Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Brian? · 01-08-2018 05:23AM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I don't actually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

That’s lovely.

But could you actually stick to what I asked instead of playing the distraction game?

weldoninhio · 01-08-2018 06:50AM

So just to get this straight, when he promotes drug use etc he’s playing a character? But when he’s preaching about mental health etc he’s a highly educated guy with a degree in sociology. Is that still the character? Or is that Dave? If it’s Dave and not the character, then why has he a bag on his head??

Ash.J.Williams · 01-08-2018 06:55AM

Sure why not

kubjones · 01-08-2018 06:56AM

Brian? wrote: »

That’s lovely.

But could you actually stick to what I asked instead of playing the distraction game?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/

Feminine people are far more inclined to lean towards sociology. Comes down to natural biases.

Feminine people are overwhelmingly Liberal (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2785804?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).

I did my M.A. in Psychology which was also occupied mostly by politically liberal people. Usually this is because Liberal people have a high empathy sensitivity and have more of an interest in people. I would also have considered myself a liberal up until about 4 years ago.

So he's right. Statistically the Pscyh and Sociology fields are dominated by Liberal politics and the influence of which is highly evident in today's Universities. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201210/why-liberal-hearts-bleed-and-conservatives-dont)

Standman · 01-08-2018 07:16AM

Can't we all just agree to disagree?

PlaneSpeeking · 01-08-2018 07:35AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is the main thing that has been baffling me consistently during this entire conversation for the last couple of days now. Because he says WITHIN the comment which one he is using. He literally defines the word IN the comment where he is using the word.

So how, at this juncture, someone can claim not to know is...... well it would be laugh out loud comedy if it was not so tragic.

And this is exactly what I mean. The moment we climb past the trigger word we start saying things that we almost entirely agree with each other on. I would almost 100% say that everything you wrote in that paragraph is great stuff. Only with some pedantry I would change "Don't change for anther person" to "Be open to change for any reason, including for another person, but never feel you HAVE to".

Which sounds to me almost exactly like the point Blindboy was making in the video in question. Again when we strip away the trigger word..... we suddenly find we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Brilliant, isn't it a pity the phrase "The F word" is already taken? :P

Me too. Alas I think this is mightily compounded by the fact the click bait and revenue driven media of our modern world is focused almost entirely on bringing us the utterances of such people.

As you might have noticed (or not?) I have almost entirely avoided defending feminism at all on this thread. 98% of what I have written was defending nothing more than the correct interpretation of what I believe one individual ACTUALLY said over what many people are lining up to PRETEND he said.

But feminism discussions in and of themselves, especially on line..... confuse me. I simply do not recognise the real world around me in what I read online. Like all the people commenting on feminism live in a completely different world to me.

Like the guy earlier in the thread claiming all the women he "works with" (worried, but interested, as to what that work actually entails but he did not offer this) pick up men and then dump them when they are not getting enough "treats" from them.

To say that does not describe the reality I have observed is an understatement. It is not that I have seen FEW women act that way. I have seen NO women act that way. At all.

I am not saying they are lying or their reality does not exist. I am just saying that NOTHING from my reality tracks with what I read about men, and women, and what "men want" and what "women want" that I get in these online discussions.

And I read so much of it. Women want men earning so much money. Women want men who are taller than such and such a height. Women want men who do X Y and Z without question. And so on. And then I pull my mind out of the online reality and back into the one around me..... and NOTHING maps on. Anywhere.

So I simply feel precluded from those discussions, because I have no basis to agree or disagree with any of it.

Glad we cleared that Nozz - it's often that taking an inflammatory word out of the conversation frees up discourse and often you find you are on the same page!

Ush1 · 01-08-2018 07:48AM

I take the latest episode as another nail in the coffin of his sense of humour.

Do people really think Tony McGregor was being serious in that video??

Brian? · 01-08-2018 08:29AM

kubjones wrote: »

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/

Feminine people are far more inclined to lean towards sociology. Comes down to natural biases.

Feminine people are overwhelmingly Liberal (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2785804?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).

I did my M.A. in Psychology which was also occupied mostly by politically liberal people. Usually this is because Liberal people have a high empathy sensitivity and have more of an interest in people. I would also have considered myself a liberal up until about 4 years ago.

