A: How to learn when a politician is saying a whole lot of nothing.
My class's election for sophomore year officers could be a case study. Most of the speeches were uninteresting; but gave a good overview of what the person's goals and qualifications were. Then the speeches got to the presidential candidates and the only guy running for an office (significant or not?) got up. There was lots of cheering (he was a popular guy). But when he opened his mouth he had nothing to say. The summary of his speech is as follows:
"The other school thinks we suck! I don't think we do! We should show them we're not! I had fun doing this job in eighth grade! The other school thinks we suck!"
See? A whole lotta nothin'. There is a term for this sort of persuasion: pathos. This guy was trying to play off emotions and his popularity. Student government elections being as they are (popularity over competence), that was the guy who won.
Here's an idea: maybe if the SG elections actually matched what people learned in their government classes about how real elections work (and if the SG actually meant anything), people would be more invested in voting throughout their lives.
Showing posts with label ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideas. Show all posts
May 26, 2010
The Professors: The 100 Most Dangerous Academics in America
The author is David Horowitz.
A book review:
The author does manage to find some truly despicable people (mostly affirmed Jihadists, violent anti-whites, and convicted domestic terrorists). However, I find that most people in this book are not as extreme as those and a few choices are extremely laughable*. Also, most of the people in this book did not support the war on terror for various reasons; that coupled by the designation of nearly all the professors as liberals leads me to believe that the author is a dedicated conservative. Which, of course, would lead to bias on all cases, with the skew on people's views getting decidedly more negative the less extreme the case (in perspective).
Another thing that really stood out for me is that the author mentions feminism where applicable and fails to make any connection as to how this is relevant to the professor being dangerous. This lack leaves me with only the conclusion that the reader is to associate feminism with danger. The other thing was the lack of opposing viewpoints. If the author could find so may Jihadists, militant anti-whites, and domestic terrorists; surely he could locate anti-Muslims, anti-minorities, and American supremacists as well.
*Most of these people are proponents of Marxism or Leninism and/or take an anti-American stance. A continuing point made was opposition to the Vietnam war.
A book review:
The author does manage to find some truly despicable people (mostly affirmed Jihadists, violent anti-whites, and convicted domestic terrorists). However, I find that most people in this book are not as extreme as those and a few choices are extremely laughable*. Also, most of the people in this book did not support the war on terror for various reasons; that coupled by the designation of nearly all the professors as liberals leads me to believe that the author is a dedicated conservative. Which, of course, would lead to bias on all cases, with the skew on people's views getting decidedly more negative the less extreme the case (in perspective).
Another thing that really stood out for me is that the author mentions feminism where applicable and fails to make any connection as to how this is relevant to the professor being dangerous. This lack leaves me with only the conclusion that the reader is to associate feminism with danger. The other thing was the lack of opposing viewpoints. If the author could find so may Jihadists, militant anti-whites, and domestic terrorists; surely he could locate anti-Muslims, anti-minorities, and American supremacists as well.
*Most of these people are proponents of Marxism or Leninism and/or take an anti-American stance. A continuing point made was opposition to the Vietnam war.
I have more proof that Maine's politicians are the best.
Senator Olympia Snowe is highly respected (as we knew) and politicians should first serve the nation, then the state, then the voters (which my mother and I have known for quite some time).
Maine, I am proud of you.
Maine, I am proud of you.
EDIT: Video does not work, so I took it off. Here's the link.
May 15, 2010
Musings on Language
Feminism does not need to redefine “feminine”. Nor “women”. “Masculinity” does not have to incorporate demureness; nor “man” sensitivity. “Feminine” can keep the non-violent connotation it has.
Feminism needs to redefine how the terms “man”, “woman”, “masculinity”, and “femininity” are used.
Male and female* are biological factors. You are born with testes or you are born with ovaries. Man and woman are a matter of personal identity (As Cocky says “some women have a penis"). Masculinity and femininity are in reality categories of personality traits.
Society says that male, man, and masculinity are all grouped together and are considered to go together; as with their counterparts.
They are not.
The mere existence of transgendered peoples proves this. Once can have a male body and be a woman; as one can have a female body and be a man. Surely masculinity and femininity are the most ephemeral terms. Both are slowly being equalized; often you hear of a woman being described with “masculine” traits and men with “feminine” traits.
