The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
OK, Fana, so it seems like my last post was an accurate representation of your position, since you didn't correct anything.
Yes, Fana, professors who teach gender studies probably have a personal interest in gender studies and want to see societal changes that reflect their beliefs.
Of course, if the public wasn't full of people with similar beliefs, those professors would be teaching empty classrooms and those programs would not last very long. I'm not sure what you think the problem is here. Do you just think there are certain subjects colleges simply should not base courses on? Is your stance "We shouldn't have gender studies, because they are feminizing the public into following feminist ideology, just like they did when they gave the right to marry to gays"?
Yes, Fana, professors who teach gender studies probably have a personal interest in gender studies and want to see societal changes that reflect their beliefs.
Of course, if the public wasn't full of people with similar beliefs, those professors would be teaching empty classrooms and those programs would not last very long. I'm not sure what you think the problem is here. Do you just think there are certain subjects colleges simply should not base courses on? Is your stance "We shouldn't have gender studies, because they are feminizing the public into following feminist ideology, just like they did when they gave the right to marry to gays"?
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,317
- 140,027
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Fana: "what? I corrected everything you said"
OK, let's look at your "corrections", shall we?
Fana: "elites are just rich and influential people they aren't categorically limited."
OK, but in the context of you talking about gender studies programs "feminizing" the population, the "elite" in question is actually the professors, right?
Fana: "the schooling system, not professors although i'm sure they had a hand in what is taught in school systems, like who does the board of education talk to or who makes curriculum currently you could look at common core as an example, who provides the input there? professors."
Oh, sorry. It's not the professors, it's the schooling system. Based on input from professors.
Fana: "why do you keep talking about cabals, you act like the school system and the university system or the community college system has no effect on people and isn't organized."
Wait, what? The use of "cabal" explicitly implies that they ARE organized and DO have an effect on people. If I'm trying to accurately portray your point of view, "cabal" is an entirely appropriate word to use.
I don't want you to think I'm creating straw men or misrepresenting your position. I am truly making an effort to understand you here. Allow me to take into account your "corrections" and re-state what your position appears to be:
The schooling system, influenced by professors, are feminizing the general population through gender studies programs. They are doing this NOT as some kind of long-play con, but out of a belief that they are helping shape the world for the better. However, unbeknownst to them but very clear to you, they are actually making things worse and should be stopped somehow.
I welcome further correction. Once we figure out the Rubik's Cube that is your position, we might even be able to begin some kind of a discussion.
OK, let's look at your "corrections", shall we?
Fana: "elites are just rich and influential people they aren't categorically limited."
OK, but in the context of you talking about gender studies programs "feminizing" the population, the "elite" in question is actually the professors, right?
Fana: "the schooling system, not professors although i'm sure they had a hand in what is taught in school systems, like who does the board of education talk to or who makes curriculum currently you could look at common core as an example, who provides the input there? professors."
Oh, sorry. It's not the professors, it's the schooling system. Based on input from professors.
Fana: "why do you keep talking about cabals, you act like the school system and the university system or the community college system has no effect on people and isn't organized."
Wait, what? The use of "cabal" explicitly implies that they ARE organized and DO have an effect on people. If I'm trying to accurately portray your point of view, "cabal" is an entirely appropriate word to use.
I don't want you to think I'm creating straw men or misrepresenting your position. I am truly making an effort to understand you here. Allow me to take into account your "corrections" and re-state what your position appears to be:
The schooling system, influenced by professors, are feminizing the general population through gender studies programs. They are doing this NOT as some kind of long-play con, but out of a belief that they are helping shape the world for the better. However, unbeknownst to them but very clear to you, they are actually making things worse and should be stopped somehow.
I welcome further correction. Once we figure out the Rubik's Cube that is your position, we might even be able to begin some kind of a discussion.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,317
- 140,027
so? it's still not limited to professors who influence either public or private policies, are editors professors? no but they still went to school and were taught those disciplines and apply them, this is literally what sarkeesian does and she creates things to be taught in schools, is she a professor? no.
no it's not, cabal is a secret group, there's nothing secret about it, it's pretty public. There's a reason you're using words like cabal and conspiracy it's really obvious you're using buzz words to make my position look crazy cause it's all a cabalistic conspiracy like the protocols of zion! or some stupid shit, it's not it's all public.
I mean isn't that exactly what feminist studies professors hope? I don't understand how you think this is somehow noteworthy
you are saying this, can you quote me saying this? I believe the original post I made was just an attempt to show that state institutions affect what their populations think. because there's a common misconception that the way to change a populations opinion on something is through direct appeal, it really doesn't work that way, institutions have a much bigger role in the long term.
whose "we" do you have a "headmate" or something?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Fana: "I mean isn't that exactly what feminist studies professors hope? I don't understand how you think this is somehow noteworthy"
OK, good, so we're apparently on the same page there.
Fana: "you are saying this, can you quote me saying this? I believe the original post I made was just an attempt to show that state institutions affect what their populations think. because there's a common misconception that the way to change a populations opinion on something is through direct appeal, it really doesn't work that way, institutions have a much bigger role in the long term."
