#BanBossy

[HYHYBT]

Whether they're bigots depends on what they're opponents of and why. *Calling* them bigots doesn't help anything regardless.

[s_stabeler]

I said all opponents- i.e. calling someone a bigot merely for disagreeing with you- for example, calling someone a misogynist for disagreeing that bossy needs to be banned.

[HYHYBT]

Ah, but see, the example is different than the general statement. Unless there are no possible statements whatsoever which disagreeing with really *would* prove someone a bigot, the distinction needs to be made.

[siead_lietrathua]

Ah, but see, the example is different than the general statement. Unless there are no possible statements whatsoever which disagreeing with really *would* prove someone a bigot, the distinction needs to be made.

i think that was the point of what s-stabeler was saying (if i'm wrong, correct me s-stabeler). the general question (not statement) s-stabeler was posing seemed to be along the lines of 'why do people call opponents bigots when they are simply disagreeing?' which is both a valid question, and a practice i see too damn much from turbo-feminists.
to save the sake of an overuse of "them" and "they" i'm gonna use A and B lol.

A has an opinion. B disagrees. B has better logic for their opinion than A. A doesn't like that, but has nothing to refute the logic. so A calls B a bigot, because A knows people don't like bigots. A hopes calling B a bigot will, basically, make B's arguments seem invalid to the viewer by tainting B's position with a made-up bias.

so, in this bossy case, B has the logic that bossy is gender-neutral, the test question was asked in a way to skew results, the test were not also performed on males (i think), the test was too simplified, etc. A only has the idea that girls don't like being called bossy, and this skewed test.
so A calles B a misogynist to lessen B's position in the public eye. B is most likely NOT a misogynist, or even if they were, B's arguments themselves are neutral. but that becomes irrelevant because people see him as a bigot now and will disregard his points (or so A hopes).

[s_stabeler]

i think that was the point of what s-stabeler was saying (if i'm wrong, correct me s-stabeler). the general question (not statement) s-stabeler was posing seemed to be along the lines of 'why do people call opponents bigots when they are simply disagreeing?' which is both a valid question, and a practice i see too damn much from turbo-feminists.
to save the sake of an overuse of "them" and "they" i'm gonna use A and B lol.

Bingo. where A calls B a misogynist simply because B disagrees, rather than the actual reason B disagrees, then A is wrong.

To give an example, if A says bossy needs to be banned because it is only said about girls, and b said that bosys was gender-neutral, then AQ said B was being a misogynist, A would be wrong. If B said "No, women ARE all bossy" then A would arguably be correct.

[HYHYBT]

I'm just trying (apparently unsuccesfully) to point out that there absolutely ARE positions which you cannot oppose without being a bigot. (Do I need to provide examples?)

No, banning the word "bossy" isn't one of them, but *as worded* the post I responded to was not limited to that, or to anything at all, and the general statement is said so often in defense of genuine bigotry that it can't be left standing without objection.

(And you still haven't actually said you didn't mean it in the more general sense. Indeed, everything so far, other than sticking to the example that's the title of the thread, suggests otherwise, which is the only reason I didn't drop the whole thing after the first mention.)

[siead_lietrathua]

really? your issue is that we're talking about the thread topic within the thread topic? ok... but if you want other examples...
if men talk about men's rights, feminists call them misogynists wanting to re-install the patriarchy. but if women do it they're supportive of equal rights (hell there was bullshit up here in canada where feminists pulled a FIRE ALARM because they couldn't get a men's rights meeting to shut down by just yelling inflammitory shit. then they harrased the fuck out the men outside the building.). if men point out statistics showing how women ARE equal to men, they're shot down, but women doing it is fine.
no wait, wait, wrong there too. if women do it they are brainwashed by the patriarchy, if you ask extreme feminists. hell go look at Thunderfoot's youtube series on how feminism is wrecking athiesm. he beings up concise points, and shows the vitrol he gets from the other side as well.

it also happens in race issues. black people can talk about ending restitution as a point of debate, white people would be racist for making the same points. same with topics like reservations, immigration, etc. that whole "only the white man can be racist" steriotype.

if you don't see examples of people calling "bigot" because someone is pointing out a dissenting point of view and they happen to not be part of the minority group... well you must never read youtube comments. lmfao.

[s_stabeler]

I'm just trying (apparently unsuccesfully) to point out that there absolutely ARE positions which you cannot oppose without being a bigot. (Do I need to provide examples?)

