Being "non-PC" apparently is too much for some people....

[HEMI6point1]

You know what makes my country great? The fact that you can say or write whatever the hell you want and not get in trouble for it (unless it's fire in a crowded theater or slander, etc).

Lately though, what I call the PC brigade tries to silence people just in case they might say something that may offend someone.

So I decided to make a blog about it and air my views. You may not agree with me, but I have a right to say it.

Here's the first post and an explanation: Here.

Recently, I started hearing from people I know that my blog posts have an "agree with me or you're stupid!" or "You're way too harsh!" vibe.

Examples:

1. I feel very strongly about cites being able to offer their own ISP if the private telcos and cable companies are not getting it done, see my piece here.

Apparently, for the people who are against muni broadband, according to someone I know "I'm being too harsh on them" or "treating them like they are stupid."

2. I got fed up with a select group of people saying three certain phrases about the glamour modeling industry so I decided to make a scathing post about it: here.

So of course I got the "you're being sexist!" and "Not all big women are like that!" For the former, well, that's up to the reader, for the latter? That's why I made a point to mention them towards the end of the blog!

3. I recently made my thoughts on victim blaming known here.

Yet according to someone who read it, "I'm living in a fantasy." According to him, if a girl goes to a guy's room at 2AM, it means she's "looking to get laid." For the cloud service mention, according to him getting your photos stolen is a "risk you take and if you don't like it, don't upload nudie pics." The exact mindset I'm complaining about in the blog!

[HYHYBT]

So, you're mad because the people who read your post about how great it is to say what you think are saying what they think about it?

[HEMI6point1]

No, people can say what the want to say.

But my blog posts are not "agree with me or your stupid!"

If you have a differing opinion, that's fine.

My blog posts are designed to write out things that other people may want to say or type, but are afraid to actually do so.

Of course, when people miss the point like the last example, that's another story....

[Gravekeeper]

I...don't think you fully understand the term political correctness nor its history and to be brutally honest just rolling out the term sounds like a pre-emptive shield against criticism. Because you know you're about to say at least something that will be offensive. ( Your posts regarding feminists and models are prime examples. )

Its like beginning a sentence with "I'm not racist/sexist/an asshole/etc, but-" then proceeding to say something that is in fact exactly what you just said you weren't.

[s_stabeler]

actually, having read the blog, most of the posts seem reasonable. Yes, it can get offensive- though not particularly, since the post DOES say that it's specifically about people that complain about lads mags- and, as the post says, lads mags are no worse ( in terms of the pictures) than the lady's equivalent- not about fat women in general.

[protege]

Lately though, what I call the PC brigade tries to silence people just in case they might say something that may offend someone.

Some of you know that the company I work for...is located in a shitty neighborhood. There's a crack house next door, dog shit on the sidewalk in the mornings, and dealers in the alley behind the building. Most residents are on some form of assistance, and don't seem to see the point in actually working. Naturally, some of us make fun of the area.

I actually had one of my coworkers tell me not to do that...because we had employees that lived in the area, and they "might be offended." My reaction? Fuck that. If they're "offended," then they need to open their damn mouths and tell me. I'm not going to censor myself because someone "might be offended." If they truly *are* offended, I'm not so unreasonable that I wouldn't limit the comments.

Why is it, that it's never the people *in* the group that are offended, but the people *outside* the group?

[Rageaholic]

actually, having read the blog, most of the posts seem reasonable. Yes, it can get offensive- though not particularly, since the post DOES say that it's specifically about people that complain about lads mags- and, as the post says, lads mags are no worse ( in terms of the pictures) than the lady's equivalent- not about fat women in general.

Yeah, I read a few of the posts and found myself agreeing with a lot of what was said (particularly about adblock). It sounds like the people who are critical are relying on ad hominem, which is annoying. There's also this tone from some people who object. A tone which implies that not only do they object, but that they think people holding those views are horrible people.

I also hate the idea that if you don't specifically say "I know not all X people are like this", that you're racist sexist or whatever. If people would learn to read between the fucking lines, then they'd see that most people aren't racist or sexist assholes.

[Gravekeeper]

actually, having read the blog, most of the posts seem reasonable. Yes, it can get offensive- though not particularly, since the post DOES say that it's specifically about people that complain about lads mags- and, as the post says, lads mags are no worse ( in terms of the pictures) than the lady's equivalent- not about fat women in general.

Ths is why I specified 2 in particular. Though there are 3 in total with this problem. The thesis of which are:

Only fat, ugly and jealous women complain about the fashion industry. A blog post which quite literally starts with a "I'm not sexist, but-" style statement.

