Free speech.

[Graystone]

I've shown multiple instances where the rules have not been equally applied - the best example being Candace Owens vs Sarah Jeong.

You've also not shown how they have taken steps to remove it. You know there is a difference between saying and doing, right?



Which is a rather round-a-bout way of saying that you can't describe how you can monitor behavior without monitoring content - because you know it can't be done. Which means the "Full context" you are harping on about is BS. It's a series of statements designed to placate the audience, but when analyzed are actually impossible.



More attempts to downplay the obvious. Even funnier because you've not posted up anything as a competing definition...



Doesn't need to, what the awards show is that it isn't some fringe lunatic work, but something well respected in the field. All these character assassinations on the part of the work is really showing how desperate you are to avoid reality.



Not at all, by her peers (IE Feminists, Gender studies professors etc.) She is regarded as the first person to associate the two and as the instigator of the concept. As for her "actual definition" - it's irrelevant, since I've posted a definition from a scholarly work (which you keep attempting to downplay) and her work is an extension of that, in case you've forgotten:

"Male Privilege" is clearly defined as being applicable to "All Males", "White Male Privilege" is born out of the concept of "Male Privilege" therefore (by transitive relations) "White Male Privilege" applies to "All White Males" - which would make it wholly Racist and Sexist.

None of which showed that political bias to be a factor.

I figure give them the benefit of the doubt.

Are you capable of decoupling your interpretation, from the writer/speaker's intent? The context shows their intent, your interpretation is irrelevant, removing the context is still very dishonest.

Here's one then "Male privilege is a concept within sociology for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm." notice how it is worded as a definition? Not a metaphor, not a description, but a definition.

I think you're playing up just how representative ALA is in such fields. Pointing out the obvious, that not everything in a large work is necessarily correct is hardly a character assassination. For example, two paragraphs after the description you picked, she seeks to show Male Privilege is a thing based on pay scale nomenclature; we know you disagree with that, but by your own logic you cannot since it has been published in such a well respected work

And just whose character are you attributing the 'all males' comments to?

Hang on a second, did you just say her actual definition was irrelevant? Your whole point hinges on what she defines it as, but since you've found a description you like, you tell us the actual definition she uses is irrelevant? I know you get quite illogical when your sexism is made clear, but that statement is quite unhinged!

Male privilege is not defined as being applicable to all males, she even explains that in the definition just above the description you picked, where it clearly only applies to some males in some societies. And is it not equally born out of White Privilege?

[avgas]

Male privilege is not defined as being applicable to all males, she even explains that in the definition just above the description you picked, where it clearly only applies to some males in some societies. And is it not equally born out of White Privilege?

Using your and her definition then. Would you not argue it is in fact wrong.
It is a statement "Male Privileged" therefore it must encompass the entire demographic of the definition. It's not "Some Male" Privilege.

You see a sub-category is not identified in her definition. So it has to applicable to all or not (and it incorrect and needs better definition).

Or did everyone fail statistics?

If I made a published statement like that, got called out, found I was wrong, I would amend my statement not double down on it. She should to - if this is what she stated.

Edit: Found her paper https://www.nationalseedproject.org/...y_McIntosh.pdf
No definition is actually defined. Only a statement. She is predicating that because she observes a norm it must therefore be an advantage or in her case privilege. Please note there is nothing outside her observations to justify this within the paper. She does site various racial bias publications as a proof of racial privileged, once again coupled with her own observations. But basically using her analogy is because everyone drives cars, and not everyone rides motorbikes - the world is not accepting of motorbikes so there is in fact a Car Privilege. Never mind the intersections in Thailand......which she has never observed.

[TheDemonLord]

None of which showed that political bias to be a factor.

I figure give them the benefit of the doubt.

Oh really? So tell me: Sarah Jeong made a series of tweets, containing racist remarks - She is on the left wing, editor at NYT. Candace Owens in protest took those tweets, changes only the race that they were directed to and posted them. Candace owens is a well known conservative. Only Candace Owens received any form of censuring from Twitter.

All other factors being equal (Content of the tweets, both by Women, both of who would be considered a minority) - the only changes were the race in question (and all race is a protected characteristic) and the authors Political viewpoint.

So - Care to explain how that doesn't show Political Bias?

Are you capable of decoupling your interpretation, from the writer/speaker's intent? The context shows their intent, your interpretation is irrelevant, removing the context is still very dishonest.

Interesting comment, since you are so obsessed with interpretation... But the question remains - lets assume the Speakers Intent - does it match reality? Can you filter based on Behavior on a platform like twitter without monitoring the content? You simply cannot, because without knowing the content, you cannot tell what the behavior is. Thus it's an irrelevant statement designed to placate the audience.

Here's one then "Male privilege is a concept within sociology for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm." notice how it is worded as a definition? Not a metaphor, not a description, but a definition.

Can you point me to the part where it explicitly states it's not applicable to all men? Especially in the line where it states that access scales with matching an ideal - there is an implication there that there is no zero point.

I think you're playing up just how representative ALA is in such fields. Pointing out the obvious, that not everything in a large work is necessarily correct is hardly a character assassination.

