The difference between Men and Women...

Mean Chuck · Post by **Mean Chuck** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:17 am

That joke is sexist IN YOUR OPINION!!!
If that were a fact you would have proven it eight pages ago! Just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact.

Thank you for stereotyping bluecollar workers and laborers and people in the deep south, you do as much to promote negative stereotypes as anyone you just try to sugarcoat it so you don't sound like a hypocrite.

Metalredneck · Post by **Metalredneck** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:43 am

Your request to take shit less personally has offended me. Page 47 would make it better.
<a href="" title="IMG_0251 by redneckfri13, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3137/284 ... cf5e_b.jpg" width="1024" height="768" alt="IMG_0251" /></a>
Don't make me sic Rusty on ya.

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:48 am

Good old Websters.

prej⋅u⋅dice
/ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ noun, verb, -diced, -dic⋅ing.

–noun

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile or negative nature, regarding a racial, religious, sexual or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

sex⋅ism
/ˈsɛksɪzəm/

–noun
1. attitudes based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles or behaviors.
2. attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles or behaviors based on gender.

sex⋅ist
/ˈsɛksɪst/
–adjective
1. pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism: a sexist remark; sexist advertising; a sexist joke.

NOT my opinion, MeanChuck. Simply the definition. The joke meets the conditions required to be defined as sexist.

Caliann wrote: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.

MeanChuck wrote:Thank you for stereotyping bluecollar workers and laborers and people in the deep south, you do as much to promote negative stereotypes as anyone you just try to sugarcoat it so you don't sound like a hypocrite.

Thank you for not realizing that I was speaking about the fact that there are far more blue collar workers and laborers in the Deep South then there are multi-cultural households.....and thereby a control group of 2000 blue collar workers and laborers will be a more accurate representation of the average in both culture, attitude and responses considered normal to that area than a control group comprised of the multi-cultural households that the people on this board have known or lived within.

In actuality, a control group of 2000 blue collar workers and laborers would be a more accurate representation of the average attitudes of ANY area than a control group of the multi-cultural households enjoyed by people on this board.

There are far more blue collar workers and laborers in the U.S. than there are professors and doctors. Therefore, since that group is the largest, that group will also have more effect on overall societal viewpoints.

I am currently working in the blue collar sector.

Are you going back to personal attacks?

Toonce(s) · Post by **Toonce(s)** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:54 am

Metalredneck wrote: <a href="" title="IMG_0251 by redneckfri13, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3137/284 ... cf5e_b.jpg" width="224" height="1968" alt="IMG_0251" /></a>
Don't make me sic Rusty on ya.

Is Rusty's aspect ratio having difficulties? That can be quite painful...

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 am

Metalredneck wrote:Your request to take shit less personally has offended me. Page 47 would make it better.

Don't make me sic Rusty on ya.

I fear no cat....I am armed with a can of tuna. Waaaaaaaaa-CHHHEEE! Kitty Cat Akido! Deflected!

However, since I do wish to stay in your good graces, and still have plans to educate your lovely lady on the joys of facial fur, I will do my best to make it better.

Metalredneck · Post by **Metalredneck** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 am

Sorry, folx, I couldn't help it...
<a href="" title="chick by redneckfri13, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2652/381 ... be1a_o.jpg" width="500" height="425" alt="chick" /></a>
<ducks & covers>

MoraleHazard · Post by **MoraleHazard** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:29 am

ROCK FOR CITY COUNCILWOMAN!!!!!

xtian · Post by **xtian** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:37 am

Disastermined wrote:
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

you mean lemming like the 80's amiga game where they're head explode ?
my head explodes.
oh no ! *blamoh*

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

Caliann wrote:Good old Websters.

prej⋅u⋅dice
/ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ noun, verb, -diced, -dic⋅ing.

–noun

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile or negative nature, regarding a racial, religious, sexual or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending

Caliann wrote: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.

MeanChuck wrote:Thank you for stereotyping bluecollar workers and laborers and people in the deep south, you do as much to promote negative stereotypes as anyone you just try to sugarcoat it so you don't sound like a hypocrite.

Thank you for not realizing that I was speaking about the fact that there are far more blue collar workers and laborers in the Deep South then there are multi-cultural households.....and thereby a control group of 2000 blue collar workers and laborers will be a more accurate representation of the average in both culture, attitude and responses considered normal to that area than a control group comprised of the multi-cultural households that the people on this board have known or lived within.

In actuality, a control group of 2000 blue collar workers and laborers would be a more accurate representation of the average attitudes of ANY area than a control group of the multi-cultural households enjoyed by people on this board.

There are far more blue collar workers and laborers in the U.S. than there are professors and doctors. Therefore, since that group is the largest, that group will also have more effect on overall societal viewpoints.

I am currently working in the blue collar sector.

In the interest of academia there are a couple of flaws in your logic.

The one mean chuck is talking about (I believe this was his point, as I don't know him I cannot say for sure) is that you are assuming something about blue collar workers. You are assuming to know blue collar workers, and, judging by your statements about their numbers vs the numbers of doctors, etc. their average intelligence relative to the rest of the population.

You don't cite any studies to back this up, and are therefore relying on "common knowledge" which is useless in debate, AND stereotypes the group. You may reply that you work in the blue collar sector, and therefore have personal experience.

That's not good logic. Unless you are trying to set yourself up as a source as good as a university, which leads to another problem. If you use yourself as a source, you must then somehow ensure you are not promoting confirmation bias (which is nigh impossible without a double blind study, and as you know your internal thoughts, kind of impossible).

Confirmation bias is where you see what you want to see, it is not a conscious decision.

It's like little 8 year old brats. They see the world as unfair, and that they have to do everything and everyone asks too much of them. It's not a conscious decision, they just don't remember all the times someone has done something for them because it doesn't fit with what they've told themselves.

The same thing could be said about how you view blue collar workers. You are assuming an average without having done research or having research. Therefor confirmation bias exists, your viewpoints are influencing what you are presenting as fact.

And all in all, since we're talking about prejudice and sexism. Which are confirmation bias taken to the extreme. You can't use an argument with the potential hole of confirmation bias without going back on your own position

Bad logic, not a bad person

Disastermined · Post by **Disastermined** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:10 pm

short version of what I said.

"Using "I" in the defense of something in a debate is useless.

Assuming you can know anything without citing a source makes your point useless and defeat able."

Therefore: winning on the internet is nigh impossible, and rather ridiculous to attempt. It's like trying to stop 4chan

Toonce(s) · Post by **Toonce(s)** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:15 pm

xtian wrote:
Disastermined wrote:
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
you mean lemming like the 80's amiga game where they're head explode ?
my head explodes.
oh no ! *blamoh*

No, just regular lemmings.

Disastermined · Post by **Disastermined** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:25 pm

RexAddict wrote:
xtian wrote:
Disastermined wrote:
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
you mean lemming like the 80's amiga game where they're head explode ?
my head explodes.
oh no ! *blamoh*
No, just regular lemmings.

you're prejudiced against irregular lemmings!!!

Disastermined · Post by **Disastermined** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:46 pm

BackDoorBarbie wrote:
Disastermined wrote:
RexAddict wrote:
xtian wrote:
Disastermined wrote:
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
you mean lemming like the 80's amiga game where they're head explode ?
my head explodes.
oh no ! *blamoh*
No, just regular lemmings.
you're prejudiced against irregular lemmings!!!
that's right frame the boobs... i wonder how cool this is going to look on page 47?

infinitly cool, of course

Rock · Post by **Rock** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:04 pm

I WILL POOP ON ALL OF YOU!!!!

come on you slackers page 138

Disastermined · Post by **Disastermined** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:09 pm

Rock wrote:I WILL POOP ON ALL OF YOU!!!!

come on you slackers page 138

goddamn, I'll just have to invent a self quoting spambot to get us there faster... I'll also have to attach it to a delorian

Mean Chuck · Post by **Mean Chuck** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:32 pm

Sorry but the joke is not sexist, I do not see it that way by the definitions that you provided. It just points out differences in behavior without being derogatory, besides if it doesn't show one sex to be better than the other how can it be sexist to both equally?

Am I going back to personal attacks?? When did I personally attack you? Can you quote a study that never took place to back that up too?

It is just opinion, not fact.
You have facts to support your opinion, not to prove your opinion as a fact.

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:05 pm

Disastermined wrote:
In the interest of academia there are a couple of flaws in your logic.

The one mean chuck is talking about (I believe this was his point, as I don't know him I cannot say for sure) is that you are assuming something about blue collar workers. You are assuming to know blue collar workers, and, judging by your statements about their numbers vs the numbers of doctors, etc. their average intelligence relative to the rest of the population.

You don't cite any studies to back this up, and are therefore relying on "common knowledge" which is useless in debate, AND stereotypes the group. You may reply that you work in the blue collar sector, and therefore have personal experience.

*sighs* According to the Journal Of Business, April 1963, the Blue Collar Workforce at that time made up 56% of the workforce population. As of 1988, workforce studies have divided the lines differently, with three parties. (Hey, ya'll have been wanting a viable thrid party, right?) The White Collar workers (According to U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL), as of 2006, is at 26% of the workforce), the Blue Collar workers (same source, at 43% of the workforce) and Knowledge workers (same source, at 31% of the workforce).

Some studies combine Blue Collar Workers and Knowledge Workers as one force. Some combine White Collar Workers and Knowledge Workers as one force. These are older studies, and currently, it is considered that our current workforce is made up of three areas.

I am not relying on common knowledge. The numbers are there, in a number of different places and different forms. The Army has the numbers, the Union has the number...actually, what would be technically termed a "buttload" of government agencies have the same numbers, accessible by anyone who wishes to refute someone with facts.

What I never once "assumed" was the individual intelligence of ANYONE. Go look at the files for MENSA members. You will find truck drivers, teachers, astro-physicists and 5 year olds. So? However, due to the fact that the Blue Collar workforce *generally* requires some education past public school, vocational, apprenticeship, trade, whatever, .... that particular chunk of workforce makes a good median cut for purposes of of finding an AVERAGE.

BTW, it has nothing to do with the fact I work in the Blue Collar section. Most of my co-workers are Knowledge workers.

Disastermined wrote: That's not good logic. Unless you are trying to set yourself up as a source as good as a university, which leads to another problem. If you use yourself as a source, you must then somehow ensure you are not promoting confirmation bias (which is nigh impossible without a double blind study, and as you know your internal thoughts, kind of impossible).

Confirmation bias is where you see what you want to see, it is not a conscious decision.

Did not do so. And I do not set myself up as a source for anything. If anyone is so very interested in this topic, they can look up the numbers themselves.

However, I would like to make an observation that is ONLY MY OPINION. No studies, no facts, no nothing to cite:

It is easy, if one is in a debate, to take the lazy way out. Disagree with the other party, and tell them to provide a bibliography of where they have gotten every last detail. Eventually, the person will get sick of having to dig up everything to the satisfaction of the person who has disagreed and go away. The person who has disagreed has now, in a lovely passive-aggressive way, "won" the debate through no effort of his or her own.

It is not acceptable in political debates, it is not acceptable in diplomatic debates, it is not acceptable in academic debates....and I don't accept it either.

If you wish to continue the debate, *I* am not taking all of the workload. It is, after all, an equal debate...with one side proclaiming that something is true and one side claiming something is false. Therefore, since the numbers are out there and readily available, the studies are out there and readily available, tons of experimentation and observation have been done already, and no one is going to be publishing a paper for peer review based upon this thread.....if you disagree with my numbers, conclusions, statement, etc, since I have so kindly provided numerous sources to the reasons and studies that have molded my thoughts on this matter....CITE YOUR OWN DAMN NUMBERS AND SOURCES THAT DISAGREE.

That means I am not doing your work for you. Get your lazy fingers to typing if you wish to convince me that your position is more correct. I am not a fucking teacher, and therefore you get to defend YOUR position as I defend MY position. This is debate, not experimentation; and the rules are different from DEBATING a subject between laypersons and attempting to PROVE a theory in a laboratory.

BTW, that last line is to still all you folks who cannot seem to tell the difference between debate and science...or even debate or the science of law. The burden of proof is NOT upon only one person in a debate. Do your own fucking research.

Sorry, Disastermined, all of that is pretty much rant, and not directed specifically at you. I am simply sick of lazy debaters who don't want to up and do any research on their position and instead just want to toss insults and accusations. It gets frustrating.....and thereby doing EXACTLY what the lazy ones wish to accomplish...which is making me sick of it all.

Disastermined wrote:It's like little 8 year old brats. They see the world as unfair, and that they have to do everything and everyone asks too much of them. It's not a conscious decision, they just don't remember all the times someone has done something for them because it doesn't fit with what they've told themselves.

The same thing could be said about how you view blue collar workers. You are assuming an average without having done research or having research. Therefor confirmation bias exists, your viewpoints are influencing what you are presenting as fact.

Jeebus Christos on a Crutch! Disastermined, I have to say that you are a breath of fresh air. Still accusatory, still making personal assumptions, but at least you are doing so in a polite and dignified fashion. You are such a smooth talker that I am almost willing to concede the point to you and admit bias and hypocrisy.

And I would, if it were true. Will you please quote where I said, in any way, that Blue Collar workers are of lower intelligence than, say, doctors? Where did I state that White Collar workers, Blue Collar Workers, Knowledge Workers, Laborers, Migrant Workers, Agricultural Workers, or any other group was more or less intelligent than any other group?

Or did MeanChuck decide that I said that without any REAL proof, and then run with it? After all, if you say something often enough, everyone believes it, right?

I remember stating that Blue Collar Workers are a good control group for getting averages for the purpose of studying society as a whole. I think I also mentioned that a control group would have some folks of high intelligence, some folks of low intelligence and a lot of folks in the middle. However, I do not remember comparing Blue collar workers with any SPECIFIC group...other than maybe some of the multi-cultural households people on this board have enjoyed....which would be a terrible control group for any study on the mean beliefs of U.S. society.