A job of feminism is not just to promote the rise of feminine qualities to the same status in society as those of masculinity; it is to demonstrate that these words, these traits and identifiers, are entirely separate of gender.
*In humans, at least
Feminism needs to redefine how the terms “man”, “woman”, “masculinity”, and “femininity” are used.
Male and female* are biological factors. You are born with testes or you are born with ovaries. Man and woman are a matter of personal identity (As Cocky says “some women have a penis"). Masculinity and femininity are in reality categories of personality traits.
Society says that male, man, and masculinity are all grouped together and are considered to go together; as with their counterparts.
They are not.
The mere existence of transgendered peoples proves this. Once can have a male body and be a woman; as one can have a female body and be a man. Surely masculinity and femininity are the most ephemeral terms. Both are slowly being equalized; often you hear of a woman being described with “masculine” traits and men with “feminine” traits.
A job of feminism is not just to promote the rise of feminine qualities to the same status in society as those of masculinity; it is to demonstrate that these words, these traits and identifiers, are entirely separate of gender.
*In humans, at least
May 5, 2010
A contest entry
For Espanolbot's Where is Cass Cain? contest.
Where is Cass Cain?
Saving Sin.
(Since that douchebag Green Arrow stuck her in that monastery without telling Black Canary.)
Return of the Forgotten Asian Characters!
They will both show up in the new Birds of Prey run and we shall have a touching reunion scene.
Incidentally: TheFBomb. A teenage feminist blogger. I believe I love this.
Where is Cass Cain?
Saving Sin.
(Since that douchebag Green Arrow stuck her in that monastery without telling Black Canary.)
Return of the Forgotten Asian Characters!
They will both show up in the new Birds of Prey run and we shall have a touching reunion scene.
Incidentally: TheFBomb. A teenage feminist blogger. I believe I love this.
May 1, 2010
The Ghost Nation
My last post was a compilation of some of the posts from this website.
Now to my response.
Anti-Feminist Definition
From this we can infer that:
If you are a feminist, you do not believe in God, you endorse Zionism, sodomists, violence, police brutality, are two-faced, a liar, treacherous, a prospective adulterer, swear a lot, disorganized, vulgar, angry, a hacker and cybercriminal, untrustworthy, unfair, you share private information, you are a misogynist, you commit blackmail and extortion, you are unpatriotic, you do not support the Constitution, are not humble, have an erratic temperament, raise your voice to get a point across, fake friendships, are manipulative, associate with criminals, Zionists, and psychopaths, cheat, are worthless and nonconstructive, are anti-homosexual, atheist, do not respect other's privacy, and do not believe that sodomites are homosexuals.
Anti-Feminists are not these things.
For those who don't know, Zionists believe in a "sovereign, national Jewish homeland". In other words: Israel.
-
I'll let this one speak for itself:
Hate Crimes Against This Website
"Most people that have attacked this website have been male homosexual mobs, PAMs, sodomites, atheists, agnostics, whitey haters, gang stalkers and pro-Israel zealots."
Remember: these people are bad!
-
To rehash:
Feminists are selfish, angry, deluded, psychotic, worthless, resentful, greedy, mindless, and vain.
Top Ten Reasons Feminists Suck
-
Women are immoral, asocial, have no conscience, and are naturally destructive.
"The people responsible for orchestrating this situation want it precisely as it is. Step one: disenfranchise fathers and men. Women naturally return to their asocial, destructive behavior because - unlike men - they have no consistent internal monologue, hence no moral basis to govern their actions. They might be taught to behave at a young age, but as newer generations are increasingly raised by women only, over time they lose what values the last decent male bestowed upon the family line. The end result: complete social destruction as all values are lost and people become amoral, asocial loners."
Unknown
"No Fault-Divorce" is no divorce at all
-
The Bible says you are a bad person if you work outside the home!
Go read "The Feminist Mystique".
Some Hard Questions Working Women Must Ask Themselves Regarding Being A Good Wife
-
The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
I find it amusing how many of these are really turned around insults against women.
A feminist version:
"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Women's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of male detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic... Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a woman's insecurities and shut down debate...
Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad hominem (against a person's character) attacks. Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against women whenever a discussion arises about feminism, women's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
-
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions she has are assumed to be unjustifiable.
Examples:
"You're bitter!"
"You need to get over your anger at men."
"You are so negative!"
Response:
Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
-
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with men.
Examples:
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance!"
"You're afraid of a strong man!"
Response:
It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and &%^&*&^%. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some women are finding out that many men fail a cost-benefit analysis.
-
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of women .
Examples:
"Stop whining!"
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up!"
"You girls don't have it as nearly as bad as us men!"
"Your fragile female ego ..."
"Wow! You girls need to get a grip!"
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of women. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem women face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any woman should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
-
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on her status as an adult female.
Examples:"Grow up!"
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in girls. I'm interested in real women."
"Women are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."
Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
-
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) -The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.
Examples:
"You butches are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."
Response:
It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some men think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a woman's legitimate freedom of expression.
-
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) -The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away her own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming men for her problems.
Example:
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."
Response:
In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."
-
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) -The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.
Examples:
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the Nazis."
"... more anti-masculine zaniness"
Response:
One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").
-
Charge of Being Unfeminine (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or femininity is called into question.
Examples:
"Are you a lesbian?"
"I need a real woman, not a girl."
"You're such a child."
Response:
Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight woman leaves her accusers guessing about her sexual orientation.
-
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about men.
Examples:
"I'm not like that!"
"Stop generalizing!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"
Response: One may point out that anti-feminist and many other men make generalizations about women. Quotations from anti-feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all men may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
-
Charge of Emasculation(Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular man or to men in general.
Examples:
"You emasculating creep!"
"Why do you hate men?"
"Do you love your father?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of men."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view men as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of men!!"
Response:
One may ask the accuser how does a pro-female agenda become inherently anti-male (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for men who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of arousing fear about what the target wants to do to men.
-
Charge of Instability (Code White) -The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.
Examples:
"You're unstable."
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
"Weirdo!"
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
-
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at women who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits or mothers who want to work outside the home.
Examples:
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."
"You are so selfish."
"You will hurt your children."
"You are a horrible mother."
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money or time on myself, but should instead spend it on a man like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"
-
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan)-The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as men are concerned.
Examples:
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"I bet you don't shave your legs!"
"Loser!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"
Response:
This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of her arguments.
-
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation.
Examples:
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with men, then you are admitting defeat."
Response:
The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking women to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of men and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many women have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
-
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) -The Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that her viewpoints or behavior will cause men to reject her as a mate.
Examples:
"No man will marry you with that attitude."
"Feminists like you will never get laid!"
Response:
This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Whip" is to realize that a woman's happiness and worth is not based on her romantic conquests (including marriage).
It's amazing what little I had to change on this to make it work! Read the original and compare. The only thing I couldn't alter was the "Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) -The All-That-Glitters Charge".
Some I didn't even have to change at all, excpet the pronouns.
If men and women's viewpoints are so similar, why can't we all get along?
Now to my response.
Anti-Feminist Definition
From this we can infer that:
If you are a feminist, you do not believe in God, you endorse Zionism, sodomists, violence, police brutality, are two-faced, a liar, treacherous, a prospective adulterer, swear a lot, disorganized, vulgar, angry, a hacker and cybercriminal, untrustworthy, unfair, you share private information, you are a misogynist, you commit blackmail and extortion, you are unpatriotic, you do not support the Constitution, are not humble, have an erratic temperament, raise your voice to get a point across, fake friendships, are manipulative, associate with criminals, Zionists, and psychopaths, cheat, are worthless and nonconstructive, are anti-homosexual, atheist, do not respect other's privacy, and do not believe that sodomites are homosexuals.
Anti-Feminists are not these things.
For those who don't know, Zionists believe in a "sovereign, national Jewish homeland". In other words: Israel.
-
I'll let this one speak for itself:
Hate Crimes Against This Website
"Most people that have attacked this website have been male homosexual mobs, PAMs, sodomites, atheists, agnostics, whitey haters, gang stalkers and pro-Israel zealots."
Remember: these people are bad!
-
To rehash:
Feminists are selfish, angry, deluded, psychotic, worthless, resentful, greedy, mindless, and vain.
Top Ten Reasons Feminists Suck
-
Women are immoral, asocial, have no conscience, and are naturally destructive.
