Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1214355&sid=e7da3bad3251f9c50b9ba7220df2f6fc
For the purpose of this discussion let us assume that accusations of sexism or misogyny are false.
How to respond?
Some people respond by attempting to attack the credibility of the accusation and/or the accuser. I think this is a bad approach especially when the responders unintentionally use sexist language. Accusing all women except for the "good ones" of being predisposed to bad logic, emotional thinking and of outright lying is probably not the best defense against accusations of being sexist.
I think the first thing to do is to control your emotions. Being falsely accused of anything will make most people angry. It seems perfectly natural to want to lash out at people trying to spread lies about you. However understandable it is, responding out of anger probably won't help you. You need to control that emotional response and be as logical as you can. If you can't manage to do that at least acknowledge that your angry response is coming from being falsely accused just to make doubly sure people don't start to suspect that the anger is coming from your deep seated resentment towards all women.
Control yourself.
Once you've taken your own emotional response out of the discussion, objectively evaluate if your comments could reasonably considered sexist. Sometimes we say things with no intention to offend that still do. It might help to acknowledge the possibility of unintentional offense. Sometimes reassuring someone you did not intend to cause offense is enough to get them to back off their false accusations. You have to mean it though. If you meant to offend someone then you should admit to it, but insist you didn't mean to offend others.
Acknowledge the accuser's sense of being offended and reassure them there was no intent to do so. If offense was intended reassure that offense wasn't intended towards others.
Once you've got yourself under control and you've attempted to reassure the offended accusers, you can start to defend yourself without the added resistance misunderstanding can bring. Model the logic based reasoning you would like others to use. Don't assume that gender politics is a man/woman thing. It isn't. Just because you are a woman does not mean you are a feminist and just because you are a man does not mean you are not one. Do not try to attack an accuser's credibility by insisting they are feminist and then make generalized, unsupported statements about the characteristics of feminist.
Stick to logical persuasion. Don't use the same logical fallacies you are accusing your accuser of.
I guess this advice would apply to any discussion. Control yourself, acknowledge your opponents position and be logical. I would only add that you also be fair. Not everyone is as skilled at debate, expressing themselves or as well informed as you. People tend to be more willing to admit error when there are fewer negative social consequences to doing so. Your chances of getting to admit they were mistaken in accusing you of something are greater if they don't have to lose too much face.
For the purpose of this discussion let us assume that accusations of sexism or misogyny are false.
How to respond?
Some people respond by attempting to attack the credibility of the accusation and/or the accuser. I think this is a bad approach especially when the responders unintentionally use sexist language. Accusing all women except for the "good ones" of being predisposed to bad logic, emotional thinking and of outright lying is probably not the best defense against accusations of being sexist.
I think the first thing to do is to control your emotions. Being falsely accused of anything will make most people angry. It seems perfectly natural to want to lash out at people trying to spread lies about you. However understandable it is, responding out of anger probably won't help you. You need to control that emotional response and be as logical as you can. If you can't manage to do that at least acknowledge that your angry response is coming from being falsely accused just to make doubly sure people don't start to suspect that the anger is coming from your deep seated resentment towards all women.
Control yourself.
Once you've taken your own emotional response out of the discussion, objectively evaluate if your comments could reasonably considered sexist. Sometimes we say things with no intention to offend that still do. It might help to acknowledge the possibility of unintentional offense. Sometimes reassuring someone you did not intend to cause offense is enough to get them to back off their false accusations. You have to mean it though. If you meant to offend someone then you should admit to it, but insist you didn't mean to offend others.
Acknowledge the accuser's sense of being offended and reassure them there was no intent to do so. If offense was intended reassure that offense wasn't intended towards others.
Once you've got yourself under control and you've attempted to reassure the offended accusers, you can start to defend yourself without the added resistance misunderstanding can bring. Model the logic based reasoning you would like others to use. Don't assume that gender politics is a man/woman thing. It isn't. Just because you are a woman does not mean you are a feminist and just because you are a man does not mean you are not one. Do not try to attack an accuser's credibility by insisting they are feminist and then make generalized, unsupported statements about the characteristics of feminist.
Stick to logical persuasion. Don't use the same logical fallacies you are accusing your accuser of.
I guess this advice would apply to any discussion. Control yourself, acknowledge your opponents position and be logical. I would only add that you also be fair. Not everyone is as skilled at debate, expressing themselves or as well informed as you. People tend to be more willing to admit error when there are fewer negative social consequences to doing so. Your chances of getting to admit they were mistaken in accusing you of something are greater if they don't have to lose too much face.
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
~
more like arse technica
Panopticon
Panopticon
Post rating:
~
Every conversation is a data exchange. Ensure what you send has useful effect.Displays of "emotion" should be calculated, but effortlessly smooth and convincing.
autism technica
dipshit420
dipshit420
political car tune
Post rating:
~
if you love ars technica so much why dont you marry it
Panopticon
Panopticon
Post rating:
~
"ha-joon chang is a dumbass," conclude the libertyhq forumgoers after reading his table of contents and naught else, "and his arguments clearly break down in the face of the immortal science of mises-rothbard thought"
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
How do you know this? For only the last five or six millenia - until 100 years ago - it was common for people to carry silver, copper, bronze and sometimes gold coins. Everyone says "card is faster than cash" but since when? In the time it takes to swipe the card, wait for the authorization, click through the half-dozen confirmation screens and then sign the receipt, a good cashier could have made change 2 or 3 times over. So this is just propaganda. Cash is actually faster than card, not to mention more convenient, budgetable as well as reasonably confidential in most circumstances. And with gold purchasing $1400 worth of real goods, there is no serious issue of weight. A quarter of an ounce will buy a nice television. A couple ounces of silver will buy a week's groceries or fill a large gas tank. A copper ounce will buy a handful of candy-bars.
Clayton -
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
Panopticon you should join us and be a conspiracy theorist rather than keep trying to troll the immortal science of Friedman-Rothbardism.
Panopticon
Panopticon
Post rating:
~
did i ever tell you about the majestic awe of purestrain gold
Superabound
Superabound
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating:
+
i got so pissed off about constantly standing in line behind incompetent cardswipers and checkwriters that i eventually decided to take revenge by only carrying loose, crumpled, sweat-soeaked singles that i have to pull out one by one, flatten, and hand to the cashier. in our increasingly fast-paced modern society, simply having time to waste becomes itself an act of terrorism
Lucille
Lucille
Post rating:
~
Nominate for best post
Panopticon
Panopticon
Post rating:
~
they completely ignored the very informative interview i posted... im actually a lil upset