It is when it has no base to support it. You're simply doing the inverse of what you are accusing me of doing - you don't like the description of the concept, so you seek to dismiss it out of hand. First you tried to claim that it was just an encyclopedia, then you claimed I was trying a Gish Gallop (hilarious when it was in response to 4 sentances and all I asked was a few sentance response), Then it was an obscure source, then it was disputing it's scholarly status, then it was trying to differentiate between a sub-concept and it's parent concept and to argue that since they aren't the same, they must be totally different (despite being related), then there was some bonus points where your famed English interpretation skills couldn't even determine the difference between being written by Peggy McIntosh and someone else writing in reference to her work.

I could go on, but I think that's enough to demonstrate your repeated attempts to assassinate the character of a work that you don't like.

For example, two paragraphs after the description you picked, she seeks to show Male Privilege is a thing based on pay scale nomenclature; we know you disagree with that, but by your own logic you cannot since it has been published in such a well respected work

What a load of stupidity - It's like saying that an atheist can't point out an inconsistency in the Bible... I don't believe in ANY of the concepts in that work, but I'm not the one that holds to that set of beliefs - I'm just assessing the internal consistency of the concepts and then judging them by an objective scale.

And just whose character are you attributing the 'all males' comments to?

You're capable of reading (as you are always so proud of boasting) so you should be able to figure it out...

Hang on a second, did you just say her actual definition was irrelevant? Your whole point hinges on what she defines it as, but since you've found a description you like, you tell us the actual definition she uses is irrelevant? I know you get quite illogical when your sexism is made clear, but that statement is quite unhinged!

Did you miss the part where in the work I posted, it references Peggy's work - perhaps I should have been clearer:

You quibbling over a lack of definition in her original essay does not trump a later work that references her and her body of work and does provide a clarification

Male privilege is not defined as being applicable to all males, she even explains that in the definition just above the description you picked, where it clearly only applies to some males in some societies. And is it not equally born out of White Privilege?

Nope - that's not what she explains - she says that the benefits are not equally distributed but that all males have some benefit - it's the all Males part that you seem to be having trouble with.

That All Males part invalidates your original defence against being a Racist, Sexist.

[Graystone]

Oh really? So tell me: Sarah Jeong made a series of tweets, containing racist remarks - She is on the left wing, editor at NYT. Candace Owens in protest took those tweets, changes only the race that they were directed to and posted them. Candace owens is a well known conservative. Only Candace Owens received any form of censuring from Twitter.

All other factors being equal (Content of the tweets, both by Women, both of who would be considered a minority) - the only changes were the race in question (and all race is a protected characteristic) and the authors Political viewpoint.

So - Care to explain how that doesn't show Political Bias?



Interesting comment, since you are so obsessed with interpretation... But the question remains - lets assume the Speakers Intent - does it match reality? Can you filter based on Behavior on a platform like twitter without monitoring the content? You simply cannot, because without knowing the content, you cannot tell what the behavior is. Thus it's an irrelevant statement designed to placate the audience.



Can you point me to the part where it explicitly states it's not applicable to all men? Especially in the line where it states that access scales with matching an ideal - there is an implication there that there is no zero point.



It is when it has no base to support it. You're simply doing the inverse of what you are accusing me of doing - you don't like the description of the concept, so you seek to dismiss it out of hand. First you tried to claim that it was just an encyclopedia, then you claimed I was trying a Gish Gallop (hilarious when it was in response to 4 sentances and all I asked was a few sentance response), Then it was an obscure source, then it was disputing it's scholarly status, then it was trying to differentiate between a sub-concept and it's parent concept and to argue that since they aren't the same, they must be totally different (despite being related), then there was some bonus points where your famed English interpretation skills couldn't even determine the difference between being written by Peggy McIntosh and someone else writing in reference to her work.

I could go on, but I think that's enough to demonstrate your repeated attempts to assassinate the character of a work that you don't like.



What a load of stupidity - It's like saying that an atheist can't point out an inconsistency in the Bible... I don't believe in ANY of the concepts in that work, but I'm not the one that holds to that set of beliefs - I'm just assessing the internal consistency of the concepts and then judging them by an objective scale.



You're capable of reading (as you are always so proud of boasting) so you should be able to figure it out...



Did you miss the part where in the work I posted, it references Peggy's work - perhaps I should have been clearer:

You quibbling over a lack of definition in her original essay does not trump a later work that references her and her body of work and does provide a clarification



Nope - that's not what she explains - she says that the benefits are not equally distributed but that all males have some benefit - it's the all Males part that you seem to be having trouble with.

That All Males part invalidates your original defence against being a Racist, Sexist.

So Candace's sole focus was on the race aspect? And you wonder why there was censorship...

Speakers intent is the reason to provide context. They can be wrong, but it does not change their intent.

The word 'available'.

No, as character assassination is defaming the person, rather than discussing their work. You continue to attempt the whole argument from authority thing again, but with no concept of how it works, I have to point out why such 'authority' is not applicable, which you claim is character assassination? Don't be absurd.

So her description is 100% accurate since it is in a well regarded work, but all her concepts are wrong since you disagree with them? Double standard much?? Aethiesm and beleif have nothing to do with this, as you've supplied ALA as an objective validation, not a subjective one.

I have figured it out, and it looks like you're mixing up the 'All Males' term Jodi wrote, with saying just how much we have to believe Peggy's definition since she was first. You have not supplied Peggy's definition, or even a description that refers to 'all males', which leaves the internal consistency of your own arguments in tatters.