"The people responsible for orchestrating this situation want it precisely as it is. Step one: disenfranchise fathers and men. Women naturally return to their asocial, destructive behavior because - unlike men - they have no consistent internal monologue, hence no moral basis to govern their actions. They might be taught to behave at a young age, but as newer generations are increasingly raised by women only, over time they lose what values the last decent male bestowed upon the family line. The end result: complete social destruction as all values are lost and people become amoral, asocial loners."
Unknown
"No Fault-Divorce" is no divorce at all
-
The Bible says you are a bad person if you work outside the home!
Go read "The Feminist Mystique".
Some Hard Questions Working Women Must Ask Themselves Regarding Being A Good Wife
-
The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
I find it amusing how many of these are really turned around insults against women.
A feminist version:
"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Women's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of male detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic... Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a woman's insecurities and shut down debate...
Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad hominem (against a person's character) attacks. Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against women whenever a discussion arises about feminism, women's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
-
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions she has are assumed to be unjustifiable.
Examples:
"You're bitter!"
"You need to get over your anger at men."
"You are so negative!"
Response:
Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
-
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with men.
Examples:
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance!"
"You're afraid of a strong man!"
Response:
It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and &%^&*&^%. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some women are finding out that many men fail a cost-benefit analysis.
-
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of women .
Examples:
"Stop whining!"
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up!"
"You girls don't have it as nearly as bad as us men!"
"Your fragile female ego ..."
"Wow! You girls need to get a grip!"
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of women. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem women face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any woman should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
-
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on her status as an adult female.
Examples:"Grow up!"
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in girls. I'm interested in real women."
"Women are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."
Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
-
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) -The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.
Examples:
"You butches are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."
Response:
It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some men think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a woman's legitimate freedom of expression.
-
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) -The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away her own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming men for her problems.
Example:
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."
Response:
In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."
-
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) -The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.
Examples:
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the Nazis."
"... more anti-masculine zaniness"
Response:
One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").
-
Charge of Being Unfeminine (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or femininity is called into question.
Examples:
"Are you a lesbian?"
"I need a real woman, not a girl."
"You're such a child."
Response:
Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight woman leaves her accusers guessing about her sexual orientation.
-
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about men.
Examples:
"I'm not like that!"
"Stop generalizing!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"
Response: One may point out that anti-feminist and many other men make generalizations about women. Quotations from anti-feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all men may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
-
Charge of Emasculation(Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular man or to men in general.
Examples:
"You emasculating creep!"
"Why do you hate men?"
"Do you love your father?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of men."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view men as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of men!!"
Response:
One may ask the accuser how does a pro-female agenda become inherently anti-male (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for men who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of arousing fear about what the target wants to do to men.
-
Charge of Instability (Code White) -The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.
Examples:
"You're unstable."
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
"Weirdo!"
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
-
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at women who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits or mothers who want to work outside the home.
Examples:
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."
"You are so selfish."
"You will hurt your children."
"You are a horrible mother."
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money or time on myself, but should instead spend it on a man like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"
-
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan)-The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as men are concerned.
Examples:
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"I bet you don't shave your legs!"
"Loser!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"
Response:
This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of her arguments.
-
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation.
Examples:
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with men, then you are admitting defeat."
Response:
The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking women to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of men and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many women have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
-
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) -The Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that her viewpoints or behavior will cause men to reject her as a mate.
Examples:
"No man will marry you with that attitude."
"Feminists like you will never get laid!"
Response:
This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Whip" is to realize that a woman's happiness and worth is not based on her romantic conquests (including marriage).
It's amazing what little I had to change on this to make it work! Read the original and compare. The only thing I couldn't alter was the "Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) -The All-That-Glitters Charge".
Some I didn't even have to change at all, excpet the pronouns.
If men and women's viewpoints are so similar, why can't we all get along?
April 1, 2010
My inspired rules. Feel free to follow them if you so choose.
Explanation for this last post.
- If you have to think about it twice, don't do it.
- Be mindful about your body language.
- Act mature and exercise self-restraint.
- Don't talk bad about people.
- Think of others first.
- Share Knoweldge.
- Think of consequences.
- Use titles, like "Sir", "Mr", "Mrs.", "Ms." and "Ma'am".
