genderfication

PrincessLemon​(sub female) • Aug 21, 2024

What can I say 😌
I have a way with words 💀

If I edit your post half of it would be deleted and condense it to 2 paragraphs LMAOO.

intenseoldman​(dom male) • Aug 21, 2024

[quote="Heero"]

Oh, shit, I thought I might be stepping into it there. So.... I went back and read what you wrote. Let me see if I understand and correct me if I'm wrong, but try to keep it to a 100 words

So you're using your syllogistic fallacy as a non example of logic for not having a hard rule about inclusion. You are saying that if there were such a rule it would prevent people from posting about personal issues. That's funny because there once was a a blog or a discussion in the comments by big breasted women about having big breasts, and it got shut down. To your point that people might feel excluded about anything so having a rule about it would be too restrictive, it cuts both ways. Having a rule about it might have saved the big breasted women blog. I'm not saying there should be one but that's an example of how policing inclusion works. It's on us to be inclusive when we can. It's also on us to have some understanding we aren't included.

Nobody here is asking for any hard rule for inclusion. You give examples of situations where it would be absurd for everyone to be included, and I agree. You think for me to say where you could, you should is wrong... okay. How about where you could, you might at least think about it. Just be aware.

Some feel others could be more inclusive and have explained their reasons for their stances without vitriol, but with patient gentle reasoning,. I feel they deserve to be listened to. In the end, I think what everyone wants is a better tone.

And, yeah, I guess sayin you were saying the public forum is exclusionary by nature since it includes personal issues.... that was fallacious. That's not where you were going. Kumbaya

intenseoldman​(dom male) • Aug 21, 2024

Yeah, public call outs are a bitch. Being contacted privately has a much better chance of addressing something that bothers you in a way that "encourages constructive criticism rather than negativity." Now, I wish I would have read this first and private message lambsone. Apologies everyone, especially you, lambsone.

Heero​(dom male) • Aug 21, 2024

Haha, no worries. And if you can keep it to 100 words, you're a better man than I.

Disclaimer: there are times I use "you" a lot here. It is the proverbial "you" much of the time. I hope such times are clear by context.

You keep saying I made a syllogistic fallacy. I did not. You would have to draw a conclusion to make such a fallacy. In the statement you're referring to, I gave an example, and it was done rhetorically, for the reader to consider what a thought process like that would lead to. I drew no conclusions from that, the point wasn't to draw a conclusion from it, it was to showcase a kind of reasoning that occurs and to get someone to be reflective. My hope was that the reader could think through it and come up with their own conclusion. Sometimes, a statement may sound like it makes sense, but switching up the examples reveal that it doesn't. It was perhaps a poor or too nuanced example. I'll try to use more concrete ones in the future, it'll likely get me in trouble though, and I'll blame you hahahaha.

The point is: that some statements a person can make, or a concern they may have, does not have to apply to every one, even in a public forum. Sometimes things apply to you, and sometimes they don't. You take it or leave it as is the case. There doesn't need to be a rule about it, because it's basic self-governance. It should not be the case that what I utter HAS to apply to you. It's not always about you. It doesn't always have to be about you. (I'm using the proverbial "you" here.) We talk a lot here about consent and how you don't have to talk to anyone you don't want to talk to. That's why the block button exists. If I want to talk to men, I should be free to talk to men. If I want to talk to women, I should be free to talk to women. If I am curious about how a certain group of people think, I should be allowed to be curios about how a certain group of people think and address those people if they want to hear me out. If they don't want to hear me out, there's no reason to hate on me for it, just move on peacefully to someone else you want to hear out. And yeah, if I ask a particular group about something, and some other people chime in that I didn't intend my message for, I shouldn't be an asshole about it, cuz I said it in a public forum. That is basic self-governance on my part as the poster who knowingly posted on a public forum having awareness that any user can make a response. But as long as I am not hurting anyone or violating their rights or breaking rules, I should not be forced to consider or address people I don't want to consider or address.

If someone wants to make posts as wide and inclusionary as they want, power to them. But if someone doesn't want that, power to them as well. I do not think there should be a rule about it either way. And the person who may want to talk to a select group of people, they are not automatically shutting people down by not having that desire. They are just being human and wanting what they want. (BTW, it is not always the case that this is intended. Sometimes it's just a matter of language people are used to. And if the language is too offensive, while the person is not intending to be offensive, gentle correction will often work.)