You can't get clarification from work that is not her own then ascribe that to her, that's fucking moronic.

No it quite clearly states that it is applicable in 'societys where male supremacy is the central social organising feature'. That's in the definition part btw, the description part is where the 'all males' metaphor resides.

[Graystone]

Using your and her definition then. Would you not argue it is in fact wrong.
It is a statement "Male Privileged" therefore it must encompass the entire demographic of the definition. It's not "Some Male" Privilege.

You see a sub-category is not identified in her definition. So it has to applicable to all or not (and it incorrect and needs better definition).

Or did everyone fail statistics?

If I made a published statement like that, got called out, found I was wrong, I would amend my statement not double down on it. She should to - if this is what she stated.

Edit: Found her paper https://www.nationalseedproject.org/...y_McIntosh.pdf
No definition is actually defined. Only a statement. She is predicating that because she observes a norm it must therefore be an advantage or in her case privilege. Please note there is nothing outside her observations to justify this within the paper. She does site various racial bias publications as a proof of racial privileged, once again coupled with her own observations. But basically using her analogy is because everyone drives cars, and not everyone rides motorbikes - the world is not accepting of motorbikes so there is in fact a Car Privilege. Never mind the intersections in Thailand......which she has never observed.

I disagree, in the same way that 'maori crime' does not mean all maori commit crimes, and 'african penis' does not mean all africans have a penis, 'male privilege' does not mean all males have privilege. A sub-category does not need to be defined since there is no use of the word 'are' or similar between them to give global application.

It's a english thing, not stats.

Exactly, she doesn't define it, while she does seem to insist it is universal, we can also justifiably believe she is wrong in that assertion. So when someone uses the term 'white male privilege' it does not necessarily refer to all white males (as it is never defined as such, through specialist definition, or common word meanings), and with context or intent, can either mean 'some white males are privileged' or 'all white males are privileged'. Obviously I use it to mean the former.

[TheDemonLord]

So Candace's sole focus was on the race aspect? And you wonder why there was censorship...

I think you'll find that it was the other way around... Funny why you'd want to misrepresent what happened... It's almost like you are desperate to avoid conceding that Political Bias might be a factor

Speakers intent is the reason to provide context. They can be wrong, but it does not change their intent.

In order to persuade me of it being an innocent error, You'd have to persuade me that Jack Dorsey was stupid and didn't understand technology. Both of which are patently not true. Which leaves me with one alternative - deliberate deception.

I'll ask again: Can you determine behavior on Twitter without analyzing Content?

The word 'available'.

Which simply means "Able to be used" - it does not state or imply that a Male can choose not to have privilege (which is what you are trying to insinuate). In fact, the surrounding literature on this is quite clear that although you can "Check your privilege" you cannot divest yourself of it. Try again.

No, as character assassination is defaming the person, rather than discussing their work. You continue to attempt the whole argument from authority thing again, but with no concept of how it works, I have to point out why such 'authority' is not applicable, which you claim is character assassination? Don't be absurd.

You're trying to assassinate the character of the work by either downplaying it, claiming it to be obscure, as opposed to actually arguing on the content of the work. The only reason for doing so is because you refuse to argue the point that you know you cannot refute: The concept is Racist and Sexist by your own definition.

So her description is 100% accurate since it is in a well regarded work, but all her concepts are wrong since you disagree with them? Double standard much?? Aethiesm and beleif have nothing to do with this, as you've supplied ALA as an objective validation, not a subjective one.

You've clearly done one too many mental backflips:

I don't agree with any of the Marxist inspired presuppositions. They are founded on widely debunked theories (such as the Wage Gap). I can still, however, assess a works internal logical consistency. As such, I'm completely within my rights to point to a text that is from within and well regarded by the field and judge it on it's merits.

Think of it like discussing a concept in Star Trek - we all know it's not real (Just like the Wage gap and the concept of Privilege), but we can discuss the internal inconsistencies all the same.

And based on that - applying a negative attribute to "All Males" is wholly Sexist.

I have figured it out, and it looks like you're mixing up the 'All Males' term Jodi wrote, with saying just how much we have to believe Peggy's definition since she was first. You have not supplied Peggy's definition, or even a description that refers to 'all males', which leaves the internal consistency of your own arguments in tatters.

Thank god you aren't Sherlock Holmes then if you think you've figured it out... Professor Moriarty would still be at large..

Jodi used the phrase "All Males" twice - once was her words to articulate how the concept applied to "All Males" although with varying degrees, the other was in reference to Peggys work.

Now, there is an assumption you could critique me on - which is it doesn't contain a specific citation, however - given that this is not contradicted anywhere in any definition or description (even the one you posted) - unless you can find me one that explicitly states that "Male Privilege" does not apply to all Men or that some Men do not have ANY "Male Privilege", then it's a fair assumption to make, given the circumstances around it.

You can't get clarification from work that is not her own then ascribe that to her, that's fucking moronic.

Good job that neither me or Jodi is doing that then aye - but keep clutching at those straws...

No it quite clearly states that it is applicable in 'societys where male supremacy is the central social organising feature'. That's in the definition part btw, the description part is where the 'all males' metaphor resides.

Feminists believe all societies are Patriarchies... which is why it's a moot point.

