Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …

Well, that's a very....ummm.....creative interpretation of what I said, and even though I can appreciate a creative mind, I call BS just the same.

It's all he's got.

The very definition of liberal athiest SJW. You will not change his mind, might as well save your breath.

Just a liberal SJW. I'm an atheist and I don't necessarily buy into all that gak.

firstsilentprophet wrote:
1984! The progression of the dictionary: Pretty soon there will be no words in it, because some clown with some chip will be whining about how offended he by it.
[…]
With the death of Common Sense several decades ago, Freedom of speak, will follow. I sure humanity will then linger on for a time, but will eventually die of loneliness.

Hyperbole is, like, the BEST THING EVAR!!!

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …

Well, that's a very....ummm.....creative interpretation of what I said, and even though I can appreciate a creative mind, I call BS just the same.

Dude, that was not creative interpretation, that was pointing out stuff you didn't notice but that directly derive from what you said.

Mitochondria wrote:
The very definition of liberal athiest SJW.

Ooooooh I smell a Christian . A Christian very annoyed by atheism. Too bad buddy, too bad .

To be clear, classrooms in Australia do not have a ban on blackboards and whiteboards being called such, but the user was right that kids can't call other kids fags. What a terrible country I live and teach in.

People, stop with the outright lying and hyperbole. Argue the points based in the reality that exists, not in the reality in your heads/that the internet tells you exists. Thanks

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …

Well, that's a very....ummm.....creative interpretation of what I said, and even though I can appreciate a creative mind, I call BS just the same.

Dude, that was not creative interpretation, that was pointing out stuff you didn't notice but that directly derive from what you said.

OK...so in your worldview, holding doors open for people who are likely less strong than you are (in this case, women) equates to sexism against men? Just trying to get the rules down in case I ever encounter one of these new species of men in the wild. To my knowledge, they haven't found their way into my locale yet, but if and when they do, I don't want these people to feel discriminated against.

Certainly, if I am ever in France, I will assume that most men there are weaker than I am, and I'll take special care to hold the door open for them.

Women are unable to open doors now?

Holy gak what do we make doors out of they're that heavy.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Women are unable to open doors now?

Holy gak what do we make doors out of they're that heavy.

Some doors are quite heavy, but thats neither here nor there. it's not really about women not being able to open the door. It's about courtesy, which is apparently in danger of extinction in the awesome new world that we are creating for ourselves.

I generally prefer extending courtesy to everyone.

In the case of holding open doors, the person behind me, or on the other side.

This goes especially for the disabled for obvious reasons. Which given I am one makes for some amusing circumstances.

Liberals:
Okay with aborting a baby with disabilities solely because it has one or is "at risk" for having one.
Not okay with the usage of a common English word being used in a context not relative to the disabled, but that could offend the few that make it out of the womb alive, or are disabled post birth. Brilliant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah, I went there.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I generally prefer extending courtesy to everyone.

In the case of holding open doors, the person behind me, or on the other side.

This goes especially for the disabled for obvious reasons. Which given I am one makes for some amusing circumstances.

The original point I made on the subject many pages ago was that I was raised to always hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled.

I never once mentioned that I don't also hold the door open for men, non-elderly, or the able-bodied. That has just been assumed, at least the "for men" part.

Mitochondria wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …

Well, that's a very....ummm.....creative interpretation of what I said, and even though I can appreciate a creative mind, I call BS just the same.

It's all he's got.

The very definition of liberal athiest SJW. You will not change his mind, might as well save your breath.

Men suck., Of course I treat women better. and?

 jasper76 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I generally prefer extending courtesy to everyone.

In the case of holding open doors, the person behind me, or on the other side.

This goes especially for the disabled for obvious reasons. Which given I am one makes for some amusing circumstances.

The original point I made on the subject many pages ago was that I was raised to always hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled.

I never once mentioned that I don't also hold the door open for men, non-elderly, or the able-bodied. That has just been assumed, at least the "for men" part.

So, do you? Do you also always hold the door open for men also?

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I generally prefer extending courtesy to everyone.

In the case of holding open doors, the person behind me, or on the other side.

This goes especially for the disabled for obvious reasons. Which given I am one makes for some amusing circumstances.