So would you so kindly point out where I said that Blue collar workers were more stupid than the rest of society?

I did imply that the people who frequent this board are MORE intelligent than the rest of society, however, I admit, that IS my own, personal opinion.

I also believe that I said that many immigrants, from my experience (which means no citations, because it is opinion), tended to be more intelligent than the norm. Of course, my experience is with Network Engineers and other such coming in from different parts of the Middle East. At any rate, immigrants are not a good source for such studies anyway, as they were not brought up in this culture.

Disastermined wrote:And all in all, since we're talking about prejudice and sexism. Which are confirmation bias taken to the extreme. You can't use an argument with the potential hole of confirmation bias without going back on your own position

Bad logic, not a bad person

Please show me where I actually used confirmation bias and not numbers and studies? *smiles* That, I believe is also an assumption. Of course, there are places where I used numbers and studies but did not directly cite them....but that is because I did not want the posts to turn into nothing but a list of different books, studies, articles, etc. If you have a question on the source, and you ask, I will cite that particular one.

So, in the spirit of the rest of this thread, would you please prove that I was using confirmation bias? Cite your sources. Define it with a dictionary, and then I will tell you that is just your *opinion*. *grinz*

Bad reading, hon, not bad person.

ninemileskid · Post by **ninemileskid** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:09 pm

Caliann wrote: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.)

HOLY SHIT!!!! You've got to be kidding!

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:11 pm

Disastermined wrote:
Therefore: winning on the internet is nigh impossible, and rather ridiculous to attempt. It's like trying to stop 4chan

*grinz* Don't want to win. Actually, with several of the folks in this thread, they would not concede a point if there was a firing squad in front of them, they were weaponless, bound and unable to move, and they had three seconds to say the words "I concede the point" or else they will be turned into a colander.....and they knew they were wrong.

Therefore, I know it is a moot point.

But I would like to see JUST ONE PERSON go read and cite a study for themselves on this topic. JUST ONE.

ANY STUDY.

Because that's one of the things that makes me want to strangle people I otherwise care about on this board....the fact that for all they are "Bikers who think", they won't go and do their own damn research...they expect someone else to do all that for them.

Okay, REALLY...rant off...sorry...

*mutters* Lazy fucking asshats.

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:13 pm

ninemileskid wrote:
Caliann wrote: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.)
HOLY SHIT!!!! You've got to be kidding!

Did you forget to look at the part "Migrant workers aside"??

Wanna take something else out of context?

Page 9 folks. Rex, I'm getting there!

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:22 pm

Mean Chuck wrote:
Am I going back to personal attacks?? When did I personally attack you?

MeanChuck wrote: you do as much to promote negative stereotypes as anyone you just try to sugarcoat it so you don't sound like a hypocrite.

Last I checked, saying that someone does the very things they have already said they dislike is not polite. Telling someone that they are a hypocrite and are simply trying to hide it is not exactly a compliment either.

MeanChuck wrote: Can you quote a study that never took place to back that up too?

Here, you are calling me a liar. Yet I have provided authors, departments, and/or names of every study I have quoted, so that others may check the sources themselves. I guess that is not an insult either?

Perhaps it is only my OPINION that it is an insult?

*smiles*

ninemileskid · Post by **ninemileskid** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:23 pm

Caliann wrote:
ninemileskid wrote:
Caliann wrote: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.)
HOLY SHIT!!!! You've got to be kidding!
Did you forget to look at the part "Migrant workers aside"??

Wanna take something else out of context?

Page 9 folks. Rex, I'm getting there!

Not to many pickers in Newark NJ, New Yawk, Boston or Philly, but LOTS of languages being spoken besides English. Something tells me these folks did not come here to practice medicine or split atoms.

goose · Post by **goose** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:40 pm

prej⋅u⋅dice
/ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ noun, verb, -diced, -dic⋅ing.

–noun

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile or negative nature, regarding a racial, religious, sexual or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

sex⋅ism
/ˈsɛksɪzəm/

–noun
1. attitudes based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles or behaviors.
2. attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles or behaviors based on gender.

sex⋅ist
/ˈsɛksɪst/
–adjective
1. pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism: a sexist remark; sexist advertising; a sexist joke.

Reasonable minds may differ on such subjective terms as whether the joke promotes a stereotype, fosters sexism, creates an attitude, is hostile, or unreasonable. Because one could easily transpose the male v. female subjects with rider v. nonrider resulting in an equal juxtaposition, many persons, myself included do not find the sexism element to this "joke". Poor taste, perhaps, but not sexist.