Well, wait a second... Do you have a problem with this or don't you? I've been under the impression all day that you think the "feminization" of society by the schooling system is a bad thing. If you don't think it's a bad thing, then what's the value of your observation? Is it because you think "state insitutions" are being hijacked by Sarkeesian? (Hint: She ain't hijacked shit.)
I mean, yeah, Fana, people with opinions will express themselves in an effort to get other people to understand (and ideally agree with) those points of view. Sounds to me like you have a problem with people being allowed to express themselves if you personally don't like what they're saying. I mean, Sarkeesian is a perfect example: Despite the tremendous attention (and therefore power/influence) given to her by haters, collective interest in her has been petering out anyway. Why? Because reasonable people saw the value in what she was saying and have since moved on. She's not running for president. She's not advocating censorship. She's not destroying video games. She's simply expressing her point of view on YouTube, but apparently you have a problem because she advertises said videos as having "educational" value, therefore she must be trying to pervert the schooling system with her own agenda in an effort to control the minds of the entire population! The fiend!
Even if that wasn't completely ridiculous (and oh boy, is that ever ridiculous), SO WHAT? How do you suppose people with beliefs try to communicate them? She's using the tools available to most of us in order to reach as large a number of people as possible. The most useful tool by far was the angry backlash from irrational, angry morons, but she played by the book, didn't break any rules or laws and was open, honest and transparent about what she was doing every step of the way. I can understand why that would make you nervous if you don't like what she says, but how do you suggest we fix this "problem"? What possible solution do you have that wouldn't compromise the rights and freedoms we value so much?
OK, good, so we're apparently on the same page there.
Fana: "you are saying this, can you quote me saying this? I believe the original post I made was just an attempt to show that state institutions affect what their populations think. because there's a common misconception that the way to change a populations opinion on something is through direct appeal, it really doesn't work that way, institutions have a much bigger role in the long term."
Well, wait a second... Do you have a problem with this or don't you? I've been under the impression all day that you think the "feminization" of society by the schooling system is a bad thing. If you don't think it's a bad thing, then what's the value of your observation? Is it because you think "state insitutions" are being hijacked by Sarkeesian? (Hint: She ain't hijacked shit.)
I mean, yeah, Fana, people with opinions will express themselves in an effort to get other people to understand (and ideally agree with) those points of view. Sounds to me like you have a problem with people being allowed to express themselves if you personally don't like what they're saying. I mean, Sarkeesian is a perfect example: Despite the tremendous attention (and therefore power/influence) given to her by haters, collective interest in her has been petering out anyway. Why? Because reasonable people saw the value in what she was saying and have since moved on. She's not running for president. She's not advocating censorship. She's not destroying video games. She's simply expressing her point of view on YouTube, but apparently you have a problem because she advertises said videos as having "educational" value, therefore she must be trying to pervert the schooling system with her own agenda in an effort to control the minds of the entire population! The fiend!
Even if that wasn't completely ridiculous (and oh boy, is that ever ridiculous), SO WHAT? How do you suppose people with beliefs try to communicate them? She's using the tools available to most of us in order to reach as large a number of people as possible. The most useful tool by far was the angry backlash from irrational, angry morons, but she played by the book, didn't break any rules or laws and was open, honest and transparent about what she was doing every step of the way. I can understand why that would make you nervous if you don't like what she says, but how do you suggest we fix this "problem"? What possible solution do you have that wouldn't compromise the rights and freedoms we value so much?
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,041
Look in the mirror. In this case I was specifically talking about you and delicateflower, and any other idiot that reads a blog and would believe something totally outrageous. For example, like the Moon Landing was faked because of radiation belts.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,317
- 140,027
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Lith: "Look in the mirror. In this case I was specifically talking about you and delicateflower, and any other idiot that reads a blog and would believe something totally outrageous. For example, like the Moon Landing was faked because of radiation belts."
I was expecting you to backtrack and cover your ass by clarifying that you were generalizing to make X point, but don't necessarily believe that it's worth applying fixed characteristics to nebulously-defined groups of people since only morons do that to try to make their points. Instead, you surprised me by doubling down on ignorance and snark and making a wildly inaccurate statement about me, a statement that you would have recognized as wildly inaccurate if you were even remotely honest or gave a shit about anything other than puffing up your own ego and being a slave to your own cognitive dissonance.
Troll on, brother. I'll be here waiting wheneverr you actually feel like discussing something honestly.
Fana: "blather"
Translation: "I've been making a half-assed, worthless point all day, but I now realize that I can't possibly justify anything I've said, so I'm just going to dismiss you without making any point at all. If Lithose can do it, I can too, right?"
In any case, I thank you for playing with me yet again today. You kept me from getting bored, and I appreciate that. You are always welcome, Fanaskin.
I was expecting you to backtrack and cover your ass by clarifying that you were generalizing to make X point, but don't necessarily believe that it's worth applying fixed characteristics to nebulously-defined groups of people since only morons do that to try to make their points. Instead, you surprised me by doubling down on ignorance and snark and making a wildly inaccurate statement about me, a statement that you would have recognized as wildly inaccurate if you were even remotely honest or gave a shit about anything other than puffing up your own ego and being a slave to your own cognitive dissonance.
Troll on, brother. I'll be here waiting wheneverr you actually feel like discussing something honestly.
Fana: "blather"
Translation: "I've been making a half-assed, worthless point all day, but I now realize that I can't possibly justify anything I've said, so I'm just going to dismiss you without making any point at all. If Lithose can do it, I can too, right?"
In any case, I thank you for playing with me yet again today. You kept me from getting bored, and I appreciate that. You are always welcome, Fanaskin.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,041
Cognitive dissonance requires I hold two opposing views Tan. My statement that someone who believes something, without verifying it or even studying it beyond what a cursory source, like a blog or random website tells them, is an idiot? Is not contradictory with any of my other beliefs. In fact, you doubting the Moon Landing, and thus you being dumb? Is a logical anecdotal support of my belief; they synch up quite well.
In short, learn what words mean. I know I use "cognitive dissonance" a lot, and you really want to sound smarter so you copy people who you think are smart? But it really doesn't work if you don't understand what stuff means buddy. Try harder.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,317
- 140,027
no, it was just a bunch of shit I never said, or some other stupid thing like I want to censor people. show me where I said the educational system was being "hijacked" for example.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Put it in your own words, Fana: What's the problem?
Also, please share suggestions on how to fix the problem, if any.
This again, Lith?
"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."
I draw attention to the "or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values". You regularly become a shifty, conniving, sarcastic and dismissive schmuck whenever someone points out you may not be on the level.
Heck, all I did was call you out on some unproductive generalization. You know, the type cowards use when they want to sound better than people who disagree with them. Instead of acknowledging that pejorative generalizations are not a way to make a valid point in a reasonable discussion, you lumped me into said generalized group, despite me not being who you were talking about in your post, despite me never having exhibited the behavior you described (in fact, ironically, I pointed out that exact behavior in everyone who took ThunderF00t's word at face value), despite me never having said a word about the Pao situation, and despite the fact that you had to awkwardly and dishonestly misrepresent the connection between me and the moon landing. That's a lot of contradictory information for you to conveniently ignore, but I guess that's what happens when it conflicts with your pre-existing ideas.
Now I'll admit, I've used "cognitive dissonance" incorrectly before, so I don't blame you for trying to jump on that. Frankly, seems like you're getting too caught up in being cocky and it's making you sloppy. Maybe your avatar is getting to your head? (Don't ever change it.) Here's some good-natured advice: Take the snark level down a bit. It's not helping you.
Also, please share suggestions on how to fix the problem, if any.
This again, Lith?
"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."
I draw attention to the "or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values". You regularly become a shifty, conniving, sarcastic and dismissive schmuck whenever someone points out you may not be on the level.
Heck, all I did was call you out on some unproductive generalization. You know, the type cowards use when they want to sound better than people who disagree with them. Instead of acknowledging that pejorative generalizations are not a way to make a valid point in a reasonable discussion, you lumped me into said generalized group, despite me not being who you were talking about in your post, despite me never having exhibited the behavior you described (in fact, ironically, I pointed out that exact behavior in everyone who took ThunderF00t's word at face value), despite me never having said a word about the Pao situation, and despite the fact that you had to awkwardly and dishonestly misrepresent the connection between me and the moon landing. That's a lot of contradictory information for you to conveniently ignore, but I guess that's what happens when it conflicts with your pre-existing ideas.
Now I'll admit, I've used "cognitive dissonance" incorrectly before, so I don't blame you for trying to jump on that. Frankly, seems like you're getting too caught up in being cocky and it's making you sloppy. Maybe your avatar is getting to your head? (Don't ever change it.) Here's some good-natured advice: Take the snark level down a bit. It's not helping you.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Phaz: "Also, why the hell are you fucktards letting a Tanoomba alt shit up the thread this bad?"
Wrong YET AGAIN. Don't learn from your mistakes, do you?
Soygen: "We'd never ban you. We'd just throw you in a cage in the 'shaw and throw peanuts at you."
Yeah, like what happened with Heckler... Oh, wait, he was banned. Based on false accusations, no less.
Denaut: "Men can be misogynist, sexist, and stalky, mostly thanks to testosterone and other androgenic hormones... and this has fuck all to do with 'gaming culture'"
What the actual fuck?
Wrong YET AGAIN. Don't learn from your mistakes, do you?
Soygen: "We'd never ban you. We'd just throw you in a cage in the 'shaw and throw peanuts at you."
Yeah, like what happened with Heckler... Oh, wait, he was banned. Based on false accusations, no less.
Denaut: "Men can be misogynist, sexist, and stalky, mostly thanks to testosterone and other androgenic hormones... and this has fuck all to do with 'gaming culture'"
What the actual fuck?
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,859
- 8,265
- Status