So he's right. Statistically the Pscyh and Sociology fields are dominated by Liberal politics and the influence of which is highly evident in today's Universities. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201210/why-liberal-hearts-bleed-and-conservatives-dont)

Was I arguing that sociology wasn't dominated by liberals? No I was not, because it is.

What I was asking for was evidence that "the field of sociology is full of crackpot liberals."

Unless you're making the argument that all liberals are crackpots, are you? Is he?

01-08-2018 08:30AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To you.

But that is what HE defined it as WITHIN the point in which he used the term. So whether or not he used the word correctly is an argument you can take up with him. But it is a separate discussion.

Whether you agree with how he defined the word "feminism" or not, if you stop to parse the point he made USING his definition of the word, there is little in the point to take exception to.

You're arguing that his perception of the word Feminism is different from mine. And therefore his association between feminism and gender stereotypes with the mental health of men should be accepted.

However. You haven't shown in the slightest how my perception of Feminism is incorrect. The effects of Feminism stand for themselves, and I've pointed to some of those effects, but you seem to believe that Blindboy should be allowed to ignore what Feminism actually has done.

You might as well replace feminism with Nazism and say that we should accept his statement because his perception would be different from everyone else.

Out of curiousity, how do you know what he means by feminism? He simply states the word, connects it with equality but doesn't go into any real detail to separate himself from the negatives.

Except it does. But you just bypass that by making up other definitions of the word. AGAIN the point can be made without the use of the word feminism. Which is simply that one valid way to alleviate mental suffering caused from perceiving (real or imagined) differences between the sexes...... is to remove those differences or the perception of them.

Except it doesn't, and you have not shown how it does. For all your talk about us misunderstanding, or my bypassing statements, you tend to do the same thing. You have not refuted a single statement of mine about Feminism. You also have not answered the question about Feminism helping the mental health of Men.

You, yourself, are jumping around and arguing about the meaning of the word Feminism (without actually providing any) while ignoring that the truth that Feminism does not have the interests of males included.

There is nothing wrong in that point other than people getting triggered by that point being made using the word "Feminism". If he had made the EXACT same point without the trigger word, I doubt any of us would be here having this conversation at all. People are more interested in trigger linguistics than the actual substance of points made alas.

Then he shouldn't have linked those four areas. Feminism, Equality, Gender roles, Mental Health. For Men.

As I said before, I'm welcome to accept that he was a muppet, and didn't do his research before making the statement, but I refuse to simply accept it as he said it. It deserves to be objected to, otherwise we're simply encouraging more public figures who don't have a clue as to what they're talking about.

And as I said many times, including now several in THIS post alone..... I am not defending anyone's "statements on feminism". I am discussing the statement he made WHILE using the word feminism. A statement I have said numerous times could have been made without that word just as well, or perhaps even better.

You're defending his use of the word without actually dealing with the actual objections.

But no one seems to want to discuss the actual statement in and of itself. They want to discuss the word feminism, through THEIR understanding of it rather than the understanding of it used in the context of that point. And I do not see that as an honest move to make. If you want to critique the use of the word, have at it. Not my problem. I have only been discussing the point he was making in which he used the word. A point that I have RE-made without using that word many times, only to have people contrive to keep making it about the word, and keep ignoring the actual point.

I know of no practical (and actually implemented) definition of modern feminism that suggests that Feminism seeks equality for men, or that it would provide a positive contribution for Male mental health. Instead, I know a host of definitions about Feminism which relate to my previous posts.

You have not shown either what form of Feminism Blindboy was referring to or how Feminism promotes equality. You have not shown how Feminism could positively contribute to the mental health of men.

You say that nobody wants to talk about the statement in itself, but I actually have asked you about it. Instead, you keep arguing the definition of the word as an attempt to dismiss the objections.

Dannyriver wrote: »

I think the point that Nozz has been making [extremely well fair play to his doggedness] is that he [Blindboy] made the point perfectly well for those that weren t emotionally triggered by the word feminism. Anyone that wasn t triggered understood the point perfectly well as was said. Because you don t understand something doesn t make it not understandable for everyone. And as we all know words such as Racism/immigration/feminism cause heavy emotional reaction is certain people thus bypassing the part of the brain that deals with logic and rational thought.

