Re: [luv-talk] Patriarchy and Matriarchy put to the test
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:16:36 +1000 From: Russell Coker Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Patriarchy and Matriarchy put to the test inadvertently To: luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:45:33 Tim Josling wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-t
oilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-c
onflict-.html _
If we are going to look at male behavior in a mostly-male environment one example that should be considered is the Debian project. Some years ago Debian had no procedures for expelling Developers for anything other than criminal action. When some DDs didn't get along then things just became increasingly hostile until someone voluntarily left. I presume that someone who had access to the debian-private archives and little understanding of people could write an article for the Daily Mail about how a 98% male project didn't kiss goodbye to conflict, however that would be a really stupid article. In recent times DDs have been expelled for being assholes and things are a lot better.
Debian is a successful project that took steps to ensure its continued success. Problem? No-one is suggesting that all men are wonderful or that all the world's problems would go away if only men ran things.
Tim, I don't expect you to consider these issues or change your opinion of women. I'm writing this for the benefit of other people who are less misogynistic than you.
Again, what's with the amateur psychology and mind reading? Misogyny, cowardice, homophobia... My concern is not at all with women but with the overblown claims that all we need to do is empower women and all will be sweetness and light. Women and men both have their strengths and weaknesses. In terms of the original articles what would be more convincing would be a significant counter-example. An organization that is successfully, other than in merely gaining government funding, and is almost entirely run by and funded by women. A female Linux or Debian project for example, or a female Google - "How I got my company into the S&P500 by employing only women".
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:50:58 Tim Josling wrote:
Tim, I don't expect you to consider these issues or change your opinion of women. I'm writing this for the benefit of other people who are less misogynistic than you.
Again, what's with the amateur psychology and mind reading? Misogyny, cowardice, homophobia...
One doesn't need to be a psychologist or telepathic to know that people who cite a misogynistic site like returnofkings.com are misogynists. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/... The SPLC listed Roosh's site in it's list of misogyny sites. Here's what the SPLC wrote: # Roosh Vörek is a Maryland-raised PUA (“pick up artist”) whose specialty is # sex with foreign women; his blog is a sales vehicle for his books like Bang: # The Pick Up Bible and Bang Iceland: How to Sleep With Icelandic Women in # Iceland, which one Icelandic feminist group described as a “rape guide.” # Vörek likes to talk about his many “notches” (seductions) and such things as # “American cunts who I want to hate fuck.” He adds: “I’ll be the first to # admit that many of my bangs in the United States were hate fucks. The # masculine attitude and lack of care these women put into their style or hair # irritated me, so I made it a point to fuck them and never call again.”
My concern is not at all with women but with the overblown claims that all we need to do is empower women and all will be sweetness and light. Women and men both have their strengths and weaknesses.
There have been no "overblown claims" (or any claims in recent times) about gender on this list. Apart from making women feel unwelcome what were you trying to achieve by starting this thread? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:50:58 Tim Josling wrote:
Tim, I don't expect you to consider these issues or change your opinion of women. I'm writing this for the benefit of other people who are less misogynistic than you.
Again, what's with the amateur psychology and mind reading? Misogyny, cowardice, homophobia...
One doesn't need to be a psychologist or telepathic to know that people who cite a misogynistic site like returnofkings.com are misogynists.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/...
[attempting to catch up on this unproductive thread] Russell, I think you're a little quick to jump on Tim's back, and I say this as a man who's been a card-carrying feminist since the mid-Pleistocene (the 1970s, when I was a teenager). There are indeed many groups of women - as described in the 'Dr_Caveman' piece Tim linked to, who make a really unbelievable fetish out of 'consensus', which term is used to mean everyone talking until there is absolute universal agreement or else participants fall over and die from excessive talking. I have no idea whether the author's description of events in the Dutch reality TV programm Expeditie Robinson was fair and accurate - let alone detailing a fluke outcome - but can believe that this _particular_ group of women might have happened to be the sort who insist on talking everything to death before doing anything, because I've seen that in action... er, inaction. Proponents of 'consensus decision-making', such as Starhawk (noted feminist neopagan) would protest that - as Starhawk puts it - 'consensus is not unanimity'[1], and I will certainly agree that it's not supposed to be, but sadly it very often is, along with a strong tendency towards groupthink.
