Peak Guardian.... again

KiKi III · 07-07-2020 12:31PM

Wibbs wrote: »

When misandry and the neurotic ramblings of idiots are mainstream fare for well respected news outlets then I figure what's good for the goose and so forth. In my case the overwhelming emotion, if I could stretch to one is "ah bless". And I have no problem with being misogynistic towards morons who happen to be female. They practically invite it, by proving how contemptibly idiotic they are. Never mind they usually push a stereotype of Women™ as weak minded neurotic fools and victims with no agency and no responsibility, while demanding rights and respect for nothing. That's misogyny in my book as outside of a tiny minority of muppets it doesn't begin to reflect the women I know and have known in my life.

Hmmm I think the article is ridiculous but to summarise you’re take here, it sounds like you’re saying “It’s okay to be horrible to people as long as they deserve it.”

Surely we should make fun of silly ideas as much we want without having to direct abuse at people?

Play the ball, not the gender neutral human.

the beer revolu · 07-07-2020 12:38PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Hmmm I think the article is ridiculous but to summarise you’re take here, it sounds like you’re saying “It’s okay to be horrible to people as long as they deserve it.”

Surely we should make fun of silly ideas as much we want without having to direct abuse at people?

Play the ball, not the gender neutral human.

Completely ridiculous article.

However, wibbs is only misogynistic towards people who deserve it, who happen to be women.

:D:D
We have a misogynist who doesn't know what a misogynist is!

Wibbs · 07-07-2020 12:43PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Hmmm I think the article is ridiculous but to summarise you’re take here, it sounds like you’re saying “It’s okay to be horrible to people as long as they deserve it.”

Surely we should make fun of silly ideas as much we want without having to direct abuse at people?

Play the ball, not the gender neutral human.

The ball is being kicked by the gender neutral human. It doesn't kick itself. And yes it is my opinion that in many circumstances it's ok to be "horrible" to grown arsed adult fcukwits particularly those who think their ordure is rose scented and have a platform to spread it. They're almost never up for changing their minds or any challenge to their mindset, so debate is largely pointless. Though fcukwits tend to have a very low bar for "horrible", either because they consider themselves such delicate creatures or and often with it use that as a way to shut down debate, by running to victimhood and authority because they know they're spouting bloody nonsense.

Wibbs · 07-07-2020 12:49PM

the beer revolu wrote: »

Completely ridiculous article.

However, wibbs is only misogynistic towards people who deserve it, who happen to be women. :D:D
We have a misogynist who doesn't know what a misogynist is!

Nope. And the burst of smilies does not a self back slapping victory make.

Though to be fair "misogynist" is a moving target of late and again often wheeled out in lieu of cogent argument, or an ability to read when it suits. You must have missed this part: I have no problem with being misogynistic towards morons who happen to be female. They practically invite it, by proving how contemptibly idiotic they are. Never mind they usually push a stereotype of Women™ as weak minded neurotic fools and victims with no agency and no responsibility, while demanding rights and respect for nothing. That's misogyny in my book as outside of a tiny minority of muppets it doesn't begin to reflect the women I know and have known in my life.

If the article had been written by a man, and no doubt I could find similar that were(until a few paragraphs in I thought Leslie was a man), I'd have said the exact same thing. I suppose that would make me "misandrous" too? You are however to feel free to label me a misfcukwitist. I would welcome such a label.

07-07-2020 12:51PM

Are you still allowed use the word 'ball'?..

KiKi III · 07-07-2020 12:53PM

Wibbs wrote: »

The ball is being kicked by the gender neutral human. It doesn't kick itself. And yes it is my opinion that in many circumstances it's ok to be "horrible" to grown arsed adult fcukwits particularly those who their ordure is rose scented and have a platform to spread it. They're almost never up for changing their minds or any challenge to their mindset, so debate is largely pointless. Though fcukwits tend to have a very low bar for "horrible", either because they consider themselves such delicate creatures or and often with it use that as a way to shut down debate, by running to victimhood and authority because they know they're spouting bloody nonsense.