Consequently, the flaw in the logic is the premise. None of the studies cited have any bearing on the original issue which is whether the joke is sexist or offensive. I have yet to see any quantifiable analysis that the joke is sexist. This is where society defines the norm and not science.

It has been treated as axiomatic because of the actors involved. Descartes had the same problem proving God. Proper logic would be to set forth the premise "The joke is sexist" and thereafter proceed to challenge it by all means available. Here, that challenge has not been vetted, rather, it is assumed. Thereafter the issue becomes one of studies involving sexism without meeting the first test. The subjective nature of what defines the joke as sexist is not quantifiable and therefore is a function of the society in which it is expressed.

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:55 pm

goose, that was pure poetry. Bravo!

Miss Anthropik · Post by **Miss Anthropik** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:21 pm

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES TO SEXIST HUMOR

Research has shown great variability in what people find funny (Hassett & Houlihan, 1979). One factor seems to be whether joke recipients either identify with or distance themselves from the "butt" of the joke (Zi8llman. 1983; Zillman & Cantor, 1976).

The Link of Perceived Sexist Events With
Psychological Distress
Prior research supports a positive relation between perceived
sexist events and women’s psychological distress. For example,
with a sample of college student and community women, Landrine
et al. (1995) found that the frequency of perceived sexist events
was related to a range of symptoms (e.g., premenstrual, depressive,
obsessive– compulsive, and somatic symptoms as well as overall
distress) above and beyond daily hassles and stressful life events.
Applying the conceptual and empirical literature described here
to the perceived sexism– distress relation suggests a model in
which perceived social support is related to psychological distress
directly and indirectly through positive self-appraisal, and this
pattern is simultaneous to a parallel positive, direct relation between
perceived sexist events and psychological distress.
Cassidy et al., 2004; Fischer & Shaw,
1999; Lee, 2003, 2005; Moradi & Hasan, 2004; Utsey et al., 2000).
Taken together, these findings suggest that perceived discrimination
experiences may be linked differently to distress and wellbeing
aspects of mental health for different groups. Thus, wellbeing
and distress aspects of mental health should be
conceptualized and assessed separately in research on the relation
of perceived discrimination events to mental health.
In the context of clinical work aimed to reduce women’s psychological
distress, our findings suggest that attending to women’s
perceived experiences of sexism might need to occur in conjunction
with providing and fostering social support that promotes
women’s sense of empowerment (e.g., self-nurturance, personal
strengths, increased sense of power and competence, and social
activism). Such an approach is also consistent with feminist therapy
perspectives (e.g., Brown, 1994; Worell & Johnson, 2001;
Worell & Remer, 2003).
The findings of the present study must be interpreted in light of
a number of limitations. First, a limitation of our study that applies
to the present state of the art in discrimination–mental health
research as well is that correlational designs do not test the direction
of causality among variables. For example, perceived sexist
events might result in greater psychological distress, psychological
distress might result in more frequent perception of sexist events,
or there could be a circular relationship between perceived sexist
events and psychological distress.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
American Psychological Association. (1999). Archival description of
counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 589–592.
Aneshensel, C. S., & Stone, J. D. (1982). Stress and depression: A test of
the buffering model of social support. Archives of General Psychiatry,
39, 1392–1396.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). Amos (Version 4.01) [Computer software]. Chicago,
IL: SmallWaters.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Barret, L. F., & Swim, J. K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrim-
SEXIST EVENTS, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND MENTAL HEALTH 471
ination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s
perspective (pp. 11–35). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental
Health Council. (1996). Basic behavioral science research for mental
health: Sociocultural and environmental processes. American Psychologist,
51, 722–731.
Branscombe, N. R., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based
discrimination: Individualistic versus group-level strategies. In J. K.
Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp.
243–265). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Brown, L. S. (1994). Subversive dialogues: Theory in feminist therapy.
New York: Basic Books.
Burton, E., Stice, E., & Seeley, J. R. (2004). A prospective test of the
stress-buffering model of depression in adolescent girls: No support
once again. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 689–
697.
Cassidy, C., O’Conner, R. C., Howe, C., & Warden, D. (2004). Perceived
discrimination and psychological distress: The role of personal and
ethnic self-esteem. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 329–339.
Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism
as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American
Psychologist, 54, 805–816.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Cronkite, R. C., & Moos, R. H. (1984). The role of predisposing and
moderating factors in the stress–illness relationship. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 25, 372–393.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of social relationship
and adaptation to stress. Advances in Personal Relationships, 1,
37–67.
Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant temperament,
and parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum
depression. Child Development, 57, 1507–1518.
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, scoring,
and procedures manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Dohrenwend, B. S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1974). Overview and prospects
for research on stressful life events. In B. S. Dohrenwend, & B. P.
Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects (pp.
313–331). New York: Wiley.
Enns, C. Z. (1993). Twenty years of feminist counseling and therapy: From
naming biases to implementing multifaceted practice. The Counseling
Psychologist, 21, 3–87.
Fischer, A. R., & Shaw, C. M. (1999). African American’s mental health
and perceptions of racist discrimination: The moderating effects of racial
socialization experiences and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
46, 395–407.
Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., Mergl, M. M., Good, G. E., Hill, M. S., &
Blum, S. A. (2000). Assessing women’s feminist identity development:
Studies of convergent, discriminant, and structural validity. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 24, 15–29.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Nutt, R. (1986). The Division 17 principles concerning
the counseling and psychotherapy of women: Rationale and implementation.
The Counseling Psychologist, 14, 180–216.
Ford, G. G., & Procidano, M. E. (1990). The relationship of selfactualization
to social support, life stress, and adjustment. Social Behavior
and Personality, 18, 41–51.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and
mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 51, 115–134.
Goodwin, R., Costa, P., & Adonu, J. (2004). Social support and its
consequences: “Positive” and “deficiency” values and their implications
for support and self-esteem. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43,
465–474.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (2004). Social relationships
and health. In W. D. Murelick & J. S. Erger (Eds.), The social psychology
of health: Essays and readings (pp. 237–246). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Jackson, T., Weiss, K. E., Lunquist, J. J., & Soderlind, A. (2005). Sociotropy
and perceptions of interpersonal relationships as predictors of
eating disturbances among college women: Two prospective studies. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 346–359.