The SPLC listed Roosh's site in it's list of misogyny sites. Here's what the SPLC wrote:
These's something rather sad about this entire 'manosphere' with its nobody-will-date-me-so-I-need-a-submissive-female fixation and hilarious namecalling jargon, e.g.: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Manosphere_glossary Tim's other link was to yet another sob story in the infamously downmarket and soapy London gossip rag _The Daily Mail_. Really, Tim? But, Russell, I think you're dramatically overplaying the 'you're making women feel unwelcome' card. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Consensus_is_not_Grou... http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus.html
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:33:32 Rick Moen wrote:
One doesn't need to be a psychologist or telepathic to know that people who cite a misogynistic site like returnofkings.com are misogynists.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issue s/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites [attempting to catch up on this unproductive thread]
Russell, I think you're a little quick to jump on Tim's back, and I say this as a man who's been a card-carrying feminist since the mid-Pleistocene (the 1970s, when I was a teenager).
Just have a look at the return of kings site.
There are indeed many groups of women - as described in the 'Dr_Caveman' piece Tim linked to, who make a really unbelievable fetish out of 'consensus', which term is used to mean everyone talking until there is absolute universal agreement or else participants fall over and die from excessive talking.
There are also plenty of men who have similar ideas. For example the Greens political party in Australia uses consensus for all decisions. While the Greens were formed from a number of separate organisations if anyone was to be cited as the founder of the Greens then it would be Bob Brown, so the down- sides of consensus in the Australian Greens is something we could probably blame Bob for. Christine Milne (the current Greens leader) advocates a constitutional change in the party which would almost certainly remove consensus. This is just one example of consensus being implemented by a man and opposed by a women. There are more.
I have no idea whether the author's description of events in the Dutch reality TV programm Expeditie Robinson was fair and accurate - let alone detailing a fluke outcome - but can believe that this _particular_ group of women might have happened to be the sort who insist on talking everything to death before doing anything, because I've seen that in action... er, inaction.
There are few fluke outcomes in reality TV. The "contestants" are chosen to give a desired outcome. When they recruit people for one of those island survival shows they have queues of people who want to be on TV, some of whom spend considerable amounts of effort in preparing. Do the producers choose people who prepare by practicing their camping skills or people who prepare by making themselves look good on camera? I think we know what criteria that Dutch show in question used.
The SPLC listed Roosh's site in it's list of misogyny sites. Here's what the SPLC wrote: These's something rather sad about this entire 'manosphere' with its nobody-will-date-me-so-I-need-a-submissive-female fixation and hilarious namecalling jargon, e.g.: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Manosphere_glossary
Tim's other link was to yet another sob story in the infamously downmarket and soapy London gossip rag _The Daily Mail_. Really, Tim?
But, Russell, I think you're dramatically overplaying the 'you're making women feel unwelcome' card.
I think that the "male feminist" thing is bogus. I think that only people who have experienced living as female (including transgender people) should call themselves feminists. Rick, you think you are on the size of women but there is no evidence for this. Spending so much effort criticising women collectively and defending Tim against the fairly obvious claim of misogyny is taking the wrong side on this issue. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:33:32 Rick Moen wrote:
Russell, I think you're a little quick to jump on Tim's back, and I say this as a man who's been a card-carrying feminist since the mid-Pleistocene (the 1970s, when I was a teenager).
Just have a look at the return of kings site.
I did. It's comically unhinged. It is also not Tim Josling. Tim may have merely stumbled across it in random link following, found the story about the Dutch reality-TV show amusing, and decided to post it to luv-talk saying 'Hey, let's hope that discouraging patriarchial cultural tendencies doesn't bring _this_ sort of thing about.' Now, I don't know Tim Josling at all. But I think the namecalling was a bit excessive.
There are indeed many groups of women - as described in the 'Dr_Caveman' piece Tim linked to, who make a really unbelievable fetish out of 'consensus', which term is used to mean everyone talking until there is absolute universal agreement or else participants fall over and die from excessive talking.
There are also plenty of men who have similar ideas.
Oh yes, quite. It's allegedly descended from a Society of Friends (Quaker) way of holding meetings, in fact. However, that doesn't change my having seem it - and, in particular, the trait of talking absolutely endlessly and taking no action until absolutely everyone is in 'consensus' - most often among some (certainly not all) groups of women.
