some of agustino's comments can appear as sexist, especially for someone who is easily offended, yes. But how can you sit behind a screen in a place far away from his and make the judgement that he IS a sexist? Isnt that too an offence?

↪John Harris Whatever. I understand why agustino(whom I more often than not disagree with) wants to ignore you. Answer the questions. What is your goal, what do you want to achieve with all this?

Whatever. I completely understand why I want to ignore you. And I'm starting now.

We don't have many female members here and we're not going to if they feel the environment is not conducive to their presence. — Baden

Tiff, TimeLine (not anymore because she sent me a PM saying she's gone to work on a documentary), Mongrel, River and Lone Wolf are just some quick examples which come to mind.

If you could just acknowledge your past comments have caused offence, and show a bit more restraint in future, we could move on. — Baden

That they have caused offence to some people I can acknowledge (and I apologise to those they have offended), but I believe it's important to discuss whether or not they were sexism. For example the comment in my long post in the Post Truth thread, as I was discussing with Michael here, can hopefully be regarded in the context of the essay, and isn't sexism. The critique wasn't based on a discrimination of their gender, but rather on our social values, which apply to men and to women equally. So please join in the discussion and let's see what you find sexist in it if you do, and let's discuss it. This is important.

John Harris some of agustino's comments can appear as sexist, especially for someone who is easily offended, yes. But how can you sit behind a screen in a place far away from his and make the judgement that he IS a sexist?

Says someone who is sitting behind a screen and hypocritically judging me. How lame.

Goodbye, Beebee

Judging you? When did I? I asked you what you want to achieve? Do you take that as judging someone?

This is a standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use to justify rape or assault of those who haven given verbal consent. Unbelievable. — John Harris

Yes, it is the standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use. But why is it wrong when they use it? Because they're lying about the intentions of the woman. The woman doesn't want to have sexual intercourse with them (exemplified by her words, by her physical resistance, etc.), but they WRONGLY claim she does. For if she truly did want to have sex with them, it would not be assault.

This is a standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use to justify rape or assault of those who haven given verbal consent. Unbelievable.
— John Harris
Yes, it is the standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use. But why is it wrong when they use it?

This guy really can't stop digging his sexist hole. Unbelievable.

This guy really can't stop digging his sexist hole. Unbelievable. — John Harris

I think you'll get banned even before I do, to tell you the truth >:O

Agustino, admit that you wrote something that some are offended by, and you do not have to prove a point. When someone Calls you sexist, it says more about him than you if you know you are not. Just take it and leave it is my suggestion.

Agustino, admit that you wrote something that some are offended by, and you do not have to prove a point. — Beebert

That they have caused offence to some people I can acknowledge (and I apologise to those they have offended), but I believe it's important to discuss whether or not they were sexism. — Agustino

I have.

Okay... then truth here seems unfortunately relative. If they have an open heart and want to come along rather than just pathetically causing conflicts and problems (which both you and I know people often desire to do), then they should take that apologize and forgive you. And if you then say you are NOT sexist even if your comment could appear that way to some, then they should trust you and leave it there. Now about the relativity of truth : You all misunderstand each other and will not get along. He who first leaves this discussion probably does the first Most true thing. They consider it sexist because of their reaction to what you said and because of their understanding of the world. You dont because you feel that you know that you didnt mean anything sexist and because you have a different world view. Simple as that it seems.

And probably they want to stay in conflict until you have submitted to their understanding of things. Which I guess you will not. And probably should not. So be the greater one, apologize if someone was offended and leave the discussion. That is my suggestion.

I find it very strange that some here expect Agustino to accept a pretty serious accusation against his character without a fight. And if this "discussion" boils down to people merely having to apologize for offending others, then I think Mongrel ought to apologize to Agustino for claiming that he's a sexist and misogynist when it's not conclusive that he is one and isn't, apparently, the real reason contrition is desired.

Well yes, I think that you are right that some want to use moderation to enforce their will to power, but I just want to have a discussion about sexism here. I think we can all come to a better understanding of what sexism is, and where the guidelines should be set if we have such a discussion. We need to understand what makes a statement sexist. For example, Michael said that it was the fact that my sentence in the Post-Truth essay was based on gender discrimination that made it sexist. But I, hopefully, was able to show how it was based on a critique of values (which apply to both men and women), and not on gender discrimination, and hence it wasn't sexist, according to his criteria. But is that the right criteria? What about objective biological differences between men and women? Would claiming that there are objective biological differences between men and women which lead to other differences be sexism just because it is discriminating based on gender? Or is more required for a statement to be sexism? These are important and interesting questions to address.

Even John Harris brings up interesting points. Yes, rapists do claim that their victims aren't "raped" because they actually want it. But why do they try to claim that, and why are they wrong in claiming it? These are things that we're all better off understanding. Otherwise you'll hear a guy say that "if a woman is willing, then it's not rape" and accuse him of defending rapists automatically. While that may not actually be the case, since he'd be pointing out a truth, that for rape to occur, the victim must be unwilling and forced into the act.

I find it very strange that some here expect Agustino to accept a pretty serious accusation against his character without a fight. — Buxtebuddha

I really appreciate that you think it's a serious accusation. I take it seriously. Agustino has made a lot of sexist remarks on this forum and we've gotten in the habit of ignoring it. I realize it can be hard to draw a line, but the suggestion that women want to be assaulted should clearly be recognized as a particularly ugly kind of sexism.

I've never been much of a flagger, but when I'm here I'll start using it to point out offensive comments.

I think most of the men on this forum are not sexist... which is awesome. The sexist ones just tend to be louder.