Again, when you boil what you’re saying down, it amounts to “I can be as mean as I want because she started it”. It’s a remarkably childish way of looking at things. You talk about shutting down debate, but being abusive is rarely conducive to any kind of intelligent dialogue.

If you’re upset about misandry (which is a fair point of view), the answer should be to hold both misandrists and misogynists to the same standard and call both unacceptable. The alternative- allowing both on the basis that other happens - gets us nowhere.

KiKi III · 07-07-2020 12:53PM

Lord Jameson wrote: »

Really? You have to be 'nice' to a woman acting the fool because she's a woman?

Ok but wasn't aware women were that weak.

Not what I said.

2/10

Wibbs · 07-07-2020 12:57PM

Lord Jameson wrote: »

Really? You have to be 'nice' to a woman acting the fool because she's a woman?

Ok but wasn't aware women were that weak.

They're not, not even close. Indeed I would say in my experience women are less "weak" than men and more adaptable too. But yes essentially what much of so called modern "feminism" is about is just that. It paints Women™ as eternal agentless adolescent victims who should get more leeway because of their gender and it's always the fault of Men™. Essentially it seeks to paint women in quite an old fashioned light as the delicate sex, while demanding "respect" and allowances regardless.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you still allowed use the word 'ball'?..

So long as it's in the singular.

the beer revolu · 07-07-2020 12:57PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. And the burst of smilies does not a self back slapping victory make.

Though to be fair "misogynist" is a moving target of late and again often wheeled out in lieu of cogent argument, or an ability to read when it suits. You must have missed this part: I have no problem with being misogynistic towards morons who happen to be female. They practically invite it, by proving how contemptibly idiotic they are. Never mind they usually push a stereotype of Women™ as weak minded neurotic fools and victims with no agency and no responsibility, while demanding rights and respect for nothing. That's misogyny in my book as outside of a tiny minority of muppets it doesn't begin to reflect the women I know and have known in my life.

If the article had been written by a man, and no doubt I could find similar that were(until a few paragraphs in I thought Leslie was a man), I'd have said the exact same thing. I suppose that would make me "misandrous" too? You are however to feel free to label me a misfcukwitist. I would welcome such a label.

I didn't miss that part.
It was the bit that displayed that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Thank for quoting it again.

I probably need to explain but I really can't be arsed.

KevRossi · 07-07-2020 12:59PM

Probably the most female architect ever, Zaha Hadid, had a penchant for designing buildings that looked like a vagina. She was lauded for this by the same people who call skyscrapers 'penile' (Thereby ignoring the raison d'etre of a skyscraper, which is to build as tall as possible on a given piece of land).

This is Zaha Hadid's proposal for a stadium that she designed shortly before her passing in 2016.

Leg End Reject · 07-07-2020 01:00PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Again, when you boil what you’re saying down, it amounts to “I can be as mean as I want because she started it”. It’s a remarkably childish way of looking at things. You talk about shutting down debate, but being abusive is rarely conducive to any kind of intelligent dialogue.

If you’re upset about misandry (which is a fair point of view), the answer should be to hold both misandrists and misogynists to the same standard and call both unacceptable. The alternative- allowing both on the basis that other happens - gets us nowhere.

Kiki, you took exception to something I posted before and your manner of dealing with it fell far short of intelligent dialogue so that high horse might be going to your head a bit.

Church on Tuesday · 07-07-2020 01:01PM

I think this author is reading into things way too much here.

Needs to drop the chip on her shoulder. What tripe.

07-07-2020 01:02PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Not what I said.

A taste of your own medicine perhaps?

Speaking of trademarks...as soon as you're called out on your inconsistencies, you shift the goalposts to suit your narrative.

It has been a spectacular fall from grace for the Guardian. Clickbait articles like that do not deserve the oxygen of publicity. Ignore the "woke" menace and it quickly becomes redundant.

