So Sundays I like to walk with my toddler. Roll out the stroller, pop in an audiobook, and venture down on the beach. I'm currently cranking through Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe, which is spectacular, and the day was truly lovely:
But today, instead of plumbing the more controversial depths of cosmology, I spent the entire five mile walk trying to come up with a response to you. Feel flattered or horrified as you see fit.
The only way to respond, I think, is in three parts. Those three parts are interrelated, unfortunately, and that which should come first dialectically is not that which should come first rhetorically is not that which should come first logically. So don't see this as a list, see it as three points determining the plane of a discussion that we really didn't need to have, but here we are. Those three parts are:
- Your lack of rhetorical rigor
- Your lack of logical merit
- Your lack of manners
Let's get started, shall we?
Here's the timeline of the discussion above.
1) 8-bit, last night: question about original content and social media
2) Refugee, this morning: comment pointing to a good discussion held several months ago
3) You, an hour later: clumsy segue about my hyperoffensive bombast on another forum to another audience on another subject three years ago
This didn't go over well. You seem to suspect it's because there's a Kult of Kleinbl00 around here or something. Let me reassure you: a photo of me raping baby pandas with a drywall saw would have accomplished about as much. It's not that people have rose-colored glasses when it comes to me, it's that this isn't about me. It was a useful and interesting discussion but is no more - I intended to add something this morning because the question interests me and I was too tired last night to say something rational. But that opportunity has been lost.
4) Me, an hour later: patronizing discourse on your self-serving misrepresentation of my argument
On Reddit these days I would have ignored you because I no longer give a shit about Reddit. On Reddit three years ago you would have gotten a thermonuclear beatdown that would have cost you hundreds of downvotes. Not a brag; it's a skill I refined - you seem to suspect my writing style represents my emotions rather than my environment when in fact it’s the other way ‘round. Thus, in this forum, it was more useful to give you an answer and a back-door to civility. Civility is the default here. That's one of the reasons I stick around.
"Patronizing?" Patronizing because the amount of invective you threw at me can't go unacknowledged no matter how civil the environment, and "patronizing" is the least inflammatory way to answer your onslaught. Moving on:
5) You, an hour later: I don't get your reference. My hair is a bird. Your argument is invalid.
Which, in places where people don't think very hard, can sway the argument. In discussions where your opponent isn't very clever, can change the subject. Here? With me? It only shows that you want a fight, not a debate. Which I pointed out in
6), an hour later.
So now here we are. You've gone from hey guise feel bad for this thing that has nothing to do with you or the subject at hand to although we are now arguing nuance where before I called you "a raging sexist" you are still in the wrong here for not addressing your argument directly to me, directly to my level of understanding and directly to the framework I choose to humor.
It's shit like this:
you talk about…’fuck you bitch your freedom exists because we allow it to and if we wanted we could go back to me buying you from Daddy and once we're married I can rape you whenever I want'.
I never said that. You even quoted what I said:
Our sexual mentality, on the other hand, is grab & fuck. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property. If we wanted in your pantaloons we'd fucking ask your dad, not you.
Our mentality. Men's. "Grab and fuck." That’s a direct and unquestionable insult to men,, not women. "A half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property." A truth you could have attempted to dispute, but didn't. "If we wanted in your pantaloons" -
...are you wearing pantaloons? Have you ever? Have you ever known anyone who did? Have you ever so much as seen pantaloons for sale? - See, that's the problem: the sentence, stripped of its obnoxiousness, is "Men aren't innately acquainted to the modern sexual dynamic where you have any real power because 'modern romance' is exactly that from a sociological perspective." Now - can you imagine that sentence resting peacefully in a giant, steaming pile of bro-speak?
Could that, perhaps, be the reason the language is phrased the way it is?
And to that you bring “Oprah” and “Fox News” and “4chan.” “There’s a certain myopia on both sides of the argument.”
Nobody is arguing but you.
You’ve been answered, point by point - on a discussion that doesn’t belong here that nobody here was a part of on a completely different forum three years and more ago. You’ve been responded to calmly and kindly. You’ve attempted to triangulate - twice - to some corner of the world where you can still win, without recognizing that this isn’t a battle anyone needed to have.
Which is a dick move.
Sorry. No better way to put it. I recognize that you are just now learning that I’ve said offensive shit in my life. Sorry that comes as a shock to you. The reasonable thing to do, however, would be to respond to me. Or respond to that post. Or send me a message. Or start a new discussion.
Derailing this one? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.
And see, we’ve had a chat or two. You could totally have upbraided and berated me, your abused trust in my sense of decency held up for all to admire. You could have asked me what the fuck I was thinking, saying such horrendous things on a forum known world-wide for sensitivity and kindness (not). If you had, I would have said
Sorry my words offended you
And we could have had a dialog.
See, I’ve had that discussion before, too. One very nice girl, in fact, was deeply hurt because she’d been raped. Okay, that sucks. Did I rape her? No. Am I sensitive to her situation? Yes. Do I think it’s unfortunate that I included “trigger language” in an Internet forum where the original poster was attempting to tar all women with the same disparaging brush? Believe it or not, I do. However, expecting to walk into that discussion and not see “trigger language” was pretty naive. Which is also a discussion I’ve had.
So explain this part to me:
How does anyone - including yourself - benefit from having THIS discussion HERE and NOW when there are so many more valuable, more satisfying, more interactive and more useful ways to do it?
The only real answer is you wanted to stir up shit in a clumsy and ham-handed fashion. Which I resent, and which embarrasses me. There are people I care about here, discussing things that matter to me, and now it’s about me. And by attempting to match me bombast for bombast, all you’ve accomplished is demonstrating that I’m better at words (and given jacobvirgil an opportunity to whinge, for which I’m sure he’s grateful).
So kindly cut that shit out. For all of us. We can all ignore you, we can all mute you, but the world will be a better place if instead you choose to keep it in your pants next time.
And if not, ask me. I probably have an answer.