things-that-are/are-not-important-to-you-on-the-internet

Or how important is the Internet to your psyche?

41 to 60 of 85 messages
09/08/2013 at 13:22
Bruce C wrote (see)
  


I would actually say the complete opposite, as in fact the internet is most definately NOT an extension of real life, nor indeed of any life, and should be treated as such.


 

 

 

 

The law would disagree with you. 

You cannot write something on the Internet that you wouldn't say in public. You are effectively opening yourself up to being sued and in some cases people have been imprisoned.

It does seem difficult for some people to grasp. 

If someone said something strange to me in a pub I would ask them to clarify what they meant before laying into them, or walking away. Obviously other people are not so restrained.

Edited: 09/08/2013 at 13:25
09/08/2013 at 13:32

Which kind of proves what I said, as becuase on the internet people act completely differently under the guise of assumed anonymity (which they really really don't have!), and therefore act completely differently as they would in real life.

Therefore when going on the internet you should never assume it mirrors real life as it simply doesn't.

 

Edited: 09/08/2013 at 13:33
09/08/2013 at 13:41
TimR wrote (see)
Screamapillar wrote (see)
TimR wrote (see)

I think (as you've aptly demonstrated) there are a lot of people on the Internet who are willing to post nonsense without thinking or even trying to clarify what the original poster meant before leaping in jumping to conclusions. 

There are a bunch of active (maybe aggressive was the wrong word, they're certainly not passive) feminists ready to take extreme views at the drop of a hat. That's what campaigners do.

Obviously as a man I'm too busy out raping women in miniskirts to concern myself with the details.

I'm sure Florence Nightingale was a woman. 

Why don't you clarify your post then? If you meant somethng different to what you wrote you haven't said what it is.

After all, you freely admitted you didn't know much about the two women concerned but labelled them "aggressive feminists" anyway.

You've retracted that now which makes me believe that my advice about thinking about what you post, before you post it, was sound enough. 

As for Florence Nightingale, she hasn't been on a banknote since 1994. You seem to have forgotten Elizabeth Fry, interestingly, which is why the campaign started. Replacing her with Churchill would have meant that there were no women on the reverse of banknotes.

I wasn't given the chance. You jumped on my post and labelled me a rapist. I'm not sure why I'm continuing arguing with that kind of logic. 

I've not retracted anything, just clarified my use of the word aggressive. Obviously the word aggressive conjours up images of gorillas with machine guns to you.

So to clarify - my use of the statement 'women can't be shocked' could also have been written as 'are active feminists really surprised that their vitriol is met with opposing views, or do they think that everyone should sit round in silent circles nodding sagely?'

It's hard work posting on RW sometimes. It would be nice to occasionally have a debate rather than meet directly confrontational posts.

 Anyway, shouldn't you get back to objectifying your window cleaner?

Yay, goody, another stalker! 

Did you actually read what I said? I didn't label you a rapist. I said you used the same language which some of the not so nice men out there used to justify their actions. As a nice man (I assume) you don't do yourself any favours by using the same language they use - you should be distancing yourself from it. 

But now, apparently, you have decided to dig a deeper hole by clarifying what you said as,  "are active feminists really surprised that their vitriol is met with opposing views" 

So a woman who is an active feminist must be vitriolic must she? All Stella Creasy and  Caroline Criado-Perez wanted was to put a woman writer on a banknote - shocking!

You also beleive that feminists have some issues and by continuing as some sort of feminist warriors is agressive, not in a violent way but a tenacious way.

So they should drop the idea of equality, give up go away, stop being so annoyingly tenacious?

See, first I thought you were a bit misguided, now I'm starting to think you are an actual sexist.

If I were you I'd quit before you need to hire a JCB!

 

 

Edited: 09/08/2013 at 14:01
09/08/2013 at 14:17

You want me to go away?

First I'm compared to a rapist, now accused of being a stalker and a sexist. From someone hiding behind an anonymous user name?

You (possibly) deliberately misconstrue and twist what I have written without putting forward any sensible debate.

Why should I stay?

I could drop to your levels and accuse you of bullying. But I don't think there is any malice. You are just here to 'win' an argument and not debate the issues. 

09/08/2013 at 17:29
TimR wrote (see)

I think (as you've aptly demonstrated) there are a lot of people on the Internet who are willing to post nonsense without thinking or even trying to clarify what the original poster meant before leaping in jumping to conclusions. 


Substitute the two campaigners for OP and that's what you did Tim - waded in before jumping to conclusions. And you did it again with Screama's comment on similar language to a rapist.
I share Screama's point of view - a woman dares to express a point of view and you label her vitriolic and aggressive. How very dare they express their own opinions!

 

Edited: 09/08/2013 at 17:29
09/08/2013 at 18:55

The OP posted a link about death threats. Do you really think I was replying in support of people giving out death threats? My comments, I thought at the time, were regarding the general abuse that people receive when they stand up for what they feel is right. Even in the piece she is reported as "not being surprised" I'm very surprised that anyone should think I support rape or death threats and surely I didn't need to clarify my position on that.