I'm a Nice Guy(tm), but I can't get a date because feminists have indoctriated girls against me.

Women are stupid for being afraid/wary of men because I'm a Nice Guy(tm) and the sum of their life experiences is irrelevant in the face of my opinion.

So yes, this is sexist / entitled / Nice Guy style bullshit and trying to deflect criticism of it by attributing it to the imaginary forces of the PC Brigade or the self assurance of "telling it like it is" while spouting about free speech is hypocritical.

[HEMI6point1]

Really, GK?

This is what the "degrading to women" post starts off with:

DISCLAIMER: This is going to be the longest blog post to date. I also know I'm going to come off as a bit of a sexist asshole with this post. If you think that way, that's your call. On to the post....

Not exactly the "I'm not sexist, but-" that you alluded to.

Also, the Nice Guy references that you mentioned. I never mentioned those two words in any of my blog posts.

Are you referring to my most recent post about new-gen feminists indoctrinating young women so what used to work for courtship is almost impossible now?

If that is what you were talking about, again.... never mentioned those two words.

If you think that is what I implied, sorry but that wasn't the point.

[Gravekeeper]

Not exactly the "I'm not sexist, but-" that you alluded to.

Thats pretty much exactly what it is. You knew you were about to say something sexist so you added a disclaimer. Its half "but-" and half "I'm sorry you're offended" non-apology. If you want to be sexist, that's your perogative but lets not pretend this is a matter of some nebulous group mistakenly calling you sexist or that you are somehow a champion of free speech by defying them.

Also, the Nice Guy references that you mentioned. I never mentioned those two words in any of my blog posts.

1) You don't have to.

2) Not using a term doesn't negate behaviour fitting that term.

[HEMI6point1]

Oh, come on! Not every post you read about courting and dating is code for "Whaa I'm a nice guy why don't girls like me?"

You know what?

I blame that guy who went on a shooting spree last year and killed a bunch of people because he was mad that girls wouldn't - GASP! - sleep with him just because he had fancy sunglasses and a BMW (Come on it was a freakin' 1 series!).

Thanks to him, anytime someone runs across an article or blog post about the difficulties in courting and dating women, he/she automatically dismisses it as a "Nice Guy" tirade when it's really not.

FWIW....

A friend of mine went out on a date with a woman who was indoctrinated to believe that chivalry = insult. He told me he opened the restaurant door for her and pulled out the chair for her and she actually told him both times, "You don't have to do that!" The final straw was after the date he opened the car door for her and she said, "Come on man I can handle a car door." So he came out and asks, "I thought woman liked chivalry?" She responded with (I kid you not), "Maybe - in 1955, not today!" Needless to say, that was the last date they went on.

There was even a big topic about it one of of those dating site's message boards (forget which one) where a man posted pretty much the same thing as my friend, and a whole bunch of others followed with their stories.

Just one example to show that I'm not exactly off base here.

Oh, and BTW, I can bet my lunch money on it that just like in my blog, you will have to search high and low, and come up empty, to find a hetero guy or a woman that can universally be considered attractive that thinks that lad's mags are, well... the three phrases I used in the blog. Hint: it's never them.

[Kheldarson]

Oh, and BTW, I can bet my lunch money on it that just like in my blog, you will have to search high and low, and come up empty, to find a hetero guy or a woman that can universally be considered attractive that thinks that lad's mags are, well... the three phrases I used in the blog. Hint: it's never them.

Hi. I'd say I'm relatively attractive, definitely hetero, and I'm definitely of the opinion that "lad's mags" and modern advertising are promoting a negative body image. Your models are shopped to a perfection that's unreal. Your ads say that we'd be better if we just bought X. And these images are presented constantly.

How is that a healthy, positive thing?

[HEMI6point1]

Hi. I'd say I'm relatively attractive, definitely hetero, and I'm definitely of the opinion that "lad's mags" and modern advertising are promoting a negative body image. Your models are shopped to a perfection that's unreal. Your ads say that we'd be better if we just bought X. And these images are presented constantly.

How is that a healthy, positive thing?

Ads that are ridiculously Photoshopped maybe....

But lad's mags are like car enthusiast mags in that they are trying to show their readers something you don't see on the sidewalk (or in the case of the car mags, the road) every day.

Can you imagine if car mags were told, "You are featuring cars that are too out of people's price ranges show stuff that's more obtainable" and they started featuring nothing but Accords, Camrys and Malibus?

What would happen is that their subscriber base would drop. Same deal with lad's mags, they want to feature the prettiest girls they can find because that is what their subscriber base wants to see.

Both are for-profit businesses, and they are in business to make money, so they have to go with what sells magazines.