I've twice responded to your posts, and you've ignored both posts.

So, perhaps deal with my objections? In a logical and rational manner, rather than simply dismissing everyone who objects with the lack of the same.

DickSwiveller Returns · 01-08-2018 08:33AM

Brian? wrote: »

Was I arguing that sociology wasn't dominated by liberals? No I was not, because it is.

What I was asking for was evidence that "the field of sociology is full of crackpot liberals."

Unless you're making the argument that all liberals are crackpots, are you? Is he?

No but the academics tend to be a bit crazy. When I was in college our library provided all the Sociology academic journals, but I haven't access to them now so I cant link anything.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-08-2018 08:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're arguing that his perception of the word Feminism is different from mine.

No, I am arguing that if someone says "X is a problem and Y is a solution and by Y I mean....." then the definition of Y offered there is the ONLY one that can be validly used to parse the statement. To use any other definition of Y is to mistakenly (or in some cases we have seen on the thread, willfully) misrepresent what the person is saying.

That was, is, and will continue to be the only thing I am arguing on that subject. Anything else you think I am arguing..... you are simply wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

However. You haven't shown in the slightest how my perception of Feminism is incorrect.

Because A) I do not think it is or is not correct or incorrect

I never claimed it was incorrect so why would I move to show it is incorrect, given I never support claims I have never actually made and C) YOUR perception of it, as I keep telling you, has nothing to do with anything I am doing or saying on this thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

you seem to believe that Blindboy should be allowed to ignore what Feminism actually has done.

Not even remotely what I have claimed, said, indicated or implied at ANY point in ANYTHING I have written, no.

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of curiousity, how do you know what he means by feminism?

Ehhhh because as I said more than 10 times on this thread in more than 10 posts..... he TOLD us what he means by the word mere seconds after using the word. Have you, I wonder, actually paused to watch the video (linked multiple times now) that contains him making the point we are actually discussing? Your question here suggests you have not. Which makes discussing it...... somewhat one sided.

Deleted User wrote: »

Except it doesn't, and you have not shown how it does. For all your talk about us misunderstanding, or my bypassing statements, you tend to do the same thing.

Except it does, and I have, and you simply ignoring what I have written does not magically unwrite it. The one bypassing stuff therefore is not me.

Deleted User wrote: »

You have not refuted a single statement of mine about Feminism.

Because as I said YOUR issues with YOUR definition of feminism have nothing to do with what I am saying. So why would I want to refute irrelevancies? My not going down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the point I am ACTUALLY discussing is not me avoiding or bypassing anything. It is my refusing to allow YOU to do so by going off on your own tangents.

AGAIN my only position on this thread has been to address an initial distortion of what the mans point actually was. I have not been discussing feminism. I could not care less about it right now OR your personal definition of it OR your issues with it.

The ONLY point I have been making is that of defending a correct interpretation, in the face of multiple distortions, of what the person ACTUALLY said. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Deleted User wrote: »

You also have not answered the question about Feminism helping the mental health of Men.

I have, you even quoted the answer above. You not liking, agreeing with, or addressing the answer however does not mean the answer was not there. The answer AGAIN simply is that if young men are suffering depression, anxiety or other detrimental health issues as a result of perceived (whether real or imagined) disparities between the sexes........ then the form of feminism advocated by Blindboy (that of redressing the balance between the sexes, his definition) is a valid way to address alleviating that suffering.

Your basis for claiming I have not answered that question, when I blatantly and demonstrably have multiple times now, is you are ignoring and dodging the definition of "feminism" blind-boy used AND offered while making that point......... substituting in your own one........ and demanding that I answer how YOUR definition of it is helping the mental health of Men.

But that is not a question I am about to answer because there is absolutely, completely, utterly no reason on offer as to why I might or should. Not. A. Single. One.

Deleted User wrote: »

You, yourself, are jumping around and arguing about the meaning of the word Feminism while ignoring that the truth that Feminism does not have the interests of males included.

