," but any) woman wants some sort of sexual attention just because a man is rich/famous and he wants to harass them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, that can't be the case because I think rape, including grabbing women by the pussy and the things Trump advocated are wrong (that's one of the things my post criticised - that the world pretends to hate Trump, but actually voted for him). So how does your interpretation square with this fact? How can I be an apology for rape culture when I claim precisely that neither men nor women should use sex in the manners that they do use it?

Even a woman who was attracted to a famous rich man would fall under these concerns. Attraction is not the same as a desire to engage in sexual activity, let alone sexual activity in a public space (or close to a public space) with a famous rich man who you're never going to see again. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, agreed. So what's your point? :s