I do think that some shots go overboard on the photoshop, but I have seen unairbrushed pics of many of my favorite glamour models (includes the names I have referenced in that blog piece) and they still look damn stunning.

Also, as was stated in my blog, many of these models lead healthy, productive lives, they don't smoke, they work out but don't refuse themselves food and actually "eat a cheeseburger" so to speak.

How is that NOT a positive body image?

[Gravekeeper]

Thanks to him, anytime someone runs across an article or blog post about the difficulties in courting and dating women, he/she automatically dismisses it as a "Nice Guy" tirade when it's really not.

It was not an automatic dismissal.

The very basis of your post on Feminists is a complete generalization of both Feminists and the women you think they are "indoctrinating". You generalize one group than you rob the other of agency by suggesting they lack the ability to think indepedently for themselves. Because you believe your opinion on them is more important. Which is the entire farking basis of gender issues and male priviledge.

Asking a woman out, she says no, so you give it some time and ask her out again hoping that maybe she changed her mind. In the past, this was considered perseverance. Thanks to the new gen feminists, it's now considered sexual harassment.

It has always been harrassment and its why women feel they have to use the defensive mechanism you complain about by putting forward that they have a boyfriend. You are taking agency away from women and how they feel and suggesting that this behaviour is due to an external force leading them down the wrong path.

Politely complimenting a woman on her appearance used to get her attention in a positive way, even if it's just a "thank you." Thanks to the new gen feminists, it repels them as they are indoctrinated to think: "Polite compliment = avoid him he's just trying to get in your pants." Or worse, depending on your workplace it's again considered sexual harassment.

Again, you remove a woman's agency and indepedence from her and blame it on feminist indoctrination. I know this may come as a fucking shock to you but a woman doesn't go out in public seeking your approval on her appearence. The fact you mention the workplace is even worse.

Opening the door for a woman, or pulling out a chair for a woman on a date used to be considered the gentlemanly or chivalrous thing to do. Thanks to the new gen feminists, some women look at things like this as a veiled insult for some stupid reason and are offended.

Buying gifts for a woman, once you are in a relationship used to be considered just a good thing to do. Thanks to the new gen feminists, woman are indoctrinated to think if a man buys her a gift he's trying to bribe or "buy" her.

Both of these are the same shit. Blaming an nefarious external force that is taking women away from you instead of asking the more important question of why the woman in question feels this way. If you are doing things like this and its being negativly interpreted then you do not know or understand the woman in question well enough to be doing things like buying her gifts.

Thanks to the new gen feminists, nowadays a guy can be a total cretin but as long as he's Tall Dark & Handsome, that's OK but if he's not TD & H "he better have something to offer." Translation? If you look like Seth Rogen but don't have Seth Rogen money, you're totally screwed.

And this is just prime Nice Guy bullshit.

A friend of mine went out on a date with a woman who was indoctrinated to believe that chivalry = insult. He told me he opened the restaurant door for her and pulled out the chair for her and she actually told him both times, "You don't have to do that!" The final straw was after the date he opened the car door for her and she said, "Come on man I can handle a car door." So he came out and asks, "I thought woman liked chivalry?" She responded with (I kid you not), "Maybe - in 1955, not today!" Needless to say, that was the last date they went on.

So your friend repeatedly did things she asked him NOT to do and then told her what she's suppose to like? That has nothing to do with indoctrination. Rather then being invested in her feelings and thoughts as a person, your friend overrode her opinion in favour of what he thinks women should be like.

Your friend is a dick.

Oh, and BTW, I can bet my lunch money on it that just like in my blog, you will have to search high and low, and come up empty, to find a hetero guy or a woman that can universally be considered attractive that thinks that lad's mags are, well... the three phrases I used in the blog. Hint: it's never them.

(Raises hand alongside Kheldarson).

I'm not sure I even want to get in to how awful that whole blog post was about how only fat, ugly and jealous women complain.

Here, have a comic.

[Kheldarson]

So because these individual models don't smoke, have enough wealth to buy healthy food, and time to maintain an exercise regime, that's the only thing we need to say that the magazines as a whole promote healthy body image?

Never mind that the girls are being promoted as a product, and then being promoted as an unattainable one at that because of Photoshop, but gals who are faced with that should say well, that gal there is a perfectly attainable goal to look like if I do all the right things, just like I would to buy a car, right?

The point here is that a positive body image says that you're happy the way you are. And sure, the models themselves may be. But the magazines themselves aren't about that. They're about the unattainable. The fantasy. So the message becomes that guys want their fantasy so gals should try to attain the unattainable or you're not worth it. So any positivity from the model gets lost in the negative.