The original point I made on the subject many pages ago was that I was raised to always hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled.

I never once mentioned that I don't also hold the door open for men, non-elderly, or the able-bodied. That has just been assumed, at least the "for men" part.

So, do you? Do you also always hold the door open for men also?

There's a proximity factor that comes into play in my personal calculus here. If a man is close behind me, yes I will. If I am approaching a door, and there is a woman, an elder, or a disabled person a little further behind me, I will slow down my approach to the door so that they will be close behind me when I reach it, and I will hold the door.

So long story short, I will hold the door for everyone, but I will make a special effort to do so for women, the elderly, and the disabled.

I mostly agree apart from one point, and I can live with that frankly. Thanks for answering.

 MrDwhitey wrote:


So, do you? Do you also always hold the door open for men also?

I hold the door open for men, women, kids, families with strollers, elderly people, able bodied people, ugly people, pretty people, and Nickleback fans.

The hotter she is, the more awkwardly long I'll hold the door open.

I only hold it for human beings, Kronk.

Not Nickleback fans.

CplPunishment wrote:
Liberals:
Okay with aborting a baby with disabilities solely because it has one or is "at risk" for having one.
Not okay with the usage of a common English word being used in a context not relative to the disabled, but that could offend the few that make it out of the womb alive, or are disabled post birth. Brilliant.

Yeah, I went there.

I think you're conflating liberals with "regressive left". There's a difference.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I only hold it for human beings, Kronk.

Not Nickleback fans.

I tend to agree. Nickelback fans, vapers, and people who wear socks with their sandals are on their own.

 jasper76 wrote:
OK...so in your worldview, holding doors open for people who are likely less strong than you are (in this case, women) equates to sexism against men?

In my worldview, holding doors open for everyone is nice but not mandatory, holding doors for people that could have problem to do it on their own (for instance if they are in a wheelchair) is basic decency, and deciding whether or not to hold doors based on the person's gender is sexism.
As should be evident from my posts, but apparently it isn't .

 jasper76 wrote:
Certainly, if I am ever in France, I will assume that most men there are weaker than I am, and I'll take special care to hold the door open for them.

Maybe you should rather assume that French women are stronger than you are?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
I think you're conflating liberals with "regressive left". There's a difference.

I weep at the recuperation of this expression that was as far as I know coined by ex-Muslims to refer to a real problem (i.e. “leftists” that ends up supporting Islamists and other regressive ideas out of some misguided attempt at supporting the oppressed, losing sight of who is really oppressed under Islamist ideology), and that has been turned into some kind of synonym for the very empty and very stupid “SJW” thingy.

 jasper76 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I only hold it for human beings, Kronk.

Not Nickleback fans.

I tend to agree. Nickelback fans, vapers, and people who wear socks with their sandals are on their own.

Not 'vapers'. They're called 'vapists'.

Of course, I can't help but make one argument in defense of vaping- my dad smoked for years, and after he had triple bypass surgery, he couldn't smoke any more. He was good for a few days, but started having cravings. He went to a vape shop, and they worked to get him a very low nicotine vape formula that tasted exactly like his Camel lights. They mixed and worked with him until he was satisfied and happy- and threw in a load of free stuff.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Certainly, if I am ever in France, I will assume that most men there are weaker than I am, and I'll take special care to hold the door open for them.

Maybe you should rather assume that French women are stronger than you are?

Fair enough.

I see you chose to ignore the important part of my message to focus on the jape.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I only hold it for human beings, Kronk.

Not Nickleback fans.

I tend to agree. Nickelback fans, vapers, and people who wear socks with their sandals are on their own.

Not 'vapers'. They're called 'vapists'.

Of course, I can't help but make one argument in defense of vaping- my dad smoked for years, and after he had triple bypass surgery, he couldn't smoke any more. He was good for a few days, but started having cravings. He went to a vape shop, and they worked to get him a very low nicotine vape formula that tasted exactly like his Camel lights. They mixed and worked with him until he was satisfied and happy- and threw in a load of free stuff.

I don't mind vapes that smell like tobacco. Honestly it's the ones that smell like Rainbow Brite farted out a cloud of banana-flavored cotton candy that drive me nuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I see you chose to ignore the important part of my message to focus on the jape.