There are few fluke outcomes in reality TV.
Indeed. That was also a thought I had while reading the story, that some TV producer probably wanted the storyline to evolve that way. However, it was an amusing anecdote. And you might have appreicated it as such. Anyone who accepts anecdotes off random Web sites (let alone so-called reality TV) as reliable guides to the world has much bigger problems.
I think that the "male feminist" thing is bogus. I think that only people who have experienced living as female (including transgender people) should call themselves feminists.
Well, I will politely, but firmly, decline to give a rat's ass about your disapproval of my having been a feminist since circa 1970. When my mother was widowed on December 26, 1968, and I saw very close-up what she was put through, e.g., in dealings with insurance people, in merely attempting to get the family car repaired without getting ripped off merely because she was female, and then later saw that women were routinely getting $0.60 for every dollar that a male employee was getting for the same work, you bet I decided that I'm absolutely, definitely, and permanently a feminist. As Sarah Bunting said: If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist. Yes, you are. http://tomatonation.com/culture-and-criticism/yes-you-are/ (My own thankful comment to Ms. Bunting - and amusing anecdote about local politics - can be seen in the comments section below her essay.)
Rick, you think you are on the size of women but there is no evidence for this.
News flash: I'm not here to impress you (and I'm going to pass up the opportunity to mock your typo).
On 14/04/2014 2:31 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist. Yes, you are.
Superb article! Right on the money for those who try to redefine the term to suit their own argument. Thanks for posting it. Anders.
Quoting Anders Holmstr??m (anders.sputnik@gmail.com):
On 14/04/2014 2:31 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist. Yes, you are.
Superb article! Right on the money for those who try to redefine the term to suit their own argument. Thanks for posting it.
I hope you scrolled down to my thank-you feedback comment. When I came of age in 1976, I joined several political groups including the main feminist NGO in the USA, the National Organization for Women (NOW). My anecdote described an occasion circa 1984-ish or so when a really good local politician was addressing my local NOW chapter and made a very common parsing error - leading to my calling out the necessary correction from the back of the crowd, in my baritone: 'That's "_for_ Women".' It got a big laugh. Out of nostalgia, I just now looked up said pol's current doings: http://www.cetfund.org/aboutus/board/McPeak-Sunne (I notice she's one of us Scandihoovians.) More seriously, it should be noted the core meaning of the term 'feminist' is strongly contested, these days. I would generally be classed[1] as a 'Second-wave feminist' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism) as opposed to Third-wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism) - two terms that attempt to distinguish two different camps on the basis of focus, objectives and world-view. Rather than risk being unfair in characterisation of one of those or the other, I'll let you follow the links and read how Wikipedians describe that divide. Scholar/author Christina Hoff Sommers see the divide as being, instead, what she calls 'equity feminism' vs. 'gender feminism' - though her approach is so polemical that many reject her analysis out of hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_feminism [1] Please note that I'm not choosing sides, and prefer to assume all parties may have excellent points. I'm just saying that I am often buttonholed as a 2nd-waver. Personally, I see the influence of clique jargon at work, i.e., I fail to keep up with trendy vocabulary birdwhistling of this or any other decade, so get classed as not-one-of-us on those grounds before I say much more than 'hullo'. -- Cheers, HULK LIKE OXFORD COMMA VERY MUCH. HULK WANT TO DATE, Rick Moen BUT OXFORD COMMA GO OUT ONLY IN GROUPS OF THREE OR MORE. rick@linuxmafia.com -- @EditorHulk McQ! (4x80)
Angling back, briefly, to the prior discussion, I wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
I think that the "male feminist" thing is bogus. I think that only people who have experienced living as female (including transgender people) should call themselves feminists.
Well, I will politely, but firmly, decline to give a rat's ass about your disapproval of my having been a feminist since circa 1970. [...]