[Graystone]

I think you'll find that it was the other way around... Funny why you'd want to misrepresent what happened... It's almost like you are desperate to avoid conceding that Political Bias might be a factor



In order to persuade me of it being an innocent error, You'd have to persuade me that Jack Dorsey was stupid and didn't understand technology. Both of which are patently not true. Which leaves me with one alternative - deliberate deception.

I'll ask again: Can you determine behavior on Twitter without analyzing Content?



Which simply means "Able to be used" - it does not state or imply that a Male can choose not to have privilege (which is what you are trying to insinuate). In fact, the surrounding literature on this is quite clear that although you can "Check your privilege" you cannot divest yourself of it. Try again.



You're trying to assassinate the character of the work by either downplaying it, claiming it to be obscure, as opposed to actually arguing on the content of the work. The only reason for doing so is because you refuse to argue the point that you know you cannot refute: The concept is Racist and Sexist by your own definition.



You've clearly done one too many mental backflips:

I don't agree with any of the Marxist inspired presuppositions. They are founded on widely debunked theories (such as the Wage Gap). I can still, however, assess a works internal logical consistency. As such, I'm completely within my rights to point to a text that is from within and well regarded by the field and judge it on it's merits.

Think of it like discussing a concept in Star Trek - we all know it's not real (Just like the Wage gap and the concept of Privilege), but we can discuss the internal inconsistencies all the same.

And based on that - applying a negative attribute to "All Males" is wholly Sexist.



Thank god you aren't Sherlock Holmes then if you think you've figured it out... Professor Moriarty would still be at large..

Jodi used the phrase "All Males" twice - once was her words to articulate how the concept applied to "All Males" although with varying degrees, the other was in reference to Peggys work.

Now, there is an assumption you could critique me on - which is it doesn't contain a specific citation, however - given that this is not contradicted anywhere in any definition or description (even the one you posted) - unless you can find me one that explicitly states that "Male Privilege" does not apply to all Men or that some Men do not have ANY "Male Privilege", then it's a fair assumption to make, given the circumstances around it.



Good job that neither me or Jodi is doing that then aye - but keep clutching at those straws...



Feminists believe all societies are Patriarchies... which is why it's a moot point.

If her only changes were race related, then that was her focus. Sarah on the other hand, had posted a message of which race was only a part. I think your major malfucntion is assuming your opinion is anything more than just a subjective interpretation, you don't have to agree with their viewpoint, but their right to have it justifies their actions.

No, this is just your major malfunction again. His meaning was made clear by the context, you dishonestly removed the context to twist the meaning.

Able to be used, also means it does not have to be used.

Character of the work? That's not a thing, stop grasping at straws to try and support your argument from authority fallacy.

You pick and choose which parts you judge on their merits, and do not allow me the same courtesy, that's the double standard. The 'all males' thing is without merit, yet you persist in the argument from authority fallacy, while disputing that a mere two paragraphs below.

It is not a fair assumption to attribute the words of person A who merely refers to person B, to the works of person B. This is basic, basic shit dude. You are doing that, as you say the originator of the term was Peggy, and that term's definition contains the words 'all males', and that is what we should refer to. Since Peggy's definition does not contain those words, your internal logic is in tatters.

Feminists do not believe all societies are patriarchies, nor does her definition even refer to patriarchies. Try grabbing a different straw...

[TheDemonLord]

If her only changes were race related, then that was her focus. Sarah on the other hand, had posted a message of which race was only a part. I think your major malfucntion is assuming your opinion is anything more than just a subjective interpretation, you don't have to agree with their viewpoint, but their right to have it justifies their actions.

Fuck me you are being dishonest, Candace Owens was not focused on Race, she was focused on the HYPOCRISY (and was subsequently proven right) - and furthermore, Let's assume you scenario for a fraction - are you trying to make the claim that by changing a single a word, an automated filter can differentiate meaning and intent? Not even Humans have that good an insight.

For example (this is what you are trying to argue - FYI):

"The Ball is blue" - Completely fine
"The Ball is red" - THEY ARE FOCUSED ON RACE! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!

No, this is just your major malfunction again. His meaning was made clear by the context, you dishonestly removed the context to twist the meaning.

Okay then - Describe how you can monitor behavior on Twitter without Monitoring Content - that's all you need to do to prove me wrong here. It should be a really simple thing to do, if you are correct.

Able to be used, also means it does not have to be used.

Actually, no - they never specify the negative in any of the definitions or descriptions - there isn't a text on the subject of Privilege that states this - there is plenty that affirms it's a universal though.

And we can apply a real world test to this - if I simply stand up and state "I don't have Male Privilege" - does that remove my supposed "Male Privilege"? Afterall, I've declared to society that I don't want it and as per your definition it's a societal attribute (supposedly).

Character of the work? That's not a thing, stop grasping at straws to try and support your argument from authority fallacy.

Of course it is - which is why you repeatedly attempted to downplay it - "It's not scholarly", "It's obscure", "Argument from Authority" etc. etc. you deliberately tried to attack it's credibility, as opposed to attacking it's substance.

You pick and choose which parts you judge on their merits, and do not allow me the same courtesy, that's the double standard. The 'all males' thing is without merit, yet you persist in the argument from authority fallacy, while disputing that a mere two paragraphs below.

