Ya’ know boys and girls; I can’t stomach some of the CRAP I’ve been witnessing on this GD board lately. It seems every time a point of view is voiced that does not fall under the infinitely sensitive, touchy-feely Barney the dinosaur genre; a regular cartel of devotees to PC social civility will dog-pile and start questioning the genealogy, upbringing, and social development of the messenger.
Class; if the POV is NOT a flame directed at a certain person; then it is the POV, political cant, moral stand or social observation that is up for debate. Allegations that the messenger is a chronic masturbator, social misfit or pathological reprobate have NOTHING to do with the message, and are in fact the cheapest and most childish form of argument to be found this side of a child care center sand box.
It doesn’t much matter whether you’re a diva to drama, a well washed white-knight or a troglodyte of testosterone. EVERYBODY’S point of view has a level of merit, and NOBODY should need to suffer personal attack for expressing a point of view.
In addition; anytime a poster decides to twist debate into a personal attack of another then that instigator should be prepared for whatever wrath in the retort their belligerence hath wrought.
Some folks have no sense of humor and take the posts on this board to be the gospel of something big; they are not. It's mostly nameless, faceless people having fun, being spoons, and yes sometimes invoking anger and muck. So what. It's funny how people with no opinion often yell the loudest because some statement besmirched their character in some way. Then there are the late-to-the-party types who go after one poster or another without advancing the discussion one iota. At least if you are going to attack, call names, etc., have a fucking opinion. The likelhood of you meeting some of these ranters is nil.
. . . and other forums. Flame wars get started when you speculate on your fellow forumites' motives. Life would be simpler if we simply argue logically against what was posted.
Yes, I'll go for the throat first, but then I'll give the counterargument. It isn't a sniping exercise. Unless the thread is humorous, I take discussion here seriously.
Well, I've never asked your dates. As for some of the rants, we all are guilty from time to time of not reading clearly and responding emotionally. So I am glad you are a serious poster and I think you can save the white-night act for when you are between the sheets. The ladies that post here are very capable of defending themselves.
You are absolutely correct and it's why I (and probably others) don't post here more often. I would rather avoid the topic than be the target of a personal attack. Nothing infuriates me more than a discussion about something like the government turned into a attack on someone's appearance (for the love of God!).
I just posted about this type of thing, in a round-about way, in my blog. It's unfortunate that we're not supported and listened to in our opinions and ideas. People can be extremely close-minded and when they are unable to understand your point, become defensive. In addition, the truth is often hard to take and we're so brain-washed to think one thing or the other, regardless of it's validity, we can't even begin to consider another point of view.
It is frustrating for me. I don't lie in order to be compliant but I've learned (mostly) when it's best to keep my mouth shut. I also value people who aren't afraid to speak up. Though I am sometimes intimidated by such bluntness, I find myself very much attracted to it as well.
Kate
-- Modified on 9/4/2006 8:59:14 AM
-- Modified on 9/4/2006 9:04:04 AM
Just kidding. I knew that would get your attention.
I agree with you FreedomRider. I am not always in agreement with mocking escorts and calling them cunts, etc., but I do try to keep my mouth shut on certain posts. It's hard but I try. 
I am getting better at reading, rereading and rereading a post before I respond to it. You know me, I usually try to throw some humor into it, but I feel I also convey a serious message and hopefully somewhat objective one when I feel it is necessary.
As far as the "white knights" bashing: I think (at times) it's honorable that the men stick up for us. Remember, some of these men have met us, spent some passionate time with us and some are friends. So, it's understandable that a friend would stand up for another friend. Sometimes we forget these things. This board -- no matter how we feel about it -- is a communication tool for all sides. We need to be tolerant of everyone. Wink!
Hugs,
ciara
Being with you ~Passion would Fit like a Glove~Wink!
Thank You
I'm not bashing the whiteknights. Truth is they serve a symbiotic function much like the Religious Right serves/needs Howard Stern.
I would like to say however; that although I too find it VERY honorable to stick up for you ladies when needed (emphasis on “needed”). It often proves a disservice
to the otherwise strong, capable, and independent women you are when a gaggle of do-gooders supersedes your own quick wit and feminine/feminist prowess.
I have seen this egregiously demonstrated when the chivalrous gentlemen themselves resort to denigrating epithets in your defense.
Weak, lazy, illogical arguments are not gender specific. Let those who have dug their own hole; dig their way out.
I meant to imply that everyone has a voice. Some may not like what the white knights say, but they also have the right to speak their opinions. Your words exactly, "It doesn’t much matter whether you’re a diva to drama, a well washed white-knight or a troglodyte of testosterone. EVERYBODY’S point of view has a level of merit" . . .