No, banning the word "bossy" isn't one of them, but *as worded* the post I responded to was not limited to that, or to anything at all, and the general statement is said so often in defense of genuine bigotry that it can't be left standing without objection.

(And you still haven't actually said you didn't mean it in the more general sense. Indeed, everything so far, other than sticking to the example that's the title of the thread, suggests otherwise, which is the only reason I didn't drop the whole thing after the first mention.)

it was more general, because it isn't limited to one case, nor is it limited to accusations of misogyny. what is the race card, if not an example of the same thing? "You disagree with me, therefore you are a bigot" THAT is the problem. When accusations of bigotry are used to shut down one side of a debate? It is a problem.

[HYHYBT]

Honestly, now.

First, that appears to be the original version of my post above, despite the "edited by" notice and time at the bottom. I totally rewrote it with the intent of making it shorter, clearer, and less confrontational, but the gist is close enough.

really? your issue is that we're talking about the thread topic within the thread topic? ok... but if you want other examples...

No! Absolutely not, on both counts. Had the original statement been one that was limited to this thread, I never would have responded at all, and no amount of additional examples would fix anything.

it was more general, because it isn't limited to one case, nor is it limited to accusations of misogyny. what is the race card, if not an example of the same thing?

I also never even suggested that the statement wasn't valid more generally than the one example; only that it is invalid in THE general case. There exist positions where disagreeing is itself proof of bigotry. No matter how lengthy a list of cases where it doesn't you compile, you're not changing, or even addressing, that.

"You disagree with me, therefore you are a bigot" THAT is the problem. When accusations of bigotry are used to shut down one side of a debate? It is a problem.

That's actually two different things. Depending on the matter at hand, "you disagree with me, therefore you're a bigot" may be absolutely true, but *saying so* still doesn't help the conversation.

[s_stabeler]

actually, no, there are no exceptions. Note that i said that it is a problem when someone's accusation of bigotry amounts to "it is bigotry to disagree with me" it is a problem. when the accusation is "it is bigotry, because..." and you explain how come it is bigotry, THEN it is acceptable. As I mentioned earlier, the statement may well be bigotry, However, a simple "You're a bigot, shut up" response is not acceptable.

[Amanita]

About the whole business of "bossy" girls really being good leaders and take-charge types, and how we should just ban the word "bossy" because it's so demeaning to them, I call absolute horse shit.

You see, I grew up knowing some girls who were straight up bossy. They weren't "good leaders" or anything of the sort, they were rude, obnoxious, and even crossed into straight up bully territory. One girl (who was a friend of my sister's) would make a rediculous "mean face" and pull her fist back, like she was getting ready to throw a punch any time she didn't get her way. She directed that at me a few times (never followed through though). She was a spoiled little brat who tried to boss people around, and made threats when they didn't give her what she wanted.

Another girl a few years later went to the same babysitter as me. She was loud, domineering, a wannabe tough girl, and yes, bossy. One day we were all in the back yard playing, (some variation of princess, castle, fairy tale, something along those lines) I volunteered to be the Knight and guard the castle gates. I even had my very own plastic toy sword, which was not unusual for me. (What can I say, I was a tomboy) Well, little miss bossy-boots didn't like that at ALL.
She got right up in my face, screaming "You are not guarding no gate, girl!" and tried to TAKE my sword away from me. I didn't appreciate that much, and fought back. In the ensuing scuffle, she got whacked with the very same toy sword she had tried to rip out of my hands. (Deservedly so, in my opinion- she started the fight by getting physical and trying to take my property) Now, she wasn't seriously hurt- my bare knuckles would have left more of a mark. But she went crying to the babysitter, playing victim, and I was the one who got punished. Never mind that she's the one who started the argument with her bossiness, and was the first to make it physical when she tried to yank the toy sword out of my hands. These days, I can't say I would do differently if some asshole tried to tear a several hundred dollar replica lightsaber out of my hands, either!

I'm sorry, but these two girls were NOT little "leaders in training", in need of encouragement or "empowerment". No, the only thing they needed was a swift kick up the rear and a lesson in how NOT to treat other people. I sure as hell would not want to work under a "leader" who thought that threats of violence or yanking things out of people's hands was acceptable, or who knew no other way to communicate besides yelling, intimidation, or trying to throw their weight around. People like that suck to work for, and kill workplace morale.