Not at all, I'm holding you to a standard, and you don't like it -it's why you are throwing fallacies, character assassinations out left, right and centre - because you cannot argue the point: "All Males" does in fact mean "All Males" and you can't weasel out of that. Which proves the initial point that it's a Sexist and Racist concept, propagated by Racists and Sexists.

It is not a fair assumption to attribute the words of person A who merely refers to person B, to the works of person B. This is basic, basic shit dude. You are doing that, as you say the originator of the term was Peggy, and that term's definition contains the words 'all males', and that is what we should refer to. Since Peggy's definition does not contain those words, your internal logic is in tatters.

And you couldn't even argue honestly the one critique I gave you... It's simple - Peggy's definition use a universal term "Men" and no where does it explicitly state the qualifier that you've put up as a defence, in fact, even in your own definition it's curiously absent - Now, if the attribution is fundamentally incorrect - then we would expect there to be a conflict between what Peggy said and what was attributed to her and her work.

For example - the statement "Katman loves Israel" - is in conflict with other statements made by Katman.
However if I attributed to Katman: "Katman does not love Israel" - that is not in conflict with other statements made by Katman.

So even if I have not attributed an exact quote or citation, because I am familiar with the body of work by Katman, I can ascribe a statement to him that is in line with his views.

Back to my definition and yours - they do not conflict, they are aligned, the only difference is that in one it makes it clear that the concept applies to "All Males" - and that's a problem for you.

Feminists do not believe all societies are patriarchies, nor does her definition even refer to patriarchies. Try grabbing a different straw...

Sure - show me a Society that Feminists don't think is Patriarchal.

and "male supremacy is the central social organising feature" - that would be a Patriarchal society....

See: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1a...7f45b1848e.pdf

[Graystone]

Fuck me you are being dishonest, Candace Owens was not focused on Race, she was focused on the HYPOCRISY (and was subsequently proven right) - and furthermore, Let's assume you scenario for a fraction - are you trying to make the claim that by changing a single a word, an automated filter can differentiate meaning and intent? Not even Humans have that good an insight.

For example (this is what you are trying to argue - FYI):

"The Ball is blue" - Completely fine
"The Ball is red" - THEY ARE FOCUSED ON RACE! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!



Okay then - Describe how you can monitor behavior on Twitter without Monitoring Content - that's all you need to do to prove me wrong here. It should be a really simple thing to do, if you are correct.



Actually, no - they never specify the negative in any of the definitions or descriptions - there isn't a text on the subject of Privilege that states this - there is plenty that affirms it's a universal though.

And we can apply a real world test to this - if I simply stand up and state "I don't have Male Privilege" - does that remove my supposed "Male Privilege"? Afterall, I've declared to society that I don't want it and as per your definition it's a societal attribute (supposedly).



Of course it is - which is why you repeatedly attempted to downplay it - "It's not scholarly", "It's obscure", "Argument from Authority" etc. etc. you deliberately tried to attack it's credibility, as opposed to attacking it's substance.



Not at all, I'm holding you to a standard, and you don't like it -it's why you are throwing fallacies, character assassinations out left, right and centre - because you cannot argue the point: "All Males" does in fact mean "All Males" and you can't weasel out of that. Which proves the initial point that it's a Sexist and Racist concept, propagated by Racists and Sexists.



And you couldn't even argue honestly the one critique I gave you... It's simple - Peggy's definition use a universal term "Men" and no where does it explicitly state the qualifier that you've put up as a defence, in fact, even in your own definition it's curiously absent - Now, if the attribution is fundamentally incorrect - then we would expect there to be a conflict between what Peggy said and what was attributed to her and her work.

For example - the statement "Katman loves Israel" - is in conflict with other statements made by Katman.
However if I attributed to Katman: "Katman does not love Israel" - that is not in conflict with other statements made by Katman.

So even if I have not attributed an exact quote or citation, because I am familiar with the body of work by Katman, I can ascribe a statement to him that is in line with his views.

Back to my definition and yours - they do not conflict, they are aligned, the only difference is that in one it makes it clear that the concept applies to "All Males" - and that's a problem for you.



Sure - show me a Society that Feminists don't think is Patriarchal.

and "male supremacy is the central social organising feature" - that would be a Patriarchal society....

See: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1a...7f45b1848e.pdf

Her focus was on rascist hypocrisy though.

His meaning is made clear by his context, which clearly show they are aware of their left bias and make efforts to mitigate any affects. You removed the context to make it seem like he was admitting they were left biased to back up your point that their censure-ship was also left biased, which is contrary to what he clearly meant. Whether he is right or wrong does not change what he meant.

I was explaining what able/available means. No need to assert your major malfunction.

I'm correcting your misuse of it (through the argument from authority fallacy). There is still no such thing as character of work.

You're attempting to hold me to your double standard.

Again, your major malfunction is that you apply your subjective interpretation as objective. It is simply dishonest to attribute words from a different source, to the one you seek to hold as an authority.

I'm a feminist, and I don't think NZ is Patriarchal; but let me guess, there's a special exemption just for you where you can tell who is a feminist based on what you want it to mean Patriarchy also means male dominated, which is different to "male supremacy is the central social organising feature" as obviously a society can be male dominated but not have their supremacy as the central social organising feature (like US for example).

[TheDemonLord]

Her focus was on rascist hypocrisy though.