Irrespective of whether I concur, Russell - you have me curious: _Why_ do you allege that only people who've experienced living as female should call themselves feminists? Pourquoi? When I first encountered that paragraph, I confess I didn't bother to ponder what you were getting at, and merely said 'no' rather curtly. Now that I have, I'd appreciate you detailing your reasons. No obligation, of course, and I remain perfectly OK with agreeing to disagree. My own view is the same as Sarah Bunting's: If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist. Yes, you are. http://tomatonation.com/culture-and-criticism/yes-you-are/ As I was pointing out in my laughter-raising rejoinder to Supervisor Sunne McPeak on that day back in the early 1980s, the name of the feminist political group I joined is National Organization[1] _for_ Women, not _of_ Women. There's a serious point, there: Betty Friedan and and Rev. Pauli Murray did not seek to exclude 49% of humanity from their cause or from their organisation (NOW) on grounds of different life experience and lack of personal experience of sexism, any more than the NAACP and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee ever told white people they weren't allowed to be civil rights activists, just because they hadn't personally experienced racism. My parents and I marched with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, and called ourselves farmworker activists, even though we had no experience of being a Hispanic field labourer, either. And Chavez was perfectly fine, even delighted, with having surburban, middle-class Noregian-Americans marching with them, FWIW. Anyway, I'll spare you further exegisis on the problems of group identity, and you're welcome to tell me why I'm mistaken, if you wish. [1] Sorry, that's the way they write it. My long-term aspiration to teach American how to spell the English language has yet to bear fruit.
Hi, On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Angling back, briefly, to the prior discussion, I wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
I think that the "male feminist" thing is bogus. I think that only people who have experienced living as female (including transgender people) should call themselves feminists.
Well, I will politely, but firmly, decline to give a rat's ass about your disapproval of my having been a feminist since circa 1970. [...]
Irrespective of whether I concur, Russell - you have me curious: _Why_ do you allege that only people who've experienced living as female should call themselves feminists? Pourquoi?
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php Receptionist: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12. Man: Thank you. (Walks down the hall. Opens door.) Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT? Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that... Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/snotty.wav> Man: What? A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/abuse.wav> M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!! A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse! M: Oh! Oh I see! A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door. M: Oh...Sorry... A: Not at all! .....etc etc etc. Is this the right forum for personal political bastardry? This to and fro goading and passive aggressive tripe is quite frankly boring....its been done before. Hey, respect your views and respect your familial commitment but why do this here? Rgds BW
Quoting Brent Wallis (brent.wallis@gmail.com):
Is this the right forum for personal political bastardry?
This to and fro goading and passive aggressive tripe is quite frankly boring....its been done before.
Brent, this phrase you are using, 'passive aggressive', I _really_ don't think it means what you think it means. As it happens, I am notorious for being painfully, excessively, ridiculously straightforward and blunt -- making me about the furthest thing from passive aggressive you are ever, ever going to encounter. I politely invited Russell to explain his meaning in his saying that, in his view, only people who've lived as female should refer to themselves as feminists. (Impliedly, I am asking by way of comparison if he also thinks that only ethnic minorities should call themselves activists against racism, if only gay people may refer to themselves as activists against anti-gay discrimination, etc.)
Hey, respect your views and respect your familial commitment but why do this here?
What 'familial commitment' are you referring to? One that you imagine me to have to my deceased mother and father? I'm entirely unclear on what you're referring to, here. _Why_ do this here? Russell suddenly pronounced, in this space, very recently, that I should not call myself a classification that I've regarded it as important to apply to myself for these past forty years. I'm simply very curious as to why. C'est tout. Wouldn't you be?
Gidday, On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Brent Wallis (brent.wallis@gmail.com):
Is this the right forum for personal political bastardry?
This to and fro goading and passive aggressive tripe is quite frankly boring....its been done before.
Brent, this phrase you are using, 'passive aggressive', I _really_ don't think it means what you think it means.
As it happens, I am notorious for being painfully, excessively, ridiculously straightforward and blunt -- making me about the furthest thing from passive aggressive you are ever, ever going to encounter.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php O: I'm telling you, I did! M: You did not! O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/5minute.wav> When yourself and Russell C speak Linux or FOSS I take notice and that's cos its worthwhile and has guided me more than once over the years....when you have go at each other over personal politics it sux! ...again I ask... is this the right place to carry out zero sum political arguments? Name one political thread on this list that has resolved an issue.... Do you realise how much you affect inclusion on this list?...evidence is that perhaps you do not understand that bit at all! I would much rather debate how Heartbleed has given all of us a Nosebleed.... ...everything beyond Linux is just Monty Python dross... Linux != Politics BW Rgds BW
Quoting Brent Wallis (brent.wallis@gmail.com):
...again I ask... is this the right place to carry out zero sum political arguments? Name one political thread on this list that has resolved an issue....