Nope, you yourself are jumping around arguing about YOUR meaning of the word feminism, while ignoring that the truth that Feminism as defined by you is not the Feminism as defined by the person making the point I have been, continue to be, and will continue to be discussing on the thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

Then he shouldn't have linked those four areas. Feminism, Equality, Gender roles, Mental Health. For Men.

I do not think "should" comes into it at all. The point COULD be made without the single trigger word that sets you off. But why does that imply a "should"? There is no reason anyone "should" modify their language just to protect you from your own sensitivities. The only thing he "should" do is consider the possible effects of using such a trigger word, and decide FOR HIMSELF whether he wants to use it or not.

I see good arguments for using it AND defining it while using it in the way he did. If he and a multitude of other celebrities and media personalities do that it could, for example, start a move towards reclaiming the word from these "modern definitions" I am hearing so much about in the last few days. And go back to making feminism be about what it is meant to be about... which is as he said himself the redressing of a balance.

But I ALSO see good arguments for abandoning the word entirely and finding a new one. If we want to work in a world of equality between the sexes, where they are treated equally in all ways where it is possible to do so, and all our systems, procedures, algorithms and so forth are where possible simply entirely blind to the gender of the individual........... then perhaps we need a new word that does not contain one gender, and not the other, within it.

I am open to, and agnostic on, ALL those arguments. They are all good stuff. But once again that is all 100% beside the point I have actually been making since my first post a few days ago. But suffice to say it is not for anyone, least of all you, to tell people what they "Should" say or how.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're defending his use of the word without actually dealing with the actual objections.

Again, no, I am not. I am not defending the use of any word. I am defending the idea that when someone uses a word, any word, and includes within the statement a definition making it unambiguously clear what they mean by the use of the word in that moment, in that context.............. that it is massively disingenuous, dishonest, and even malicious......... to go parsing such a statement through any other definition of the word other than the one used.

You can pretend, as you have been, and as other users have been (mostly Pete in fairness to the others) that I have been saying, doing, or advocating more than that. But that is, essentially, 95% of everything I have been doing in the past days. And that people need to pretend I have been up to something entirely different is, well, telling.

Deleted User wrote: »

You have not shown either what form of Feminism Blindboy was referring to or how Feminism promotes equality. You have not shown how Feminism could positively contribute to the mental health of men.

Except I have, both by linking to the video we are talking to (more than once) and actually transcribing what he said in it (more than once). That you simply pretend all that never happened, and tell me I have not done what I demonstrably have multiple times, is really egregious behavior.

But I am happy to do it. AGAIN. Just for you. Here is what he said:

"If you are to go out and buy a house or have a living with a woman, you must be equal, it is as simple as that. So if young men have this faulty view that their role is to provide for a woman.... forget about it. Feminism is not about women being powerful, it is about redressing a balance. And therefore feminism is a very necessary thing for young men to have".

There is it right there. The "form of Feminism" he is referring to. In Black and White. He is referring to the "form" of it that "is not about women being powerful" and "is about redressing a balance".

Now you might not AGREE with the point. That is fine. You might not think it was phrased well. That is fine too. But to continuously claim the point has not been made, as you are..... is simply dishonest. There is no other word for it. Raise your game please.

Raoul · 01-08-2018 08:56AM

Ush1 wrote: »

I take the latest episode as another nail in the coffin of his sense of humour.

Do people really think Tony McGregor was being serious in that video??

I thought he was.

Was he taking the piss out of Conor then?

DickSwiveller Returns · 01-08-2018 08:59AM

Here is an example of some first class academic bollix
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184x11428384

I challenge anyone to read the first paragraph and understand what the author is saying.

Another one.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2016.1120490?journalCode=rfms20

This is they type of nonsense I was confronted with in University,

01-08-2018 09:12AM

Much like Vera Twomey, he is a lay person, his M A is in Social Practice and the Creative Environment, who believes his personal experience of a an illness makes him an expert in that field. Combined with his celebrity status this makes him dangerous.

He promotes psychotherapy and psychology over medication with proven efficacy.