Wibbs · 07-07-2020 01:06PM

KiKi III wrote: »

Again, when you boil what you’re saying down, it amounts to “I can be as mean as I want because she started it”. It’s a remarkably childish way of looking at things. You talk about shutting down debate, but being abusive is rarely conducive to any kind of intelligent dialogue.

Nope. It's nada to do with they started it, beyond well, someone writes an article in a mainstream outlet. What do they expect? Agreement? A pat on the head? A participation medal? That all opinions are equally valid? That gets us nowhere, because they're not.

If you’re upset about misandry (which is a fair point of view)

I'm glad you consider it so.

the answer should be to hold both misandrists and misogynists to the same standard and call both unacceptable.

I do, however the two accusations are very much a moving target these days, with the former given way more airtime, and it's rarely seen or considered misandrist.

The alternative- allowing both on the basis that other happens - gets us nowhere.

Indeed, but much of current "feminism" does just that. Indeed goes further with the pendulum swing the other way as some form of reparation for past idiocy. Both positions are idiotic and harmful and childish, but one gets far more leeway in the current mainstream and it does nobody any good.

Wibbs · 07-07-2020 01:10PM

the beer revolu wrote: »

I didn't miss that part.
It was the bit that displayed that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Thank for quoting it again.

I probably need to explain but I really can't be arsed.

AKA I can't, so I'll back out before the risk of any explanation falling flat. But feel free to point out the inaccuracy of my viewpoint that holds that feminism boils down to women are always agentless victims and it's always men's(the patriarchy's) fault.

KevRossi wrote: »

Probably the most female architect ever, Zaha Hadid, had a penchant for designing buildings that looked like a vagina. She was lauded for this by the same people who call skyscrapers 'penile' (Thereby ignoring the raison d'etre of a skyscraper, which is to build as tall as possible on a given piece of land).

This is Zaha Hadid's proposal for a stadium that she designed shortly before her passing in 2016.

I like a lot of her stuff tbh. That stadium looks pretty swish imho. Gaudi was also fond of adding vulvaic and phallic forms into his architecture. There are examples of both working their way into art and architecture from the Stone Age to now.

KiKi III · 07-07-2020 01:24PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A taste of your own medicine perhaps?

Speaking of trademarks...as soon as you're called out on your inconsistencies, you shift the goalposts to suit your narrative.

It has been a spectacular fall from grace for the Guardian. Clickbait articles like that do not deserve the oxygen of publicity. Ignore the "woke" menace and it quickly becomes redundant.

I love the little club of people thanking this post, loving that Bertie got a dig in at me.

Guess what, folks? I am an imperfect person, I don’t always live up to my own ideals, and sometimes I lost my temper.

Well done to those of you this never happens to, I aspire to reach your lofty heights some day.

the beer revolu · 07-07-2020 01:29PM

Wibbs wrote: »

AKA I can't, so I'll back out before the risk of any explanation falling flat.

If you insist, but it's tiresome.
You claim to only be misogynist towards people who deserve it and happen to be women, well, that isn't misogyny. Disliking a woman for a particular reason (unless that reason is her gender) isn't misogyny. So, yes, I stand by my point that you don't (or perhaps didn't) understand the meaning of the word.

But feel free to point out the inaccuracy of my viewpoint that holds that feminism boils down to women are always agentless victims and it's always men's(the patriarchy's) fault.

Why would I even want to enter into an argument with you on such a viewpoint? I don't agree with all feminist standpoints and have no intention of defending them.
I just find it funny how upset people get over over-the-top feminists and it nearly always comes out with a large whiff of misogyny.

Leg End Reject · 07-07-2020 01:30PM

It was on topic, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your post when you suggested that intelligent dialogue should be the first resort.

I don't have any issue with a building resembling a penis, not do I see it as a symbol of misogyny and oppression.

One could equally argue that's it represents a vagina, as one is designed to slot into the other.