Also, as I mentioned earlier, barring technicalities like being blocked or whatever (which is a whole other set of considerations not being dealt with here) anyone can make a post about anything. The forums on cage are actually VERY inclusive by nature. This is NOT something that needs to be fought for, we already have it--well, technologically we have the capability, but it is up to people to take advantage of it. And yes, I'll even use the word, public forums SHOULD be inclusionary, because it's a part of the reason why they're created and public. But people seem to not get what inclusionary actually means. And what makes a forum inclusionary or not is going to be the behavior of people in the forums. Things could run quite smoothly without the need for any specific rule in this regard if people were just a bit more kind and understanding to each other.

And if inclusion concerns you, several better solutions than fighting in the forums have been given.

To bring it back to your statements: the things you're mentioning here are not the things I am arguing against, you're a kind and understanding person by your nature. I wouldn't disagree with your kind and understanding solutions.

You have stated some ideals about civil discourse and about being inclusionary, and I agree with them. What I am saying is that these ideals are not being adhered to. And in the cases where I see that they're not being adhered to, it seems to be just as likely to be the fault of the poster as it is to be the fault of people claiming to want to correct the poster and create a more positive and inclusive environment. It seems to me to be a very decent chance of late, that the people who are calling for less negativity and more inclusion are in fact the ones causing the problem. And the post could have gone on just fine without the negativity being hurled at the OP.

This reminds me of another post the other day when some kid said they're ocd or something, I forget, and they went on to describe a problem they have, asking for advice. And someone went up in arms about how it's a serious medical condition blah blah blah and they should not make light of it. It's a phrase dude, chill. The poster OBVIOUSLY didn't mean anything by it, and it was NOT the place or the way to bring awareness to something like that. If you think that phrase is detrimental to society, there are better ways to go about bringing awareness to that. As I vaguely recall, the poster actually wanted some serious advice on something, and the hate comments just derailed things. Luckily some users saved it and could get some good advice in (as well as push back against the shit poster--good job people, you're heros in my book), but by that time, I was already so turned off I stopped paying attention. So my memory of the specifics might be off somewhat.

But what that person did with the phrase "ocd", is what some people are doing with gender and other things. And it's NOT helpful. And I know many of these people have the best of intentions, which is why I do want to emphasize that it's not helpful and trying to explain why. It is my assumption, giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they actually want to do right and not just appear right.

[The following is a made up example made for dramatic effect]
Someone makes a post "hey guys, why do you like fondling women's breasts?" and THIS is where you want to make a stance for gender equality? Really? Right here? In this random, non-serious post on the cage? Some woman laying in bed at night as her male husband plays with her breasts, and because it's a man fondling her breasts she happens to have the thought "why do men like fondling breasts?" and post that while browsing the cage on her phone. OMG!!! So exclusionary!!! This woman is the WORST! Men aren't the only ones that like to fondle breasts, she needs to get with the times!!!!

Meanwhile, the lady actually wouldn't mind if a woman responded, "I ain't a man, but I like fondling breasts too, and here's why." But before such a thing could even be made clear, it's already fire and brimstone coming from the comments. And before the woman could explain herself, as you say they should, they are forced to defend themselves from all the accusations being hurled at them.

The above sort of thing happens a lot recently. And in my view, it is NOT the original poster that is at fault here.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying some posts, even though posted in a public forum, are personal by nature, and automatically does not apply to or concern everyone by virtue of the nature of that post. A poster could post about a problem that most people don't have. They could also naively think that "men" or "women" or some other category would have the answer. I am not saying all posts are like that, nor am I saying there should be rules against that. But in a case like that, if the poster has a problem and asked "men" for the solution, and a female actually has encountered the problem before has a solution, gives the original poster the benefit of the doubt and says "I'm not a man, but I've seen something like this before and ...**proceeds to give an excellent solution**", then a few things would happen here.

1. The poster would have the awareness that not just men have the solution (which honestly is a win, right?)
2. Their problem is addressed.
3. No negativity or vitriol needs to happen.

Heck, the female could even say "it's not just men who know about this y'know" and give a light hearted 😉 at the end. All would be well with the world.

Conversely: someone gets offended that only "men" were asked for a solution, and starts shit talking. Then a fight breaks out. All three of the above goes out the window. The person doing the shit talking thinks they're doing right, but they're very mistaken in my view.