No, just hypocrisy... Which was spectacularly proved correct. I'll again spell it out for you:

Sarah Jeong: Fuck red balls - no action, censure or consequences
Candace Owens: Fuck pink balls - Banned. (although she was later re-instated)

You're trying to claim that the substitution of one race for another drastically alters the context/Meaning/whatever - making one bannable, but the other not. The only way you can claim that, is if you hold the radical lefts definition of Racism to be Power+Privilege, which means you can't be racist to white people. Then, and ONLY then can you explain the situation above. And that, is 100% a case of Political Bias in Twitters' application of the Terms of Service.

His meaning is made clear by his context, which clearly show they are aware of their left bias and make efforts to mitigate any affects. You removed the context to make it seem like he was admitting they were left biased to back up your point that their censure-ship was also left biased, which is contrary to what he clearly meant. Whether he is right or wrong does not change what he meant.

That's a very longwinded way of not answering the question. Let me help you - you can't answer it because you know it's unanswerable. Which means all the context and intent that you are banking on is all 100% bullshit - which is why I left it out.

I was explaining what able/available means. No need to assert your major malfunction.

No, you are asserting what you need it to mean. Big difference. I asked for a simple bit of proof: Find me a definition that explicitly states that it does not apply to all Men. I'll help you out here - you can't find it because it doesn't exist. It should look something like this:

"Male Privilege is a Marxist Myth that we made up to hide our man-hating, Privilege does not apply to all men"

And no attempts at playing word games and substituting your preferred inferences will help you.

I'm correcting your misuse of it (through the argument from authority fallacy). There is still no such thing as character of work.

If you are claiming that I'm committing an argument from Authority, how are you doing any different when referring to your definition? Afterall, we are both pointing at definitions....

And yes, a work can have character. Afterall, you referred to it as Obscure - which was an attempt at Character assassination. And seeing as you need things spelt out - that's because it's an attempt by you to go after the reputation of the work, rather than address it's content.

You're attempting to hold me to your double standard.

No, just a standard, which is why you are trying to weasel out of it.

Again, your major malfunction is that you apply your subjective interpretation as objective. It is simply dishonest to attribute words from a different source, to the one you seek to hold as an authority.

There is no subjective interpretation on my part - I'm just reading what's written (It's pretty clear) - you're the one trying to attack the reputation of the work, because you know you cannot argue against the content.

The only thing that comes close to subjective is my series of inferences about whether the attribution is accurate or not. This is presented as a Binary:

Either it's not inline with known statements made previously by the person- in which case it is most likely false
or
it's inline with known statements made previously by the person - in which case it is most likely true.

I'm a feminist, and I don't think NZ is Patriarchal; but let me guess, there's a special exemption just for you where you can tell who is a feminist based on what you want it to mean Patriarchy also means male dominated, which is different to "male supremacy is the central social organising feature" as obviously a society can be male dominated but not have their supremacy as the central social organising feature (like US for example).

Of course you are, and I never doubted you weren't...

However, if you don't think NZ is Patriarchal - why are you a Feminist? Surely (since Feminism is an action-based movement) there is some grievance that you think requires redress, I'm pretty sure that any grievance you list, I will find on espoused on a list of things that prove or constitute "Patriarchy"

I further feel you're about to commit a no-true-scotsman here - especially since Patriarchy means multiple things to multiple Feminists - however, since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll let it speak:



It seems that your attempts to play word games have been thwarted (again) by reality.

[Graystone]

No, just hypocrisy... Which was spectacularly proved correct. I'll again spell it out for you:

Sarah Jeong: Fuck red balls - no action, censure or consequences
Candace Owens: Fuck pink balls - Banned. (although she was later re-instated)

You're trying to claim that the substitution of one race for another drastically alters the context/Meaning/whatever - making one bannable, but the other not. The only way you can claim that, is if you hold the radical lefts definition of Racism to be Power+Privilege, which means you can't be racist to white people. Then, and ONLY then can you explain the situation above. And that, is 100% a case of Political Bias in Twitters' application of the Terms of Service.



That's a very longwinded way of not answering the question. Let me help you - you can't answer it because you know it's unanswerable. Which means all the context and intent that you are banking on is all 100% bullshit - which is why I left it out.



No, you are asserting what you need it to mean. Big difference. I asked for a simple bit of proof: Find me a definition that explicitly states that it does not apply to all Men. I'll help you out here - you can't find it because it doesn't exist. It should look something like this:

"Male Privilege is a Marxist Myth that we made up to hide our man-hating, Privilege does not apply to all men"

And no attempts at playing word games and substituting your preferred inferences will help you.



If you are claiming that I'm committing an argument from Authority, how are you doing any different when referring to your definition? Afterall, we are both pointing at definitions....

And yes, a work can have character. Afterall, you referred to it as Obscure - which was an attempt at Character assassination. And seeing as you need things spelt out - that's because it's an attempt by you to go after the reputation of the work, rather than address it's content.



No, just a standard, which is why you are trying to weasel out of it.



There is no subjective interpretation on my part - I'm just reading what's written (It's pretty clear) - you're the one trying to attack the reputation of the work, because you know you cannot argue against the content.

The only thing that comes close to subjective is my series of inferences about whether the attribution is accurate or not. This is presented as a Binary:

Either it's not inline with known statements made previously by the person- in which case it is most likely false
or
it's inline with known statements made previously by the person - in which case it is most likely true.