Edit: This was a response to a swiftly deleted post.

Risingshadoo · 07-07-2020 01:31PM

KevRossi wrote: »

Probably the most female architect ever, Zaha Hadid, had a penchant for designing buildings that looked like a vagina. She was lauded for this by the same people who call skyscrapers 'penile' (Thereby ignoring the raison d'etre of a skyscraper, which is to build as tall as possible on a given piece of land).

This is Zaha Hadid's proposal for a stadium that she designed shortly before her passing in 2016.

What's the scale for being the most female architect?

That stadium does look like a vagina. I think it's brilliant.

king_of_mayo · 07-07-2020 01:32PM

It's gotten to the point where there's problems with everything and everyone. It's all bad to some degree.

We need to start fresh. The cities should be torn down, people forced from them. Reset society. A Year Zero if you will.

Silentcorner · 07-07-2020 01:35PM

I think it is clear we need a final solution for straight white men....anyone got any ideas?

Wibbs · 07-07-2020 01:38PM

the beer revolu wrote: »

If you insist, but it's tiresome.
You claim to only be misogynist towards people who deserve it and happen to be women, well, that isn't misogyny. Disliking a woman for a particular reason (unless that reason is her gender) isn't misogyny. So, yes, I stand by my point that you don't (or perhaps didn't) understand the meaning of the word.

Woohoo! I'm not a misogynist. Or maybe I am? It's so hard to tell these days.

I just find it funny how upset people get over over-the-top feminists and it nearly always comes out with a large whiff of misogyny.

The problem is that much of what was considered over the top, went over the top and right into the mainstream.

cj maxx · 07-07-2020 01:49PM

I got about 3 lines down before I quit reading that vomit .
Does she not get that these fallac ? monstrous mysognist ?buildings all start by filling a huge hole full of sticky liquid.
Is that ironic?

Still waters · 07-07-2020 03:02PM

KiKi III wrote: »

gender neutral human.

There's no such thing

B.A._Baracus · 07-07-2020 03:07PM

"Upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating into the sky – do cities have to be so sexist?" - how can anyone write that with a straight-face?

MeisterG · 07-07-2020 03:10PM

What's even more disturbing is the fact that she has managed to write a 224 page book of this bilge..... There is positive discrimination/letting voices be heard and then there is this over-indulged brain rot that the Guardian knowingly prods along..... I can't help but be reminded of Shutter Island for some reason...

Rodney Bathgate · 07-07-2020 03:11PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

"Upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating into the sky – do cities have to be so sexist?" - how can anyone write that with a straight-face?

How can someone defend it with a straight face...

JohnnyFlash · 07-07-2020 03:15PM

king_of_mayo wrote: »

It's gotten to the point where there's problems with everything and everyone. It's all bad to some degree.

We need to start fresh. The cities should be torn down, people forced from them. Reset society. A Year Zero if you will.

Pol Pot was big into the reset society and start afresh thing. Didn’t work out well for the poor old Cambodians.

07-07-2020 03:18PM

MeisterG wrote: »

What's even more disturbing is the fact that she has managed to write a 224 page book of this bilge..... There is positive discrimination/letting voices be heard and then there is this over-indulged brain rot that the Guardian knowingly prods along..... I can't help but be reminded of Shutter Island for some reason...

Is she definitely a real person?.. have we established it isn't a piss take?..

If so, yeah, this sort of ****e really should be ridiculed.. probably should have been a lot more ridicule of it years ago before it got out of hand..

Rodney Bathgate · 07-07-2020 04:03PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is she definitely a real person?.. have we established it isn't a piss take?..

If so, yeah, this sort of ****e really should be ridiculed.. probably should have been a lot more ridicule of it years ago before it got out of hand..

A quick web search shows that the book and author are real. Her books are available from Amazon with online reviews elsewhere. Her publisher is real. The author is on Twitter, she is an associate professor.

Peak Guardian.... again

Comments