This is what the always reliable Science Based Medicine has to say on these;

"When tested, psychoanalysis was shown to be less effective than placebo. Its theories have been disproven, and no reasonable scientist or practitioner takes it seriously today. "

"Psychotherapy
Psychotherapeutic interventions in general have been remarkably unsuccessful. Only one of the many varieties of psychotherapy is supported by acceptable evidence: cognitive-behavioral therapy. There is no correlation between a therapist’s training or experience and patient outcomes. Amateurs get equal results. The benefits of psychotherapy may be no better than the benefits of talking to a friend; in a sense, psychotherapists are paid to act as friends, which could be considered a sort of prostitution."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/psychology-and-psychotherapy-how-much-is-evidence-based/

I suspect much like Vera Twomey and anti-vaxxers if questioned on this he will claim the old reliable big pharma conspiracy.

PlaneSpeeking · 01-08-2018 09:18AM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Here is an example of some first class academic bollix
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184x11428384

I challenge anyone to read the first paragraph and understand what the author is saying.

Another one.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2016.1120490?journalCode=rfms20

This is they type of nonsense I was confronted with in University,

Utter bollocks of the highest order!! But the second one has a hashtag so it must have scientific validity. /sarcasm

Wanderer78 · 01-08-2018 09:22AM

jh79 wrote:

Much like Vera Twomey, he is a lay person, his M A is in Social Practice and the Creative Environment, who believes his personal experience of a an illness makes him an expert in that field. Combined with his celebrity status this makes him dangerous.

Hahaha, he's not dangerous at all, he's very well informed about mental health and social issues, I'm sure he's helping many people by being very helpful with his knowledge.

jh79 wrote:

He promotes psychotherapy and psychology over medication with proven efficacy.

Both fields have certainly helped me a lot, and many others that I've met, psychologists are far more than just friends, all I've met have been very knowledgeable in mental health issues, and how to deal with them

01-08-2018 09:33AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Hahaha, he's not dangerous at all, he's very well informed about mental health and social issues, I'm sure he's helping many people by being very helpful with his knowledge.

Both fields have certainly helped me a lot, and many others that I've met, psychologists are far more than just friends, all I've met have been very knowledgeable in mental health issues, and how to deal with them

Again promoting personal experiences over robust scientific studies , surely you can see the flaws in such an attitude?

01-08-2018 09:35AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Raise your game please.

Hilarious. You're arguing semantics. You have decided that Blindboys use of the word should be accepted simply because his perception is valid (according to you). The practical and realistic effects of Feminism on society don't matter in the slightest.

I actually did write a long answer to your various points (and I have watched the video and read the whole thread in answer to your question), but..... Nah. You'll simply retreat behind the idea that Blindboys individual perception of the word is valid and should be accepted. You're not really capable of dealing with the effects of Feminism or actually defending the statement of Feminism helping Males relating to mental health. Alas we'll get some vague nonsense, and then, some remarks about us as posters.

Done and done.:rolleyes:

Wanderer78 · 01-08-2018 09:42AM

jh79 wrote:

Again promoting personal experiences over robust scientific studies , surely you can see the flaws in such an attitude?

'robust scientific studies', is there such a thing particularly in the world of psychology and the social sciences? We re highly complex beings, particularly in these regards, humans and their behaviour are not black or white, I've met many that have had very positive responses to various different therapies, myself included, but is it a perfect 'science' or is it a science at all? In my opinion it certainly isn't perfect, because we don't have all the 'facts' yet, and we may never have due to this complex nature and the highly dynamic nature of society

Dannyriver · 01-08-2018 09:43AM

jh79 wrote: »

Much like Vera Twomey, he is a lay person, his M A is in Social Practice and the Creative Environment, who believes his personal experience of a an illness makes him an expert in that field. Combined with his celebrity status this makes him dangerous.

He promotes psychotherapy and psychology over medication with proven efficacy.

This is what the always reliable Science Based Medicine has to say on these;

"When tested, psychoanalysis was shown to be less effective than placebo. Its theories have been disproven, and no reasonable scientist or practitioner takes it seriously today. "

"Psychotherapy
Psychotherapeutic interventions in general have been remarkably unsuccessful. Only one of the many varieties of psychotherapy is supported by acceptable evidence: cognitive-behavioral therapy. There is no correlation between a therapist’s training or experience and patient outcomes. Amateurs get equal results. The benefits of psychotherapy may be no better than the benefits of talking to a friend; in a sense, psychotherapists are paid to act as friends, which could be considered a sort of prostitution."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/psychology-and-psychotherapy-how-much-is-evidence-based/

When did he say he was an expert in the field...? To begin a statement with a blatant lie kind of makes **** of a person's credibility dont you think?