Well, with luck we can resolve the issue about _why_ Russell holds the particular view he expressed. It appears that you are seeking 'LUV- or Linux-related posts'. You are in luck! LUV operates a mailing list having exactly that as its remit, verbatim, as detailed on http://luv.asn.au/mailinglists.html . It is called luv-main, and your participation there will of course be welcome.
...everything beyond Linux is just Monty Python dross...
As this mailing list's remit is anything and everything (with the proviso of civility and sticking to subjects of some public interest), you are perhaps merely speaking in the wrong forum (given your overriding concerns).
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Brent Wallis (brent.wallis@gmail.com):
...again I ask... is this the right place to carry out zero sum political arguments? Name one political thread on this list that has resolved an issue....
Well, with luck we can resolve the issue about _why_ Russell holds the particular view he expressed.
It appears that you are seeking 'LUV- or Linux-related posts'. You are in luck! LUV operates a mailing list having exactly that as its remit, verbatim, as detailed on http://luv.asn.au/mailinglists.html . It is called luv-main, and your participation there will of course be welcome.
...everything beyond Linux is just Monty Python dross...
As this mailing list's remit is anything and everything (with the proviso of civility and sticking to subjects of some public interest), you are perhaps merely speaking in the wrong forum (given your overriding concerns).
(pause) O: Yes it is! M: No it isn't! (pause) M: It's just contradiction! O: No it isn't! M: It IS! O: It is NOT! M: You just contradicted me! O: No I didn't! M: You DID! O: No no no! M: You did just then! O: Nonsense! M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/futile.wav> (pause) <http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/futile.wav> O: No it isn't! <http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/futile.wav> M: Yes it is! <http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/futile.wav> (pause) <http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/futile.wav> M: I came here for a good argument!<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/futile.wav> O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/futile.wav> M: An argument isn't just contradiction. O: Well! it CAN be! M: No it can't! M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. O: No it isn't! M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction. O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/contrary.wav> M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/contrary.wav> O: Yes it is! <http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/contrary.wav> M: No it isn't! <http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/contrary.wav> O: Yes it is! M: No it isn't!
Rick Moen wrote:
feminist political group I joined is National Organization[1] _for_
[1] Sorry, that's the way they write it. My long-term aspiration to teach American how to spell the English language has yet to bear fruit.
The en_GB-OED prefers that way, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling You'd think if any anglophones were going to prefer gallicisms[0], it would be the Americans... ;-) [0] referring to that time when .fr and .us were BFFs because they both hated .us's Dad, .uk.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
Rick Moen wrote:
feminist political group I joined is National Organization[1] _for_
[1] Sorry, that's the way they write it. My long-term aspiration to teach Americans how to spell the English language has yet to bear fruit.
The en_GB-OED prefers that way, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling
You'd think if any anglophones were going to prefer gallicisms[0], it would be the Americans... ;-)
[0] referring to that time when .fr and .us were BFFs because they both hated .us's Dad, .uk.
A veritable valid point. Reminds me: A couple of people in Silicon Valley Linux User Group once told me I argue like a Frenchman. Not sure that was intended as a compliment, but I'm willing to take it as one.
On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 4:08 PM, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote: SNIP [0] referring to that time when .fr and .us were BFFs because they both hated .us's Dad, .uk. International relations pretends to be between nations but it's always between governments. And the other nations try to decide which government they will regard as the nation, most noticeably recently with the two Chinas. The USA still hasn't recogniZed the Friesans who were the first to recognise the USA. But the Friesans refuse to be cowed. (Judging from Duckduckgo, the American version of the previous sentence should be something like "The Friesans have complained until they were horse" ) A different mob took the .fr domain from the royals who had helped the 13 British colonies become the USA. They saw USA as the friend of their enemy the French monarchy. The Babylonian Brotherhood (British royals) recalled the 17th century, when THEY were overthrown and executed by the English republic to the delight (and with the support?) of the French royals and perhaps thought "Serves you blighters* right!" Only a brave few Englishmen faced the foul Frenchies to rescue their betters! And all for sport! (As perhaps best illustrated in the cinematic "What it means to be English" instruction manual that is the 1937 film "The Scarlet Pimpernell". Written, produced & directed by the Hungarian born Korda family, based on the novel by the Hungarian Baroness Emma Orkzy and starring the quintessential English actor Leslie Howard nee Hungarian born Lazlo Steiner!) (Fortunately they didn't rely on a certain Hungarian to English dictionary which caused other Hungarian emigres to decline purchasing scratched records while in a tobacconist.) *As in the French royals and nobles. This was before the invention of the term "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". The "Reality" Dutch TV show is so far from a double-blind experiment "no blind" seems like hopeless understatement. Select the gimps, er contestants, create "challenges" & change rules to suit your aims, then edit the results! If that's evidence of something, so is a Norman Gunston interview.