Johnson, D. M., Worell, J., & Chandler, R. K. (2005). Assessing psychological
health and empowerment in women: The Personal Progress Scale
Revised. Women and Health, 41, 109–129.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981).
Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and
uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4,
1–39.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling:
A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kendler, K. S., Myers, J., & Prescott, C. A. (2005). Sex differences in the
relationship between social support and risk for major depression: A
longitudinal study of opposite-sex twin pairs. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 162, 250–256.
Klem, L. (1995). Path analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.),
Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 65–97). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). The schedule of sexist events: A
measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in women’s lives.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 439–472.
Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Campbell, R. (2000). Sexist discrimination
may account for well-known gender differences in psychiatric symptoms.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 93–99.
Koeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1991). Underestimation of social support
buffering. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 475–489.
Krause, N. (1987). Life stress, social support, and self-esteem in an elderly
population. Psychology and Aging, 2, 349–356.
Lakey, B., & Cassady, P. B. (1990). Cognitive processes in perceived
social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 337–
343.
Lakey, B., & Cohen, S. (2000). Social support theory and measurement. In
S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social support
measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists
(pp. 29–52). New York: Oxford University Press.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The Schedule of Racist Events: A
measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and
mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144–168.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1997). Discrimination against women:
Prevalence, consequences, remedies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Gibbs, J., Manning, V., & Lund, M. (1995).
Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination: An application
of the Schedule of Sexist Events. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
19, 473–492.
Lee, R. M. (2003). Do ethnic identity and other-group orientation protect
against discrimination for Asian Americans? Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 50, 133–141.
Lee, R. M. (2005). Resilience against discrimination: Ethnic identity and
other-group orientation as protective factors for Korean Americans.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 36–44.
Lincoln, K. D., Chatters, L. M., & Taylor, R. J. (2005). Social support,
472 MORADI AND FUNDERBURK
traumatic events, and depressive symptoms among African Americans.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 754–766.
Matteson, A. V., & Moradi, B. (2005). Examining the structure of the
schedule of sexist events: A replication and extension. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 29, 47–57.
Moradi, B., Dirks, D., & Matteson, A. (2005). Roles of sexual objectification
experiences and internalization of standards of beauty in eating
disorder symptomatology: A test and extension of objectification theory.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 420–428.
Moradi, B., Fischer, A. R., Hill, M. S., Jome, L. M., & Blum, S. A. (2000).
Does “feminist” plus “therapist” equal “feminist therapist”? An empirical
investigation of the link between self-labeling and behaviors. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 24, 285–296.
Moradi, B., & Hasan, N. T. (2004). Arab American persons’ reported
experiences of discrimination and mental health: The mediating role of
personal control. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 418–428.
Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2002). Perceived sexist events and feminist
identity development attitudes: Links to women’s psychological distress.
The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 45–66.
Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2003). A concomitant examination of the
relations of perceived racist and sexist events to psychological distress
for African American women. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 451–
469.
Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2004). Examining the moderating role of
self-esteem in the link between experiences of perceived sexist events
and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 50–
56.
Norris, F. H., & Kaniasty, K. (1996). Received and perceived social
support in times of stress: A test of the social support deterioration
deterrence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
498–511.
Peirce, R. S., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., Cooper, M. L., & Mudar, P.
(2000). A longitudinal model of social contact, social support, depression,
and alcohol use. Health Psychology, 19, 28–38.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimination:
How disadvantaged group members perceive the discrimination that
confronts them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
826–838.
Russell, D. W., & Cutrona, C. E. (1991). Social support, stress, and
depressive symptoms among the elderly: Test of a process model.
Psychology and Aging, 6, 190–201.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the
meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Saltzman, K. M., & Holahan, C. J. (2002). Social support, self-efficacy,
and depressive symptoms: An integrative model. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 21, 309–322.
Sechrist, G. B., Swim, J. K., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Mood as information
in making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 524–531.
Slavin, L. A., Rainer, K. L., McCreary, M. L., & Gowda, K. K. (1991).
Toward a multicultural model of the stress process. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 70, 156–163.
Smith, E. M. J. (1985). Ethnic minorities: Life stress, social support, and
mental health issues. The Counseling Psychologist, 13, 537–579.
Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Sechrist, G. B., DeCoster, J., Van Allen, K. L.,
& Ottenbreit, A. (2003). Ask, answer, and announce: Three stages in
perceiving and responding to discrimination. European Review of Social
Psychology, 14, 277–311.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swift, A., & Wright, M. O. (2000). Does social support buffer stress for
college women: When and how? Journal of College Student Psychotherapy,
14, 23–42.
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001).
Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological
impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
31–53.
Travis, C. B., Gressley, D. L., & Crumpler, C. A. (1991). Feminist
contributions to health psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15,
557–566.
Ullman, J. B. (1996). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick &
L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed., pp. 709–811).
New York: HarperCollins.
Utsey, S. O., Ponterotto, J. G., Reynolds, A. L., & Cancelli, A. A. (2000).
Racial discrimination, coping, life satisfaction, and self-esteem among
African Americans. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 72–80.
Weber, M. L. (1998). She stands alone: A review of the recent literature on
women and social support. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Prairie Women’s
Health Centre of Excellence.
Windle, M. (1992). A longitudinal study of stress buffering for adolescent
problem behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 28, 522–530.
Worell, J. (2001). Feminist interventions: Accountability beyond symptom
reduction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 335–343.
Worell, J., & Johnson, D. (2001). Therapy with women: Feminist frameworks.
In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and
gender (pp. 317–329). New York: Wiley.
Worell, J., & Remer, P. (2003). Feminist perspectives in therapy: Empowering
diverse women. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Received March 2, 2006
Revision received May 24, 2006
Accepted June 9, 2006