I'll skip responding to this since it is a response to a point that I didn't make. Just a misunderstanding. I also don't recall such a blog post, so I can't even say anything from context. I would have wanted to save the big breasted women 😢

I will say this though, I am NOT advocating for a rule here...because I don't think there needs to be one. On the contrary, it is the other side that is saying what SHOULD be done. I ended one of my posts warning against creating a rule that shouldn't be. So I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I am advocating for a certain rule to be made.

Really? Because when you say to someone something like "you should use 'people' and not 'ladies'", you are in fact creating a rule. It's not a formal one, but it is a rule nonetheless.

Sure. I'm all for awareness. A lack of awareness is one of the great problems with society as far as I can see.

And again, I don't think we're actually disagreeing about how to go about things generally. What I am saying is that what you're saying does not happen all the time. And a lot of people who are trying to be a part of the solution end up being a part of the problem. They do not phrase things as eloquently or softly as you do. If people spoke the way you do here, kind sir, then no post would be taken down, and we would not have such animosity. But clearly there are a lot of people here with strong negative feelings.

Agreed. No problems with that at all.

Haha, yes. Of course. I'm glad we're getting more on the same page. I'm quite long winded as you can tell, so feel free to let me know of anything else you need cleared up.

Heero​(dom male) • Aug 21, 2024

Indeed.

And to extend an olive branch again, there are indeed situations where public call outs become necessary. I would say there are also situations where they may even need to be somewhat "aggressive". But this would be a very small minority of the time, and aggressive call outs happen WAY more often than they should. And they happen in the name of increasing inclusion and positivity and they usually do quite the opposite. Because most of the time they're employed, they should not be. It's trying to kill a housefly with e nuke.

Sweetlydepraved​(masochist female){95%} • Aug 21, 2024

Heero, I was done responding to this topic, but I’m responding to you. I would like you to look up the definition of vitriol and then quote the instances of vitriol. I would also suggest you go look at the post “Genderization Going Forward” and tell me who wasn’t civilized there. I’d also like for you to tell us who tried to make an effort to thoughtfully respond and who directed people back here because she didn’t get the response she wanted. Then I’d like for you to go back to the other post, “Why do men like breasts” and tell me who started being negative first. Then you might want to go through six months of history where women are consistently saying “Hey, you’re making us feel bad” and tell me who is the one pitching fits because women dare to speak on her posts.

That’s a lot of work, I don’t expect you to do all of that, but you’re way off base because you just now started paying attention. A great deal of people have been watching this for months. Reaching out privately for months. Repeatedly asking for a little consideration, and being attacked regardless.

Sweet Minx​(sub female) • Aug 21, 2024

It should be noted that while conflict is much better discussed and solved in private that's not always effective.. Sometimes it is already attempted and multiple times. With some people this gets you nowhere.

Then yes we must choose whether to respond or ignore but that is up to each person. Just because something didn't effect or bother you shouldn't discount that it upset or bothered others. We are all different. And that's okay.

Heero​(dom male) • Aug 21, 2024

Pointing to a specific example isn't enough, because there are examples on both sides. My earlier posts makes space for that. I have also extended an olive branch several times acknowledging there is sometimes a need for more aggressive and public call outs. And I should say even beyond that if warranted, but then it becomes a matter for the cage admins to handle.

Is there something about my general position that you disagree with or are you thinking about a particular user when responding?

Sweetlydepraved​(masochist female){95%} • Aug 21, 2024

I’m sorry, I’m not going to go through 3000 words and pick out particular instances where you alluded to “vitriol” and “those supporting inclusivity making it worse” (those are loose quotes).

Heero​(dom male) • Aug 21, 2024

Also, me linking to the “Genderization Going Forward” was me using it a an example of civilized discourse at the time, not a non-example. At the time there were only two responses and they seemed very civil to me. I believe you made one of them.

But hey, if this is a post about a particular user as opposed to a general discussion, it is quite possible for me to be off base, because I'm engaging in the latter.

I stand by the points I made as a general point of view. It's really a different thing to me to look at a particular user's history. All I know is the cage seems very negative these days and on average I see it coming from both sides. And since a lot of the people being vocal here are on one side, I am deciding to argue the other. I do not condone any individual being deliberately and without just cause being antagonistic towards another, whether they be poster or responder.