Yeah, I'm kind of tired of the argument to be honest. You feel that holding the door open for women is sexist, and I don't agree. We can go back and forth ad nauseum about it, but why bother?

Bran Dawri wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
Liberals:
Okay with aborting a baby with disabilities solely because it has one or is "at risk" for having one.
Not okay with the usage of a common English word being used in a context not relative to the disabled, but that could offend the few that make it out of the womb alive, or are disabled post birth. Brilliant.

Yeah, I went there.

I think you're conflating liberals with "regressive left". There's a difference.

Please do enlighten me on how "regressive leftists" differ from liberals (I was referring to neo-liberals to be clear) in regards to abortion and usage of offensive language. I honestly don't understand the nuance.

CplPunishment wrote:
Please do enlighten me on how "regressive leftists" differ from liberals (I was referring to neo-liberals to be clear) in regards to abortion and usage of offensive language. I honestly don't understand the nuance.

I think I made the original definition of “regressive left” pretty clear in my message. As you should definitely be able to deduct, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, or usage of offensive language. Nothing.
Does that answer your question? Or, “Please do enlighten me on how "Fields medalists" differ from vegetarians (I was referring to vegans to be clear) in regards to animal rights and ecology. I honestly don't understand the nuance.”

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
Please do enlighten me on how "regressive leftists" differ from liberals (I was referring to neo-liberals to be clear) in regards to abortion and usage of offensive language. I honestly don't understand the nuance.

I think I made the original definition of “regressive left” pretty clear in my message. As you should definitely be able to deduct, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, or usage of offensive language. Nothing.
Does that answer your question? Or, “Please do enlighten me on how "Fields medalists" differ from vegetarians (I was referring to vegans to be clear) in regards to animal rights and ecology. I honestly don't understand the nuance.”

Are you trying to add to the discussion I was having, or just be a "Welsh valley"?

 motyak wrote:
To be clear, classrooms in Australia do not have a ban on blackboards and whiteboards being called such, but the user was right that kids can't call other kids fags. What a terrible country I live and teach in.

People, stop with the outright lying and hyperbole. Argue the points based in the reality that exists, not in the reality in your heads/that the internet tells you exists. Thanks

actually, that is the argument.

Everyone has a list of words in their head that they personally don't want to hear or be called. asking people not to say them around you is a common thing, just some people take offense at the thought of not using certain words.

It wasn't those liberal SJW that created the forbidden 7 on tv, that was the ever offended conservative right. If I had a nickle for everytime I was asked not to use the lords name in vain, I could have retired years earlier. Everyone has a list, it's just different sides have different list of offensive words and it's all in the head of the person hearing the words.

If you want to understand the difference between regressive and progressive I recommend a video by Mr Rubin. A gay married man who is fed up with the left. I am sure many here hate him for speaking his mind against liberal regressiveness but I think he hits the nail on the head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://youtu.be/O-g-sdE2Ky4 here is a good interview that basically talks about everything. He is awesome IMO. But he also lays out slot of what many have been trying to say here.

 redleger wrote:
If you want to understand the difference between regressive and progressive I recommend a video by Mr Rubin. A gay married man who is fed up with the left. I am sure many here hate him for speaking his mind against liberal regressiveness but I think he hits the nail on the head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://youtu.be/O-g-sdE2Ky4 here is a good interview that basically talks about everything. He is awesome IMO. But he also lays out slot of what many have been trying to say here.

I was hoping for a written summary. My reception is terrible, this place is noisy and my phone is old so a video doesn't do much good right now.

 kronk wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:


So, do you? Do you also always hold the door open for men also?

I hold the door open for men, women, kids, families with strollers, elderly people, able bodied people, ugly people, pretty people, and Nickleback fans.

The hotter she is, the more awkwardly long I'll hold the door open.

Hold the door for all humans

Unless they identify as non humans

Mitochondria wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well you said that treating women better than men (i.e. treating men worse than woman) was okay and not sexist because it was only sexist the other way around so …

Well, that's a very....ummm.....creative interpretation of what I said, and even though I can appreciate a creative mind, I call BS just the same.

It's all he's got.

The very definition of liberal athiest SJW. You will not change his mind, might as well save your breath.

He has extraordinary SJW leanings