I did some research too, so that gets me out of the "lazy asshat" catagory?

Oh, and I also have a friend who is a university professor who actually specializes in human behavior perception studies. I'm going to have him take a look at this thread and give his analysis.
Thanks for playing.[/color]

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:35 pm

*laughs merrily* Miss Anthropik, you are most definitely out of the "lazy asshat" category. And I would be VERY interested in what your friend thinks of this thread. If you do not post his analysis, would you be kind enough to PM or e-mail it to me?

Also, that is a *neat* study. I am going to read the full version. Thank you for posting that.

Oh, goose, I forgot to mention in my previous post to you:

I concede the point.

Metalredneck · Post by **Metalredneck** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:47 pm

Lazy asshat SPAMBOTS, if you don't mind...

Disastermined · Post by **Disastermined** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:57 pm

Caliann wrote:
And I would, if it were true. Will you please quote where I said, in any way, that Blue Collar workers are of lower intelligence than, say, doctors? Where did I state that White Collar workers, Blue Collar Workers, Knowledge Workers, Laborers, Migrant Workers, Agricultural Workers, or any other group was more or less intelligent than any other group?

Or did MeanChuck decide that I said that without any REAL proof, and then run with it? After all, if you say something often enough, everyone believes it, right?

It's not so much a direct statement as an implication of presentation.

You state that UTMCers are generally smarter than the average citizen.

Caliann wrote: 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.

You then also say the blue collar workers are much more representative of the average.

Caliann wrote: 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

therefore! you are implying that blue collar workers are less inteligent that UTMCers (I believe we all qualify as 'any other group')

Caliann wrote: Did not do so. And I do not set myself up as a source for anything. If anyone is so very interested in this topic, they can look up the numbers themselves.

However, I would like to make an observation that is ONLY MY OPINION. No studies, no facts, no nothing to cite:

It is easy, if one is in a debate, to take the lazy way out. Disagree with the other party, and tell them to provide a bibliography of where they have gotten every last detail. Eventually, the person will get sick of having to dig up everything to the satisfaction of the person who has disagreed and go away. The person who has disagreed has now, in a lovely passive-aggressive way, "won" the debate through no effort of his or her own.