Of course you are, and I never doubted you weren't...

However, if you don't think NZ is Patriarchal - why are you a Feminist? Surely (since Feminism is an action-based movement) there is some grievance that you think requires redress, I'm pretty sure that any grievance you list, I will find on espoused on a list of things that prove or constitute "Patriarchy"

I further feel you're about to commit a no-true-scotsman here - especially since Patriarchy means multiple things to multiple Feminists - however, since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll let it speak:



It seems that your attempts to play word games have been thwarted (again) by reality.

Nice try at a strawman but no. The hypocrisy she was trying to show was of the racist variety, as those offended only when one race is mentioned and not another do show racist hypocrisy, I'm not sure how you think that is not the case. So while the original posts may be just some bullshit which mentioned race, hers were focused on the racist aspect. Obviously this is not something that is agreed on as a valid reason for censure by myself/twitter/etc, but it is subjectively a plausible reason, and that's all it takes for a temp ban. It's also an isolated, and overturned incident, so the initial call on it does not reflect twitter's policy as a whole.

It simply isn't worth answering, it's an absurd tangent to go off on to attempt to justify your blatant dishonesty.

Right, it's the double standard again eh? You have yet to find a definition which explicitly states it applies to all males, yet I have to find one that says it doesn't? Add to that it is generally more difficult to prove a negative and it's just more special exemptions for your self-validation

Because I am not saying this one definition is the correct one since whatsername said so. I'm showing there are conflicting ones, to show that your argument from authority is inadequate. this is the same reason I point out the fallibility of the source for the definition.

You can't attribute people to have said things based on them 'most likely' (in your opinion) agreeing with the sentiment, just how unscientific are you determined to become?

So when you said "Feminists believe all societies are Patriarchies.." did you mean all feminists? or some feminists? I mean, the interpretation of a missing word is very deja-vu.

I never denied they were closely related, just not the same, so I'm pointing out you can have one without the other. It should be clear societies like US are male dominated but do not have male supremacy as the central social organising feature, seems a lot more like wealth...

[TheDemonLord]

Nice try at a strawman but no. The hypocrisy she was trying to show was of the racist variety, as those offended only when one race is mentioned and not another do show racist hypocrisy, I'm not sure how you think that is not the case. So while the original posts may be just some bullshit which mentioned race, hers were focused on the racist aspect. Obviously this is not something that is agreed on as a valid reason for censure by myself/twitter/etc, but it is subjectively a plausible reason, and that's all it takes for a temp ban. It's also an isolated, and overturned incident, so the initial call on it does not reflect twitter's policy as a whole.

That is one of the most impressive Mental Backflips I've seen in a while. Pretty much your are stating that "White people are Bullshit" isn't racist, but "Jewish people are bullshit" is - based on some claimed context which you've invented (ironic given how pissy you get about context below).

Let me be clear - the Hypocrisy is not about Race per se, it's about the standard applied to those on the left vs those on the right - which I'll remind you, Twitter validated the critique, by censuring Candace and not Sarah.

"as those offended only when one race is mentioned and not another do show racist hypocrisy" - You mean like Twitter and the left? They care when it's Jews mentioned, but not White people? Thanks for clearly articulating Twitters Political bias.

It simply isn't worth answering, it's an absurd tangent to go off on to attempt to justify your blatant dishonesty.

Which is confirmation that you can't answer it, and therefore all the bullshit about context is just that: Bullshit.

Right, it's the double standard again eh? You have yet to find a definition which explicitly states it applies to all males, yet I have to find one that says it doesn't? Add to that it is generally more difficult to prove a negative and it's just more special exemptions for your self-validation

I see you're ignoring the description of the concept, from a scholarly work that states "All Males" Multiple times then. But let's be clear - your definition is not in conflict with my Description - read together, they don't rebut each other. That's the problem - you're having play some word games to ignore the fact that the words used were universals, as opposed to limited subset (Men vs Some Men). I'm not asking you to prove a Negative, I'm asking you to show a definition or description that explicitly states it is not applicable to all Men.

Because I am not saying this one definition is the correct one since whatsername said so. I'm showing there are conflicting ones, to show that your argument from authority is inadequate. this is the same reason I point out the fallibility of the source for the definition.

Have I said it's correct because of the Author? I haven't? Oh dear... Best you put that fallacy down then. I'll simply point out - your definition does not conflict with mine - since there is no limiting qualifier anywhere in it. That's a problem for your defence, it's also a problem that you are trying every linguistic deception to work around - and all I'm doing is simply stopping you from evading it (which is why you are complaining about a double standard, whereas you're just upset that you are being held to A standard).

You can't attribute people to have said things based on them 'most likely' (in your opinion) agreeing with the sentiment, just how unscientific are you determined to become?

I'm being as scientific as any good Gender Studies professor is.... However, you're ignoring the point the attribution is not contradicted by any of her Published work, therefore on the balance of probability, it's more likely to be true than not.

So when you said "Feminists believe all societies are Patriarchies.." did you mean all feminists? or some feminists? I mean, the interpretation of a missing word is very deja-vu.

Getting ever closer to that no-true-scotsman. Let me address it this way - the vast majority of both mainstream and radical feminist theory that is accepted by adherents in both Academia and general life believe that all societies are Patriarchies. As evidenced by the fact they refer to all western countries (even the Scandinavian ones) as such.