Mongrel ought to apologize to Agustino for claiming that he's a sexist and misogynist — Buxtebuddha

Well actually Mongrel does usually privately apologise, to her credit:

I apologize for accusing you of having Thinker as your sockpuppet. It's clearly not you. — Mongrel

But of course, it's always after she publicly accuses and offends.

women want to be assaulted — Mongrel

That's a contradiction in terms, I never asserted women want to be assaulted. If they want to have intercourse, then they can't be assaulted, since assault presupposes they don't want it and are forced to do it.

Agustino has made a lot of sexist remarks — Mongrel

That's false. There's so far only ONE accusation of a sexist statement that we haven't yet got around to discussing. The others have been discussed, and hopefully I've shown how they're not sexist. Furthermore, several other members have argued that they're not sexist either. It seems that you will ignore everyone and stick to your false beliefs, as you often do. You are very deluded, about sexism, about America, and about a host of other issues as well.

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men.

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually.

I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy.

I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive.

I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West. — Agustino

None of these are sexist. Furthermore, you're the kind of crazy who even thought that thread was sexist and was actually started by another account of mine (Thinker) :s - then of course you apologised about it. You seriously have some mental health issues that you need to address. You seem to have a phobia regarding sexism, that you just can't discuss issues regarding the different genders without feeling there's sexism involved. If someone asks if women are more submissive than men, that's sexism to you. You even started another thread back then about it and desperately PMed moderators to delete that thread. Holy moly...

And to put things in perspective I don't think the other women on these forums found that thread sexist at all. One woman (River) even said she likes to be dominated actually. So I absolutely don't think this has to do with "protecting female members" or some such bullshit. I think most people are mature and rational enough to discuss these issues without getting offended or spewing hatred like you tend to do (there's a few others such as SLX who show such an inability).

+1

Well is the concept "sexism" an objective one to start with? Everyone seems to understand the word differently. People have strange views and react strangely sometimes. For example, I once told a woman that I love Italian Culture, and then she called me a racist... Anyway, the posters here will first have to leave the desire to accuse others if a meaningful discussion is to be achieved.

Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone). — Agustino

Now this statement is still under question given Michael's definition of sexism. But we haven't yet got around to discussing it. I'm still trying to see if Baden and Michael are on boat with the Post-Truth comment before we discuss this one, where we'll also discuss whether biological differences between the genders count as sexism, or how sexism should be defined granted that there are such differences as a matter of fact. This will illuminate how such issues must be discussed and addressed in the future.

He who first leaves this discussion probably does the first Most true thing. — Beebert

More accurately, the one who leaves after admitting the other person isn't wrong.

For example, I once told a woman that I love Italian Culture, and then she called me a racist... — Beebert

>:O >:O Yes, there are some people like that. I don't understand why they behave so strangely, and even how they can live in this world like that. It seems they've all internalised the Hollywood modern pop culture to me with its set of stock answers.

If this discussion continues to be mostly about insults and butting heads rather than a sensible debate, it will be locked. A policy statement has been made and everyone should be fairly clear about what is expected by this point.

If they want to have intercourse, then they can't be assaulted, since assault presupposes they don't want it and are forced to do it. — Agustino

For example, this is a true statement. But Hollywood and our pop culture act disgusted when they hear it. Fake disgust of course. The fact it's true is exactly why rapists try to use it as a defence. Otherwise why would they even try to use it to defend themselves? :s After all no sane rapist would say that women want to be assaulted/raped - that would be a self-contradictory statement as I have just shown.

The point that has to be distinguished is that when a rapist uses it, they LIE about the woman's desire to have intercourse with them. They say she wants it, while actually she clearly didn't want it, as evidenced by her words, her physical resistance and so forth. Now practically speaking the only way we know what others want is through what they say and how they act. So the rapist should have assumed, based on her words and her deeds, that she doesn't want to have sexual intercourse with him. Since her words and her deeds are the only sources of knowledge he has access to with regards to what she actually desires. So he is lying because he's saying the woman wanted it but at the same time denying what the sources of evidence he had available with regards to her actually suggest she desired. So he's affirming she desired sex, contrary to all evidence available. His affirmation can only be based on his imagination - what he wanted reality to be like - and not on what reality actually was like. So that's why what he's doing is disgusting - it's not because he uses that statement.

A policy statement — Baden

Where?

everyone should be fairly clear about what is expected by this point. — Baden

I'm not at all clear about what is expected, and I suppose most other members aren't either. They will speak for themselves though. All I know is no sexism (I knew that before too!). But what is sexism? We haven't discussed that at all. All we've heard is a bunch of people saying my statements weren't sexist, and another bunch saying they were. Great. So what are we to understand from that? And you're telling us that it should be clear what is to be expected...

To establish guidelines we have to come to a common understanding, which we by all means haven't.

They say she wants it, while actually she clearly didn't want it, as evidenced by her words, her physical resistance and so forth. Now practically speaking the only way we know what others want is through what they say and how they act. So the rapist should have assumed, based on her words and her deeds, that she doesn't want to have sexual intercourse with him. Since her words and her deeds are the only sources of knowledge he has access to with regards to what she actually desires. So he is lying because he's saying the woman wanted it but at the same time denying what the sources of evidence he had available with regards to her actually suggest she desired. So he's affirming she desired sex, contrary to all evidence available. His affirmation can only be based on his imagination - what he wanted reality to be like - and not on what reality actually was like. So that's why what he's doing is disgusting - it's not because he uses that statement. — Agustino

And how is that any different to what you were saying about the women on TV?

And how is that any different to what you were saying about the women on TV? — Michael

Because I was discussing a hypothetical scenario where what I said about them held true (and therefore there would be no assault involved). The rapist isn't discussing a hypothetical scenario, he's actually carrying it out. That's the difference between practice and theory. As I told you before, in theory it's their desire which determines whether there is consent or not. In practice, it's their words and behaviour, since we cannot determine their desire except through those means.