Hi, On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>wrote:
Rick, you think you are on the size of women but there is no evidence for this. Spending so much effort criticising women collectively and defending Tim against the fairly obvious claim of misogyny is taking the wrong side on this issue.
Wrong side? or Is it just that vast majority is just "over" this constant troll bullyboy deeply hurtful name calling nonsense that you have continued with for over a decade with people that disagree with you... Perhaps Rick is just being more diplomatic than I but in the end, all I see is someone picking on someone....and to be honest, thats worse than anything you claim that others do. ..Perhaps, this is not the place to take an online go at someone that offends your personal politics. ..Maybe, its time to quit this list ? Maybe you might understand soon that ; Linux != Political Agenda _any_ political agenda. BW
Brent Wallis skrev 2014-04-14 11:20:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au <mailto:russell@coker.com.au>> wrote: <snip> Is it just that vast majority is just "over" this constant troll bullyboy deeply hurtful name calling nonsense that you have continued with for over a decade with people that disagree with you...
Hear hear!
Quoting Brent Wallis (brent.wallis@gmail.com): [Talking to Russell, about a week ago]
..Perhaps, this is not the place to take an online go at someone that offends your personal politics.
I just now double-checked the remit of this mailing list, in case I misunderstood it. The listinfo page describes it as 'General chat list for LUV members'. Beyond that, the Rules and Guidelines section of the Mailing Lists page elaborates a bit: 7. luv-talk has no topic There are no set posting guidelines for luv-talk. Members are expected to remain polite and to avoid using the list for private discussions, or replies which are not of interest to the list in general. I suspect that the CTTE established it as a handy ghetto for offtopic chatter, a clever organisational ploy often used by technical groups, indeed one that I've implemented myself elsewhere, and that I heartily applaud (if that was the intention). The listadmins' action, a few years back, to reconfigure luv-talk's Web archives as 'private' (accessible only to subscribed parties) rather than 'public' after a mildly embarrassing luv-talk contretemps got publicised by Sam Varghese, is consistent with my 'ghetto' theory. I suspect that the CTTE and the membership at large have no problem with Russell being contentious as long as he's civil and posts what he reasonably believes to have some public interest. -- Cheers, HULK LIKE OXFORD COMMA VERY MUCH. HULK WANT TO DATE, Rick Moen BUT OXFORD COMMA GO OUT ONLY IN GROUPS OF THREE OR MORE. rick@linuxmafia.com -- @EditorHulk McQ! (4x80)
Hi, On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Brent Wallis (brent.wallis@gmail.com):
[Talking to Russell, about a week ago]
..Perhaps, this is not the place to take an online go at someone that offends your personal politics.
I just now double-checked the remit of this mailing list, in case I misunderstood it. The listinfo page describes it as 'General chat list for LUV members'. Beyond that, the Rules and Guidelines section of the Mailing Lists page elaborates a bit:
7. luv-talk has no topic
There are no set posting guidelines for luv-talk. Members are expected to remain polite and to avoid using the list for private discussions, or replies which are not of interest to the list in general.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?<http://www.montypython.net/sounds/sketches/5minute.wav> M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes. O: Just the five minutes. Thank you. O: Anyway, I did. M: You most certainly did not! O: Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you! M: Oh no you didn't! O: Oh yes I did! M: Oh no you didn't! O: Oh yes I did! M: Oh no you didn't! O: Oh yes I did! M: Oh no you didn't! O: Oh yes I did! M: Oh no you didn't! O: Oh yes I did! M: Oh no you didn't! O: Oh yes I did! M: No you DIDN'T! O: Oh yes I did! M: No you DIDN'T! O: Oh yes I did! M: No you DIDN'T! O: Oh yes I did! M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
... what were you trying to achieve by starting this thread?