I've not seen any work by any Feminist that is given any credence within feminist circles that advocates that maybe not all societies are Patriarchal.

I never denied they were closely related, just not the same, so I'm pointing out you can have one without the other. It should be clear societies like US are male dominated but do not have male supremacy as the central social organising feature, seems a lot more like wealth...

And as the Feminists would point out: Who has all the wealth...

And besides, I simply don't believe you, and neither does Google - what you've described would pass as a definition of Patriarchy in just about any Gender studies classroom.

[avgas]

I disagree, in the same way that 'maori crime' does not mean all maori commit crimes, and 'african penis' does not mean all africans have a penis, 'male privilege' does not mean all males have privilege. A sub-category does not need to be defined since there is no use of the word 'are' or similar between them to give global application.

It's a english thing, not stats.

Exactly, she doesn't define it, while she does seem to insist it is universal, we can also justifiably believe she is wrong in that assertion. So when someone uses the term 'white male privilege' it does not necessarily refer to all white males (as it is never defined as such, through specialist definition, or common word meanings), and with context or intent, can either mean 'some white males are privileged' or 'all white males are privileged'. Obviously I use it to mean the former.

Privilege - attribute (so everyone gets it)
Crime - an act (actors get it)
Penis - Object (can get or not get - not compulsory)

Like you said - its an english thing.....

[Graystone]

That is one of the most impressive Mental Backflips I've seen in a while. Pretty much your are stating that "White people are Bullshit" isn't racist, but "Jewish people are bullshit" is - based on some claimed context which you've invented (ironic given how pissy you get about context below).

Let me be clear - the Hypocrisy is not about Race per se, it's about the standard applied to those on the left vs those on the right - which I'll remind you, Twitter validated the critique, by censuring Candace and not Sarah.

"as those offended only when one race is mentioned and not another do show racist hypocrisy" - You mean like Twitter and the left? They care when it's Jews mentioned, but not White people? Thanks for clearly articulating Twitters Political bias.



Which is confirmation that you can't answer it, and therefore all the bullshit about context is just that: Bullshit.



I see you're ignoring the description of the concept, from a scholarly work that states "All Males" Multiple times then. But let's be clear - your definition is not in conflict with my Description - read together, they don't rebut each other. That's the problem - you're having play some word games to ignore the fact that the words used were universals, as opposed to limited subset (Men vs Some Men). I'm not asking you to prove a Negative, I'm asking you to show a definition or description that explicitly states it is not applicable to all Men.



Have I said it's correct because of the Author? I haven't? Oh dear... Best you put that fallacy down then. I'll simply point out - your definition does not conflict with mine - since there is no limiting qualifier anywhere in it. That's a problem for your defence, it's also a problem that you are trying every linguistic deception to work around - and all I'm doing is simply stopping you from evading it (which is why you are complaining about a double standard, whereas you're just upset that you are being held to A standard).



I'm being as scientific as any good Gender Studies professor is.... However, you're ignoring the point the attribution is not contradicted by any of her Published work, therefore on the balance of probability, it's more likely to be true than not.



Getting ever closer to that no-true-scotsman. Let me address it this way - the vast majority of both mainstream and radical feminist theory that is accepted by adherents in both Academia and general life believe that all societies are Patriarchies. As evidenced by the fact they refer to all western countries (even the Scandinavian ones) as such.

I've not seen any work by any Feminist that is given any credence within feminist circles that advocates that maybe not all societies are Patriarchal.



And as the Feminists would point out: Who has all the wealth...

And besides, I simply don't believe you, and neither does Google - what you've described would pass as a definition of Patriarchy in just about any Gender studies classroom.

No, those statement were certainly racist as well. The difference is that was not her sole focus, you could also argue her focus was a direct attack on the other chick I guess, another unbiased reason for the initial ban. The left/right bias is not what is being examined though, it is the racist hypocrisy in the content. If it were about left vs right, do you think Candace would have been the one censured if the other one said racist things about blacks and she said them about whites?

Piss poor attempt at gish galloping. Just learn not to remove context to change the intent of the words in future eh!

Good to see you have acknowledged it is only a description, not a definition. Description is subjective, so is inadmissible as proof for the meaning of the term.

Actually you did, by saying "It's the start of the idea of "White Male Privilege" and since Peggy was first to create the concept, her definition applies." I guess you could try and weasel out by saying what applies is not necessarily correct though

Pretty sure you can't reference based on 'balance of probability', ask those esteemed fellows at ALA, they may know a bit about APA...

Right, so sometimes, when a term is used without a qualifying prefix, it doesn't mean 'all', handy to know, thanks for clearing that up

It doesn't matter who has the wealth, if wealth is the central social organising feature it does not fit the definition supplied. Of course what I have described counts as patriachy, but patriachy doesn't necessarily count as what I have described; do I need to draw you a fucking Venn diagram or some shit?

[Graystone]

Privilege - attribute (so everyone gets it)
Crime - an act (actors get it)
Penis - Object (can get or not get - not compulsory)

Like you said - its an english thing.....

Interesting approach, but privilege is a noun, not an adjective like attributes are; the position in the term is a giveaway as attributes come before the noun.

Privileged White Males would be the correct form for it to be an attribute.