I certainly can defend myself, yet at other times it's just not worth giving into some of those who seem like obvious women haters who must be neanderthals who have an overabundance of testosterone.
I still love ya' baby! Keep voicing your opinion.
Hugs,
Ciara
A “libidinous Satyr” I can live with.
just gotta get out to Jenna J's club! lol!
Can someone explain to me what exactly the definition of a "white knight" is?
If it is someone who tries to be respectful to others and believes that the ladies of these boards deserve to be treated with some dignity,
then I am your #1 White Knight
and I'm damn proud of it.
If there are people out there who get upset or consider it politically incorrect to be respectful to others, to bad for them
I'm not changing!
Just my opinion...
B
. . . who comes to the rescue of the ladies when a post is directed at them, whether they need to be rescued or not. I think most ladies here are fully capable of defending themselves.
but it seems that some feel that they can lay down some insulting and disparaging rant and expect for us White Knights (I'm getting to like the monicker) to humbly scrape.
Not this one.
If you're going to dish it out, you're are going to have to take it, unctiousness, superciliousness and all.
I'm sort of with Kate on this.
I find it off putting, but it makes my adrenilin start to flow, and I'm glad it does.
And I apologize in advance if I become insulting, but that is not my intent.
probably one of the most conscientious people on this board. Smooch!
Hugs,
ciara
In the case below with SocietalSodomist, it didn't deserve more than a light admonishment for overstating it. I went a little too far.
But like you, I'm not ashamed of being a White Knight. It's in my nature, I've never received personal discounts for it, and I never will accept one.
that you didn't like or take... okay, you didn't get offered one... As for the White Night label, I don't think you are one at all, but you do speak out of both sides of your mouth and seem to always be apologizing for it. WN or not, you'd get a lot more respect from the board if you just live and/or die with your point of view. Apologies are nice until you begin to sound like a pussy.
Maybe 4. Each time I made an error. For 3 of them, the error was prompted by the same thing. Not too excessive, but I'll get my testosterone checked.
And look below, someone said: "Finally!"
I've had my mind changed, sometimes in midpost. Maybe that's what you're counting as an apology. I ramble too much as well. As for "both sides of your mouth": I've always been a 2-handed typists. I'll try to keep one hand under the desk more; I thought three times a day was too much...
I often notice that those calling others PC simply want to state their views, however pedestrian or obnoxious, and not have them challenged. Real life does not work that way.
This board or any gathering of people, will have a variety of viewpoints on issues large or small. The key for me is realizing that and understanding that in one post I may not agree with a poster that I am in general agreement with. Using words or phrases to describe what one feel is another poster's comprehension level of a topic is not name calling if the words and phases are focused on facts.
I really believed I detected the root of it there. Actually, I took my eyes off the ball.
My message is down and retracted, I've apologized, and I'll be reading and writing more carefully from now on.
A white knight who admits he's not infallible!
-- Modified on 9/5/2006 9:50:36 AM
Any stance, no matter how well reasoned, if it does not provide 1) instant gratification, 2) gratification without some earned merrit and 3) emotional rather than a systematic approach to problem solving is considered, by some on this board to be racist or intollerant.
One in particular has called me racist, when in fact he knows nothing of my ethnic origin, or cultural background. For all he knows, I could be a little green man from mars....
It is also supposed that I blindly support BUSH by many that know me on the boards and also in person.... I don't. why? Many of his positions I find to be intollerant.... but I also find many of the positions of the Demo/leftist to be equally intollerant....
So who is right? I am for providing as much civil liberty as is possible, but making sure that everyone knows that with that liberty, comes social and moral responsibility...
Hence, I should not need a law to protect me from 2nd hand smoke, I would hope that people would have the civility to know it is bad for others, and simply not expose them to it..... and many other things.... While I personally could not make the decision to support an individual abortion..... I can understand that there are circumstances where the female may wish to abort... (For too many reasons to go into here) - to take that decision from her, would be simply wrong....
Finally, for Mr. Spock.... I do not fear, in your words "little brown dudes" but if they break the law, they break the law and the law should be enforced..... What? not like the law? Then work to change the law.... that has been done in this country time and time again.... Jim Crow was at one time - a law.... prohibition was at one time - the law of the land.... see, our form of government works.... your way, with anarchy does not.... heck, what you suggest is that if an individual does not like the law... he should just ignore it....
So, you see, in many instances, on this board, where I took, perhaps something less than the PC position, I too felt the heat........ and recently, one such lambasting was a little much from the "men" on this board.
With respect to the ladies on the board, I can honestly say, they are pretty much more open minded than the guys.
I have to contend with this EVERY day on the Politics board, thus why I regularly post a list of logical fallacies. Like this one:
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."