If you want to believe the pharma industry regarding medication go ahead, Id prefer to look at the statistics around addiction to anti depressants and the rise of chemicals as the cure for difficulties people are having in their lives. You need to read more about the arguments against medication.

01-08-2018 09:48AM

Dannyriver wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

Much like Vera Twomey, he is a lay person, his M A is in Social Practice and the Creative Environment, who believes his personal experience of a an illness makes him an expert in that field. Combined with his celebrity status this makes him dangerous.

He promotes psychotherapy and psychology over medication with proven efficacy.

This is what the always reliable Science Based Medicine has to say on these;

"When tested, psychoanalysis was shown to be less effective than placebo. Its theories have been disproven, and no reasonable scientist or practitioner takes it seriously today. "

"Psychotherapy
Psychotherapeutic interventions in general have been remarkably unsuccessful. Only one of the many varieties of psychotherapy is supported by acceptable evidence: cognitive-behavioral therapy. There is no correlation between a therapist’s training or experience and patient outcomes. Amateurs get equal results. The benefits of psychotherapy may be no better than the benefits of talking to a friend; in a sense, psychotherapists are paid to act as friends, which could be considered a sort of prostitution."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/psychology-and-psychotherapy-how-much-is-evidence-based/

When did he say he was an expert in the field...? To begin a statement with a blatant lie kind of makes **** of a person's credibility dont you think?

If you want to believe the pharma industry regarding medication go ahead, Id prefer to look at the statistics around addiction to anti depressants and the rise of chemicals as the cure for difficulties people are having in their lives. You need to read more about the arguments against medication.

Has he provided any evidence for his theories?

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-08-2018 09:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Hilarious. You're arguing semantics.

I am arguing the correct interpretation of a statement. So you are not wrong there, but it is a little dilute as a generalization of the discussion so far.

I think there is a correct way to interpret what he said, and incorrect ones. A few people offered incorrect ones. So I got into a discussion on the correct one.

Nothing wrong with that

Deleted User wrote: »

You have decided that Blindboys use of the word should be accepted simply because his perception is valid (according to you).

Not what I said no. This insistence on changing what people say into something else is baffling to me. The moment you find you have to tell me what I am arguing, rather than respond to what I am arguing, you should pause and ask why.

No, what I am arguing is NOT that his perception is valid. Never said this. Even a little.

What I AM arguing is that to interpret his statement correctly, you have to parse it through the definition he used. To parse it through a definition he is not using, will not allow you to parse his statement correctly.

Again, nothing wrong with that

Deleted User wrote: »

You'll simply retreat behind the idea that Blindboys individual perception of the word is valid and should be accepted.

Again (and again and again and again if you want to keep it up) no, this is simply not what I have done.

Read this carefully as it is the crux of your entire error: I do not care, and have not commented on, whether his use of the word is valid.

What I AM doing is saying that to correctly interpret his point you have to do so through the interpretation of the word he was using while making it.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're not really capable of dealing with the effects of Feminism

I might as well say you are not capable of using stilts. I have never seen you try, so I simply do not know if you can or not.

Nothing I have been saying so far has required me to deal with the "effects of feminism". So you simply have no idea what I am or am not capable of there.

I am perfectly happy to deal with what YOU think feminism means, and the effects of what you have defined.

It is YOU that is not capable of accepting that that is a seperate conversation to the one I have been having. And until you are capable of making that distinction your choice to skip out of the conversation is a wise one.

Dannyriver · 01-08-2018 09:53AM

jh79 wrote: »

Dannyriver wrote: »

Has he provided any evidence for his theories?

When did Blindboy say he was an expert in the field, evidence please?

Has who provided any evidence for his theories? I don t know who you are talking about here?

PlaneSpeeking · 01-08-2018 09:54AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am arguing the correct interpretation of a statement. So you are not wrong there, but it is a little dilute as a generalization of the discussion so far.

I think there is a correct way to interpret what he said, and incorrect ones. A few people offered incorrect ones. So I got into a discussion on the correct one.