- Never assume a "Mrs." title.
- Success comes at a price. Remember it.
- Attempt not to assume; first appearences aren't everything but they are useful.
- Cultivate an image you can live with.
- At the end of the day, all you are is all you made of yourself.
- Play impartiality
- Practice integrity, and to maintain it, admit when your views change and why.
- Make sure there is good reason behind a change in thought.
- Keep perspective.
- Set an example.
- Goals are little wishes. Know what you want.
- Live by your standards.
- Step down if you cannot do the job. Admit you cannot do it; and delegate the tasks.
- Be flexible in changing your plans.
- Research and admit when you do not know what you are talking about.
- Be conscious of what you are saying.
- Think ahead.
- Do not say "uh", "um", or "like" excessively when speaking.
- You can take a second to pause when you speak.
- Connect information.
- Do not use words you do not know the meaning of.
- Remember your duties.
- Keep responsibility and cupability with your actions and words.
- Act and behave with honor.
- Public personae can be different from private personae; but do not make them radically different.
- Stay honest about your past.
- Be careful with your lies.
- Power is a means to an end of doing your duty; an ends in and of itself.
- Know your bounds.
- Try again.No matter how far you go, you can come back. It may just be much harder than it could have been earlier.
- Violence can be a solution, but it is an unfavorable one.
- "I respectfully disagree."
- Be able to argue and anticipate the other parts of a debate.
- Read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and keep it to heart.
- Stay polite in your arguements.
- If you must answer a question you are unprepaired for, say "No Comment" or "I polietly decline to answer your question".
- If you cannot decide, say polite drivel.
- Go where the smart people are going.
- Keep intelligent people around you.
- Keep good company.
- Stay true to yourself.
- Keep working.
- Collect business cards.
- Ask
- Say Thank You.
- Work on it.
- Speak your mind.
- Don't use social networking sites; or use sparingly.
- Be mindful of what you say and do in public.
- Err on the side of apology and ettiqute; as well as politeness.
October 7, 2009
In the News....
So yesterday, I beleive, I found an article. An article on healthcare reform.
Now this is nothing unusal. Healthcare reform has been all over the news for awhile now. However, it was what they said in the article that really got to me:
"We put a lot of money into this program, and get less results than other countries which put in less money and get good results" was essentially what the part that inspired me to write this post said. Well, there is an answer to that.
Research what they are doing.
Because obviously they are doing something different than you, Government. I'll bet they have a different system. I'll bet they have different ways of doing the same things. I'm sure that Congress has some sort of Research Department, and if they don't then isn't that what aides are for? Or mabye they should do some research themselves (strongly reminded about another article about when Congress had to pass another important bill in the last three months: they held a meeting and had their aides explain it to them, as it was the aides who actually read it). Failing that, why not politley say to the other countries: "We noticed that you have a good healthcare system. We're trying to reform ours, so we'd like to know how you run yours, and why you think it works."
If you're trying to keep face and dignity in tact, guess what: you lost it already. Deal with it, and do this and maybe other countries will go "Hey, they know when need help and aren't afraid to ask for it! Perhaps they aren't a stuck-up superpower after all!"
Just saying.
Now this is nothing unusal. Healthcare reform has been all over the news for awhile now. However, it was what they said in the article that really got to me:
"We put a lot of money into this program, and get less results than other countries which put in less money and get good results" was essentially what the part that inspired me to write this post said. Well, there is an answer to that.
Research what they are doing.
Because obviously they are doing something different than you, Government. I'll bet they have a different system. I'll bet they have different ways of doing the same things. I'm sure that Congress has some sort of Research Department, and if they don't then isn't that what aides are for? Or mabye they should do some research themselves (strongly reminded about another article about when Congress had to pass another important bill in the last three months: they held a meeting and had their aides explain it to them, as it was the aides who actually read it). Failing that, why not politley say to the other countries: "We noticed that you have a good healthcare system. We're trying to reform ours, so we'd like to know how you run yours, and why you think it works."
If you're trying to keep face and dignity in tact, guess what: you lost it already. Deal with it, and do this and maybe other countries will go "Hey, they know when need help and aren't afraid to ask for it! Perhaps they aren't a stuck-up superpower after all!"
Just saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