My intention was to illustrate the kinds of problems that can come from an excessive reliance on ideology as a source of knowledge. The fact that the particular ideologies involved came from some of the more extreme feminists was incidental. If any woman felt unwelcome as a result of my post, I am sorry for that. I could perhaps have chosen examples from other areas such as the economic policies of Hugo Chavez and his followers. The trouble is that mostly the examples are extremely sad and tragic - as with Lysenkoism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism. I went through a long and painful process of trying to shed my ideological preconceptions - as best I could - as a result of my experiences as an investor over several decades. Illusions are costly when you are putting your own money on the line. Instead I try to think of the world as a system with human beings participating in it and take it from there. Ideologically based illusions are costly in other ways too. They can stop you from listening to good advice. One example might be George W Bush's statement that you are with us or you are with the terrorists (paraphrasing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us) Anyone with concerns about the implications of the policy was branded an enemy and not listened to. They can stop you from updating your beliefs when new information comes in. The US seems to have a chronic failure to learn in regard to its foreign policy for example, as seen with the latest mess in Ukraine. They can make you think you know the answers when perhaps you do not. I read an article about global warming in Quadrant in the newsagent a while ago. What I found was that I could have written the article myself based solely on knowing their (right wing) ideology. Given the complete absence of novel information in the article, it had little information value for me. Additionally, all of this interferes with discussion and debate. If you view opinions as simple markers of whether someone is on the right or wrong 'side', and use that to make assumptions about their beliefs, you are likely to miss a lot. For example, several times people observed that I believe that we should discourage people from getting into leaky boats to come here, and assumed that I was against our taking refugees in. In fact I had repeatedly advocated increasing the refugee quota (ie allocation of visas to come in by air) to 100,000, a massive increase. I was repeatedly astonished by this apparent inability to see what was there in black and white. Similarly making fun of extremist views of some feminists (that things would run a lot better without men) seems to have been taken by some as a marker of misogyny. As if a person is either a fully committed feminist, or they hate women. Recently Cardinal Pell observed that one reason the church was slow to respond to the issue of sexual abuse by priests was the assumption that anyone making such accusations was an enemy out to get the church and they were therefore ignored. Again we see this simplistic division of people into us and them and ignoring those on the outer. There has been some speculation as to my feminist credentials. I was very committed to feminism early on. I remember feeling outraged when a talented female classmate was taken out of school at 15 years of age because she was a girl. Later I participated in pro-feminist demonstrations and rallies and a strike at my university which led to what I believe was the first university women's studies course in Australia. These days I would class myself more as an egalitarian and in the middle ground. I think people should have the freedom to pursue their dreams regardless of race or sex/gender/sexual orientation or religion without the government getting in their way, as it used to. I don't think the world would be better of without men, or that it would be better off without women. I don't think we should presume to tell people where their own decisions should lead. I don't want to participate in or exacerbate pointless drama on the list so I am bowing out of these discussions. I accept responsibility for my contribution to the problem. I hope I have learned something from this. I am not sure I know a way to have a good discussion about some of these fraught issues, which is very sad. [Although I am working on a possible technical solution. As they say, if there is a technical solution it's the best solution - as opposed to a solution involving people changing their behaviour.] The only exception to my bowing out is that if someone wants to work cooperatively on a detailed refugee policy and an analysis of the implications I would be interested in that. My own proposal sent to the list a while back was unsatisfactory in a number of ways such as political feasibility. Tim
Tim Josling skrev 2014-04-15 11:43: <snip>
Additionally, all of this interferes with discussion and debate.
If you view opinions as simple markers of whether someone is on the right or wrong 'side', and use that to make assumptions about their beliefs, you are likely to miss a lot.
Well put. Russell, please take note!
Tim Josling skrev 2014-04-15 11:43: <snip>
Additionally, all of this interferes with discussion and debate.
If you view opinions as simple markers of whether someone is on the right or wrong 'side', and use that to make assumptions about their beliefs, you are likely to miss a lot.
Well put. Russell, please take note!
participants (7)
-
Anders Holmström -
Brent Wallis -
David E Payne -
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker -
Tim Josling -
Trent W. Buck