Nothing wrong with that

Not what I said no. This insistence on changing what people say into something else is baffling to me. The moment you find you have to tell me what I am arguing, rather than respond to what I am arguing, you should pause and ask why.

No, what I am arguing is NOT that his perception is valid. Never said this. Even a little.

What I AM arguing is that to interpret his statement correctly, you have to parse it through the definition he used. To parse it through a definition he is not using, will not allow you to parse his statement correctly.

Again, nothing wrong with that

Again (and again and again and again if you want to keep it up) no, this is simply not what I have done.

Read this carefully as it is the crux of your entire error: I do not care, and have not commented on, whether his use of the word is valid.

What I AM doing is saying that to correctly interpret his point you have to do so through the interpretation of the word he was using while making it.

I might as well say you are not capable of using stilts. I have never seen you try, so I simply do not know if you can or not.

Nothing I have been saying so far has required me to deal with the "effects of feminism". So you simply have no idea what I am or am not capable of there.

I am perfectly happy to deal with what YOU think feminism means, and the effects of what you have defined.

It is YOU that is not capable of accepting that that is a seperate conversation to the one I have been having. And until you are capable of making that distinction your choice to skip out of the conversation is a wise one.

Interesting to read the "effects of feminism". That would perhaps be perfectly good, well qualified men being turned down for roles due to gender quotas. I've seen that - I also know someone perfect for a job who didn't get interviewed as they had women only shortlists.

If you asked Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia et al as late as the 80s of the positive benefits of feminism, you'll get an answer. Now, I can think of none.

Dannyriver · 01-08-2018 09:58AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Interesting to read the "effects of feminism". That would perhaps be perfectly good, well qualified men being turned down for roles due to gender quotas. I've seen that - I also know someone perfect for a job who didn't get interviewed as they had women only shortlists.

If you asked Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia et al as late as the 80s of the positive benefits of feminism, you'll get an answer. Now, I can think of none.

He literally spent an entire post explaining that the pro s and cons of modern feminism has nothing to do with the points he has been making, and back you come with a reply based on the pros and cons of modern feminism. I ve said it earlier but Nozz whoever you are you ve the patience of a saint.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-08-2018 09:58AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Interesting to read the "effects of feminism". That would perhaps be perfectly good, well qualified men being turned down for roles due to gender quotas. I've seen that - I also know someone perfect for a job who didn't get interviewed as they had women only shortlists.

If you asked Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia et al as late as the 80s of the positive benefits of feminism, you'll get an answer. Now, I can think of none.

Yea in a post above I wrote that I question the current utility of the word at all. I am not someone who "gives in to the bullies" and wants to stop using a word just because some people abuse it. But if the word ALSO is showing an increasing lack of utility AND it serves to do little more than to derail discussion, understanding and just trigger emotions...... then I do question it's use.

If we genuinely want equality between the sexes, to the point our processes and algorithms are blind to gender, then I wonder if the correct word to represent that goal contains one and not the other of the main genders in it. That seems it has to at SOME point skew the goals.

01-08-2018 10:00AM

Dannyriver wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

When did Blindboy say he was an expert in the field, evidence please?

Has who provided any evidence for his theories? I don t know who you are talking about here?

He claims transactional analysis is a possible solution to mental health issues, where is his evidence for that?

01-08-2018 10:01AM

Anybody else having trouble quoting posts?

optogirl · 01-08-2018 10:03AM

jh79 wrote: »

Dannyriver wrote: »

He claims transactional analysis is a possible solution to mental health issues, where is his evidence for that?

He claims nothing of the sort. He says it has helped him.

01-08-2018 10:05AM

optogirl wrote: »

jh79 wrote: »

He claims nothing of the sort. He says it has helped him.

4. What can be done about this?
Potential solutions. Make good mental health practice part of your daily life. You are an adult and you have the power to make this choice, even though you are a product of our culture you have the choice to not be defined by it. Read up about the likes of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Transactional analysis, Emotional intelligence. Embrace them and apply them to your life.

https://www.alustforlife.com/soul/10-questions-with/10-questions-with-blindboy-boatclub-from-the-rubberbandits

Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Comments