Screama's repy "Yeah, every woman likes a rape threat Tim. WTF?" - was a pointless interjection that I realise now was to gain more attention and I should have ignored it.

Oh well. Thread derailled pointlessly...

Edited: 09/08/2013 at 18:57
09/08/2013 at 19:15

That still doesn't explain why you chose to use words such as "aggressive" and "vitriol" - examples please of where the women in question have done something to merit use of these terms.

 

...and I've no idea how you reach the conclusion that Screama was attention seeking

09/08/2013 at 19:46

Ok. Here's a leading feminist icon doing women and feminists a disservice. 

 

Germane Greer - question time.

09/08/2013 at 20:41

 Well Tim, I have to say my conclusion is the same as it was at the beginning i.e. you just don't get it but several points in no particular order: 

1. Someone calls you out over a comment about "aggressive feminists" which you made with no idea of the women under discussion. Why shouldn't I or anyone else have called you out on it? It was an uninformed, sweeping statement.

2. I never said you "support rape or called you a rapist. I merely pointed out that your use of language was unfortunate and echoes that of some of the less pleasant people in society.

3. Your remarks about feminists are sexist.  End of. You don't concede they have a point, instead they have "issues" and are being "vitriolic" which you then toned down to "tenacious" presumably because you couldn't back up the vitriol bit . Why shouldn't they bloody well be tenacious? 

4. Attention seeking? Whose attention? It's a thread among hundreds of other threads, people read it or they don't.

6. All feminists are not like Germaine Greer. In fact most are not. There are even (gasp!) male feminists.

7. I don't want you to go away, I merely suggest  the more you try to clarify your position the worse your argument comes across. You can carry on digging if you like.

 

Edited: 09/08/2013 at 20:44
09/08/2013 at 21:11

and still your contribution to the debate is to twist my words when I try to clarify them for you and make out I'm somehow back pedalling. You're still branding me sexist, which in itself is quite offensive. If you feel I'm digging myself in deeper then that's your problem not mine.

Read your very first statement to me.

Do you actually have anything constructive to say?

10/08/2013 at 00:27

So having been asked for examples of Caroline Criado-Perez and/or Stella Creasy being aggressive/vitriolic, you post a clip of Germaine Greer.  Forgive me if I'm not convinced.

 

I missed this earlier:

TimR wrote (see)

I don't know who she is or have even read any of her previous articles I just have read a few from her ilk and they blame men for every problem in their lives. 

I don't know what's wrong with them but they have some issues and by continuing as some sort of feminist warriors is agressive, not in a violent way but a tenacious way.  

but how can you conclude what ilk Caroline and Stella are from when by your own admission you know sod all about them?

Oh no! Women fighting for what they believe in and showing tenacity rather than giving way to the obviously more important men. There must be something wrong with them, it's the only conclusion. If you're not sexist then why would you say there's something wrong with women who show tenacity?

Edited: 10/08/2013 at 00:27
10/08/2013 at 10:53

Why are all feminists and lesbians so unattractive? 

10/08/2013 at 18:23

Not a great PC view there Lardarse but in the main true, do they try to look less than feminine, or is it the other way around?, good question

10/08/2013 at 19:05
TimR wrote (see)

and still your contribution to the debate is to twist my words when I try to clarify them for you and make out I'm somehow back pedalling. You're still branding me sexist, which in itself is quite offensive. If you feel I'm digging myself in deeper then that's your problem not mine.

Read your very first statement to me.

Do you actually have anything constructive to say?

 

I'm trying to be constructive by getting you to see what your comments as a man look like to women. If you consider that "combative", tough. 

What was it you said about being expected to "nod sagely" at the pronouncements of feminists? Aren't you expecting the same thing - not to be challenged about your throwaway comments ? Because that's the way it sounds to me.

By the way, XFR Bear has asked you a question twice. Why haven't you answered it?

 

 

 

Edited: 10/08/2013 at 19:33
10/08/2013 at 19:40
"Why are all feminists and lesbians so unattractive?"

There should be a word for this, when somebody says something both shit and predictable on the internet - "predictashit", or maybe "preshitable".
10/08/2013 at 19:44

I think you're right  JT141.

Lardarse likes to troll though, don't spoil his childish fun

10/08/2013 at 20:17
It's a lifestyle choice I suppose.
10/08/2013 at 20:47

I bet Lardarse is devastatingly handsome.

10/08/2013 at 20:55

He probably thinks he is!

10/08/2013 at 21:40

And here it is.. todays thread where screamapillar has to try and force someone to see her point of view.

glad its just the internet and I dont have to listen to her droning on in real life, voice like a fog horn no doubt.

 

41 to 60 of 85 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums