The difference between Men and Women...

Shhted · Post by **Shhted** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:23 am

Mean Chuck wrote:
Anyone who becomes prejudice or sexist from jokes or becomes more of one because of jokes is an idiot.

"There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we'd all love one another." Frank Zappa

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:32 am

xtian wrote: more seriously now, i don't feel that way. you are one of the many persons that I carry in great respect here, I just pointed that your point of view might be biased by the fact that it's based on the idea that men don't like women, like locals don't like immigrants. and funny enough it's another (we say "mise en abîme") mirror of the impression that this post gives, that I, for responding to your reaction, do not respect you as a person and turned it into a personnal insult.

there. that should launch us to page 9.

Sorry, Xtian....so many posts have been so negative and derogatory, that I missed the bright, shining light that is your calm and polite intellect.

Do you really think it will go to page 9? I mean, without more teasing posts of "I am offended by the fact you are offended by the fact that I am offended" . *grinz*

Most of the people that tended to go into the personal insult category appear to have stopped posting...so this thread may die a dishonorable death before page 8.

Hmmm, unfortunately, I am not offended by the idea that you believe my opinion may be biased. There is always a chance that anyone's opinion is biased. As Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation will prove me right; but one, single experiment could prove me wrong."

I do believe, however, that it is unlikely that I am biased. I did feel that the joke was sexist in BOTH directions. I also do not believe that men, as a whole, dislike women...or vice versa.

Some men would prefer to *control* women, or feel that women are inferior to them. Some women would like to control men, or feel that men are inferior to them. *shrugs* Prejudice is seldom about liking or disliking a group of people.

Metalredneck · Post by **Metalredneck** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:12 pm

Go team! Master debaters!

Buttzilla · Post by **Buttzilla** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:54 pm

I live in a multi-cultural household and have many multicultural friends. If I or one of my friends or family members makes a joke about the idiosyncrasies of our culture, religion or sex (which we do often) does that make me or my friends racist or sexist? I don't think so. If we can't laugh at ourselves and our differences then we have become a sad, tight-assed culture. I think intent is very important when it involves any sort of communication written or verbal. That is very different then running someone over with a car. That is an accident. Insults are not accidents. A joke is not an insult unless one chooses to take it as such.
Just voicing an opinion. But then again opinions are like assholes, aren't they?

Groove · Post by **Groove** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:06 pm

I say that when this hits page 8 Blackjoe should bring out the Unicorns!

Disastermined · Post by **Disastermined** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:09 pm

GrooveMonkey wrote:I say that when this hits page 8 Blackjoe should bring out the Unicorns!

Good, I can finally have my revenge upon them for taking my car.

dozer · Post by **dozer** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:18 pm

Caliann wrote: Most negative aspects of human psychology develop in increments, Chuck. No one decides "I am going to be a greedy, over-bearing CEO and rape millions off of people" one day out of the blue. Such an attitude is developed in small experiences and in small choices that lead someone to being a greedy, asshole CEO that financially rapes poor people , or middle class people, or whom ever.dies?

Where do I go to have these experiences so I can become a rapist CEO?

guitargeek · Post by **guitargeek** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:53 pm

I find unicorns offensive.

Metalredneck · Post by **Metalredneck** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

What sex would the Unicorn be?

What would their intent be?

I suppose their OK as long as there's a rainbow.

Mean Chuck · Post by **Mean Chuck** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:43 pm

Caliann wrote:*sighs and puts on her best monotone*

Most negative aspects of human psychology develop in increments, Chuck. No one decides "I am going to be a greedy, over-bearing CEO and rape millions off of people" one day out of the blue. Such an attitude is developed in small experiences and in small choices that lead someone to being a greedy, asshole CEO that financially rapes poor people , or middle class people, or whom ever.

The sort of attitude needed to commit things like that is the firm belief that no one in the world really matters except yourself and your own success. No one goes from being a compassionate philanthropist one day to a selfish, greedy bastard the next unless they have severe mental problems.

In most humans, these things begin with little pebbles here and there that shape their beliefs and psych as time goes on. Eventually, you have an avalanche of pebbles. None of the pebbles are very big or heavy by themselves, but dropping one after the other after the other adds up to a monstrous, suffocating pile.

Everyone has the capacity to either add to that pile, or to take away from that pile. Which do you wish to do?

We collectively shape society. What kind of society do you want? One where prejudice thrives, or one where prejudice withers and dies?

That is bullshit sterotyping, I grew up in a very racist and sexist area and it made me want to be the exact opposite. You are only a product of your environment if you decide to be.

Finding sexism and racism in jokes that simply point out differences between sexes and races is not a way to make prejudice wither and die nor is trying to convince people that they are prejudice for laughing at differences.

I have friends who are diverse in there race, religion, sex, sexuality, culture, lifestyle, etc, etc… and you know what we recognize that we are different and we laugh about it and we are not prejudice to each other. Men are different than women, blacks are different than whites, Jewish are different than Catholics, it is a fact whether you can accept it or not. The differences are insignificant and laughable compared to what we have in common and we should band together and recognize that different is good and laugh about it and learn about it together. Being different can bring people together just like this place normally does.

That joke is a bunch of meaningless words that are not harmful in anyway unless used that way. If it was said by a sexist with the intent of oppressing someone than it is wrong, it wasn’t, it was posted for all of us to read and think “yes we are different and it is funny”. You want to find sexism so that is all you see, I see a stupid joke that is meaningless and meant to be that way. You are trying to convince people to fear words and that words will brainwash them when they do not realize it.

I would rather live in a society that laughs at our differences than one that gives words human abilities and fears them because of it.

A quote from the explination of the UTMC name page-

The western world has lost perspective on the word terrorist, the concept of fear and the idea of security. We are being taught not to learn words as the neutral tools of communication, but as specific ideas that have been pre-determined by commitie, to be feared. George Orwell told us a story where the government taught it's people to fear words. We should not lose sight of this prophet's teachings, for he was not just a writer; but a motorcyclist. DoublePlusGood

Pintgudge · Post by **Pintgudge** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:18 pm

Well then!

I am sitting in serious awe of the ideas, and debating style, and techniques that have been exhibited here!

This is way cool!

I have come to appreciate and admire some part of everyone's contribution!

I suppose that that is the whole point of this gathering.

Thank you All!

goose · Post by **goose** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:52 pm

Mean Chuck wrote:
Caliann wrote:*sighs and puts on her best monotone*

Most negative aspects of human psychology develop in increments, Chuck. No one decides "I am going to be a greedy, over-bearing CEO and rape millions off of people" one day out of the blue. Such an attitude is developed in small experiences and in small choices that lead someone to being a greedy, asshole CEO that financially rapes poor people , or middle class people, or whom ever.

The sort of attitude needed to commit things like that is the firm belief that no one in the world really matters except yourself and your own success. No one goes from being a compassionate philanthropist one day to a selfish, greedy bastard the next unless they have severe mental problems.

In most humans, these things begin with little pebbles here and there that shape their beliefs and psych as time goes on. Eventually, you have an avalanche of pebbles. None of the pebbles are very big or heavy by themselves, but dropping one after the other after the other adds up to a monstrous, suffocating pile.

Everyone has the capacity to either add to that pile, or to take away from that pile. Which do you wish to do?

We collectively shape society. What kind of society do you want? One where prejudice thrives, or one where prejudice withers and dies?
That is bullshit sterotyping, I grew up in a very racist and sexist area and it made me want to be the exact opposite. You are only a product of your environment if you decide to be.

Finding sexism and racism in jokes that simply point out differences between sexes and races is not a way to make prejudice wither and die nor is trying to convince people that they are prejudice for laughing at differences.

I have friends who are diverse in there race, religion, sex, sexuality, culture, lifestyle, etc, etc… and you know what we recognize that we are different and we laugh about it and we are not prejudice to each other. Men are different than women, blacks are different than whites, Jewish are different than Catholics, it is a fact whether you can accept it or not. The differences are insignificant and laughable compared to what we have in common and we should band together and recognize that different is good and laugh about it and learn about it together. Being different can bring people together just like this place normally does.

That joke is a bunch of meaningless words that are not harmful in anyway unless used that way. If it was said by a sexist with the intent of oppressing someone than it is wrong, it wasn’t, it was posted for all of us to read and think “yes we are different and it is funny”. You want to find sexism so that is all you see, I see a stupid joke that is meaningless and meant to be that way. You are trying to convince people to fear words and that words will brainwash them when they do not realize it.

I would rather live in a society that laughs at our differences than one that gives words human abilities and fears them because of it.

A quote from the explination of the UTMC name page-
The western world has lost perspective on the word terrorist, the concept of fear and the idea of security. We are being taught not to learn words as the neutral tools of communication, but as specific ideas that have been pre-determined by commitie, to be feared. George Orwell told us a story where the government taught it's people to fear words. We should not lose sight of this prophet's teachings, for he was not just a writer; but a motorcyclist. DoublePlusGood

Indeed, Archie Bunker from All in the Family served as an example of everything most of my generation did not want to be. It was parody that served as a lesson. But whatever, I maintain that this joke, while perhaps in poor taste is not a proper foundation for such a debate. Flame on and on and on. . . . .

oh, and with regards to what works in court over academia, well, I'll take Thurgood Marshall over your Harvard voodoo, err psychologist Richard J. Hernstein any day of the week. Ironically, if it doesn't work in court then you don't have that right. Academia has it's place, but your rights are championed by lawyers and judges. So get published and then maybe, just maybe, some lawyer will be able to use your work as part of their case while championing the rights you so dearly believe you have. Til then, it's conjecture.

Metalredneck · Post by **Metalredneck** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:35 pm

I found the joke offensive towards men. I do not like being stereotyped as a non-thinking, insensitive boor. I demand for an apology from all the women, trans-gendered, or just plain body-image-confused, who had the intent of laughing at the "male role model" put forth by said joke. I have spent decades fighting the ovarian tyrranny of the matriarchal modern society that holds a pump-heel on the throat of the average oppressed male. When will the madness end, and men be allowed to act freely?

Whoah, I need to get laid.

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:53 pm

goose wrote:.......... as part of their case while championing the rights you so dearly believe you have. Til then, it's conjecture.

I was having a discussion with newfer59 about what is a right and what is not.....and it came down to a right is something that you are born with, for being human....and no other human can "give them" to you.....however, other humans can take them away from you if you and your community allow it to happen.

I have nothing against lawyers and judges. However, the way a lawyer would lay down an argument in a courtroom is NOT the same way a scientist would lay down the findings and conclusions of a study to his or her peers. It is a different type of situation.

And goose, since you are here, I was going to ask: I believe there is a term (I may be wrong, and my memory may be all screwed up) for when attorneys chose to focus their argument on defaming the character of the witness to the point that the jury will not trust the witness's testimony, instead of attempting to refute the testimony itself.

Is there such a term? And, if so, what is it?

To the rest who took the time to engage in this debate with me since my last post: I will reply tomorrow; as tonight I am too busy to give your posts the attention they deserve. Thank you, however, for putting out some very cool viewpoints from different sides of this topic.

Buttzilla · Post by **Buttzilla** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:16 pm

Mean Chuck said more clearly what I had been trying to express.

Miss Anthropik · Post by **Miss Anthropik** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:02 pm

piccini9 · Post by **piccini9** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:44 pm

Miss Anthropik wrote:<object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... 0Skanks%3F" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... wave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSKANKS_article.jpg&videoid=93083&title=In%20The%20Know%3A%20Are%20Reality%20Shows%20Setting%20Unrealistic%20Standards%20For%20Skanks%3F"></embed></object>
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... oembed">In The Know: Are Reality Shows Setting Unrealistic Standards For Skanks?</a>

Can we start quoting each other in an endless loop now? Like the Lebowski thread?

eight?

roadmissile · Post by **roadmissile** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:41 am

Caliann wrote:It is highly unlikely that the driver INTENDED to commit vehicular manslaughter, but that is exactly what he or she did.

Not to be a facetious bastard(well, ok, maybe a little) but isn't the definition of manslaughter a lack of intent, as opposed to murder?

Blackjoe wrote:One would think someone would have figured that out by now. You can't just will page 7 into existence, you need more offensive posts, bitches!

Maths are hard! Personally I'll be disappointed if this thread dies before Ragnarok...

/RM

Sisyphus · Post by **Sisyphus** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:59 am

Groove · Post by **Groove** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:01 am

Bumpi'n for rainbows & unicorns.

MoraleHazard · Post by **MoraleHazard** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:11 am

Page 8; might as well.

BTW,

ROCK FOR DOGCATCHER

Jonny · Post by **Jonny** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:05 am

piccini9 wrote:
Miss Anthropik wrote:<object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... 0Skanks%3F" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... wave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSKANKS_article.jpg&videoid=93083&title=In%20The%20Know%3A%20Are%20Reality%20Shows%20Setting%20Unrealistic%20Standards%20For%20Skanks%3F"></embed></object>
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... oembed">In The Know: Are Reality Shows Setting Unrealistic Standards For Skanks?</a>
Can we start quoting each other in an endless loop now? Like the Lebowski thread?

eight?

No, I don't think that would be appropriate.

Groove · Post by **Groove** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:35 am

Ding ding ding! Page 8!

*Braces for technicolor onslaught*

Toonce(s) · Post by **Toonce(s)** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:44 am

Jonny wrote:
piccini9 wrote:
Miss Anthropik wrote:<object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... 0Skanks%3F" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... wave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSKANKS_article.jpg&videoid=93083&title=In%20The%20Know%3A%20Are%20Reality%20Shows%20Setting%20Unrealistic%20Standards%20For%20Skanks%3F"></embed></object>
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... oembed">In The Know: Are Reality Shows Setting Unrealistic Standards For Skanks?</a>
Can we start quoting each other in an endless loop now? Like the Lebowski thread?

eight?

No, I don't think that would be appropriate.

Terribly inappropriate. I mean, just because somebody blurts out 'page 9' at some point doesn't mean we need to start posting like lemmings, as if page 9 were some kind of destination which pulls us helplessly towards it. Lemmings are notorious for posting flotsam, are they not? Oh snap, I hope I have not offended lemmings with that statement. Anyone that knows me will say that I am totally unbiased towards lemmings, in fact all classes of leaping rodentia. I can relate to them. We share a certain existential angst.

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:03 am

RexAddict wrote: I mean, just because somebody blurts out 'page 9' at some point doesn't mean we need to start posting like lemmings, as if page 9 were some kind of destination which pulls us helplessly towards it.

But such a statement certainly speaks of the human condition, and many of statements and viewpoints made in this thread.

Toonce(s) · Post by **Toonce(s)** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:05 am

Caliann wrote:
RexAddict wrote: I mean, just because somebody blurts out 'page 9' at some point doesn't mean we need to start posting like lemmings, as if page 9 were some kind of destination which pulls us helplessly towards it.
But such a statement certainly speaks of the human condition, and many of statements and viewpoints made in this thread.

Well I sure hope nobody blurts out 'PAGE 47'.

ooops.

Disastermined · Post by **Disastermined** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:12 am

RexAddict wrote:
Caliann wrote:
RexAddict wrote: I mean, just because somebody blurts out 'page 9' at some point doesn't mean we need to start posting like lemmings, as if page 9 were some kind of destination which pulls us helplessly towards it.
But such a statement certainly speaks of the human condition, and many of statements and viewpoints made in this thread.
Well I sure hope nobody blurts out 'PAGE 47'.

ooops.

now we have to

Toonce(s) · Post by **Toonce(s)** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am

BackDoorBarbie wrote:
RexAddict wrote:
Jonny wrote:
piccini9 wrote:
Miss Anthropik wrote:<object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... 0Skanks%3F" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... wave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSKANKS_article.jpg&videoid=93083&title=In%20The%20Know%3A%20Are%20Reality%20Shows%20Setting%20Unrealistic%20Standards%20For%20Skanks%3F"></embed></object>
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... oembed">In The Know: Are Reality Shows Setting Unrealistic Standards For Skanks?</a>
Can we start quoting each other in an endless loop now? Like the Lebowski thread?

eight?

No, I don't think that would be appropriate.
Terribly inappropriate. I mean, just because somebody blurts out 'page 9' at some point doesn't mean we need to start posting like lemmings, as if page 9 were some kind of destination which pulls us helplessly towards it. Lemmings are notorious for posting flotsam, are they not? Oh snap, I hope I have not offended lemmings with that statement. Anyone that knows me will say that I am totally unbiased towards lemmings, in fact all classes of leaping rodentia. I can relate to them. We share a certain existential angst.
im offended that at your insinuation that lemmings are unable to relate to anyone but you...

actually, i just wanted to get another still shot of tilla tortilla's perfectly rounded spill over once more.

Did I imply some exclusivity with my relationship with lemmings, or their relationship to me? I apologize.

Hail boobies!

Disastermined · Post by **Disastermined** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:39 am

RexAddict wrote:
BackDoorBarbie wrote:
RexAddict wrote:
Jonny wrote:
piccini9 wrote:
Miss Anthropik wrote:<object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... 0Skanks%3F" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/ ... wave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSKANKS_article.jpg&videoid=93083&title=In%20The%20Know%3A%20Are%20Reality%20Shows%20Setting%20Unrealistic%20Standards%20For%20Skanks%3F"></embed></object>
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/i ... oembed">In The Know: Are Reality Shows Setting Unrealistic Standards For Skanks?</a>
Can we start quoting each other in an endless loop now? Like the Lebowski thread?

eight?

No, I don't think that would be appropriate.
Terribly inappropriate. I mean, just because somebody blurts out 'page 9' at some point doesn't mean we need to start posting like lemmings, as if page 9 were some kind of destination which pulls us helplessly towards it. Lemmings are notorious for posting flotsam, are they not? Oh snap, I hope I have not offended lemmings with that statement. Anyone that knows me will say that I am totally unbiased towards lemmings, in fact all classes of leaping rodentia. I can relate to them. We share a certain existential angst.
im offended that at your insinuation that lemmings are unable to relate to anyone but you...

actually, i just wanted to get another still shot of tilla tortilla's perfectly rounded spill over once more.
Did I imply some exclusivity with my relationship with lemmings, or their relationship to me? I apologize.

Hail boobies!

Your love affair with lemmings offends me, apology only accepted because your post came with boobs

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:50 am

Okay...I have some time where I don't have anything better to do.

On the viewpoint that some people who are subject to prejudiced environments reject prejudice due to having experienced the environment:

Sure. In fact, the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to do that. It is the same kind of environment I was brought up in, and that Merlyn was brought up in...and we both rejected it.

However, as BDB has mentioned, quite appropriately, this board is not exactly an unbiased or average pool. People who are not above average intelligence do not survive here very long.

How many threads and posts translate directly to "Why won't the fucking sheeple actually start thinking for themselves for a change?!? Like maybe some time this millennium?!?

The studies I cite are observing and testing the AVERAGE...some folks with high intelligence, some folks with low intelligence and a lot of folks right in the middle. I can cite other studies that I have read that have findings that show the higher your intelligence is, the less likely you are to be prejudice. However, those are for another thread entirely.

It's cool that the folks here, that I have observed for years and have noticed from their posts that they are fucking *smart*, do not get so influenced by societal viewpoints as their less intelligent counterparts. It is also cool that intelligent folks tend to surround themselves with other intelligent folks, who are also unlikely to be as influenced by societal viewpoints as their less intelligent counterparts.

Which is why personal experience from the people on this board cannot be even remotely tied to the AVERAGE experience and thought processes of the AVERAGE person in society.

I have cited some of my personal experiences from living and working in the Deep South *cough, cough* years ago. I have cited some of my personal experiences from being in the Deep South more recently. I have NOT cited many of my recent experiences with, say, some of the highly intelligent and educated East African and Hindi people I work with...which, trust me, is an EXTREME difference from my experiences in La Marque, Texas.

I am more willing to believe that the blue collar workers and laborers of a given area are a more accurate representation of the average beliefs and likelihood of personal changes in belief due to outside influences in that area than you guys telling me of your multi-cultural households. ( Generally, if someone is here from another country, it is because they are already educated, have a high intelligence, and are looking for career opportunities. Migrant workers aside, I have not met anyone from Dubai or Antalya who is here because they wish to be a wait person.)

So, would anyone be kind enough to point to a study, even if it was done by freshmen psych students for credit at Delta State U, actually, point out ANY STUDY, no matter WHERE it is from, that had findings and conclusions that prejudice jokes do NOT influence people toward more prejudiced beliefs? Please? Anyone?

Because I am happy to continue this debate, but I am not going to do it on personal experience. I took the effort to look up, read and cite the studies. If you wish to disagree, then please take the effort to do the same.

The Joke is sexist.
Prejudiced jokes spread prejudice.

And will people *please* stop reading "Anyone who thinks the joke is funny is a sexist asshat" and "Someone who passes that joke on is a prejudiced bitch" into those two statements? Quit taking shit so damn personally; study conclusions are NOT a personal judgment upon YOU.

Login

The difference between Men and Women...