It is not acceptable in political debates, it is not acceptable in diplomatic debates, it is not acceptable in academic debates....and I don't accept it either.

If you wish to continue the debate, *I* am not taking all of the workload. It is, after all, an equal debate...with one side proclaiming that something is true and one side claiming something is false. Therefore, since the numbers are out there and readily available, the studies are out there and readily available, tons of experimentation and observation have been done already, and no one is going to be publishing a paper for peer review based upon this thread.....if you disagree with my numbers, conclusions, statement, etc, since I have so kindly provided numerous sources to the reasons and studies that have molded my thoughts on this matter....CITE YOUR OWN DAMN NUMBERS AND SOURCES THAT DISAGREE.

That means I am not doing your work for you. Get your lazy fingers to typing if you wish to convince me that your position is more correct. I am not a fucking teacher, and therefore you get to defend YOUR position as I defend MY position. This is debate, not experimentation; and the rules are different from DEBATING a subject between laypersons and attempting to PROVE a theory in a laboratory.

BTW, that last line is to still all you folks who cannot seem to tell the difference between debate and science...or even debate or the science of law. The burden of proof is NOT upon only one person in a debate. Do your own fucking research.

Sorry, Disastermined, all of that is pretty much rant, and not directed specifically at you. I am simply sick of lazy debaters who don't want to up and do any research on their position and instead just want to toss insults and accusations. It gets frustrating.....and thereby doing EXACTLY what the lazy ones wish to accomplish...which is making me sick of it all.

I'm not trying to critique the viewpoints, just how they are presented. The logic/forms of debate, etc.

and, if I may, differ on something.

When you say "I do not set myself up as a source for anything". While literally true, there are again, little side implications that make for problems.

for instance.

Early on in this thread, you used your personal experience (I'm not going to search back, but as one example you have said you work construction, specifically cranes) as backing for your reaction to the (currently under debate) sexism in the joke.

you also, just recently said

Caliann wrote: I am currently working in the blue collar sector.

The implication of using personal experience as a defense is that you are a credible source, which you are not, as you have just admitted.

AHA, almost missed a point

Caliann wrote: Please show me where I actually used confirmation bias and not numbers and studies? *smiles* That, I believe is also an assumption. Of course, there are places where I used numbers and studies but did not directly cite them....but that is because I did not want the posts to turn into nothing but a list of different books, studies, articles, etc. If you have a question on the source, and you ask, I will cite that particular one.

So, in the spirit of the rest of this thread, would you please prove that I was using confirmation bias? Cite your sources. Define it with a dictionary, and then I will tell you that is just your *opinion*. *grinz*

Again, this comes into play with implication, as a combination of my other two points. I'm not going to dig farther back, but it is entirely possible that something like this has happened before. But you did what a direct example.

As I stated before. There was the implication that blue collar workers are less intelligent. There was also the statement that you were a blue collar worker.

The fact that you are a blue collar worker, implies you are making said judgment about blue collar workers from observation.

Endnote: I understand that most of these things are implications, which is probably why this debate has raged for so long. If written word were taken for denotation instead of connotation, this thread wouldn't have happened. Yet our society has placed a high value on connotation, this has entered the debate world, and the world of speeches. Be ever wary of connotation. It's the debater in me coming out.

I don't honestly want to take either side in this, I just strive for clarity, which leads me to ask questions, poke at holes I perceive (even if they are purely from connotation), and hope that both sides can understand one another.

Caliann · Post by **Caliann** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:57 pm

SPAMBITS it is, MR.

In answer to multiple accusations from people on this thread that everyone should just lighten up and shut the fuck up about it, might I direct you to yet ANOTHER study:

IWNGOP MPSeEYNrC’cSHe DOiILvSOTeGRdIESS TSS / eJaxnuiasryt 2E002vents and
Feminist Identity Development Attitudes:
Links to Women’s Psychological Distress
Bonnie Moradi
The University of Akron
Linda Mezydlo Subich
The University of Akron

The first stage of Downing and Roush’s (1985) model is characterized by
Passive Acceptance (PA) and denial of individual, institutional, and cultural
discrimination against oneself and women in general. The second stage
involves Revelation (R) concerning sexism, feelings of anger toward a sexist
society, and feelings of guilt about one’s own participation in the systematic
oppression of women. The third stage is marked by Embeddedness in and
Emanation (EE) of women’s cultures and communities. The fourth stage
involves Synthesis (S) of a positive self-concept that includes positive attributes
of being a woman. The fifth and final stage is characterized by Active
Commitment (AC) to working toward societal change. Women progress
through these stages but also can repeat stages at different points in their
lives.

Krieger (1990) found
that compared to women who reported experiencing discrimination, women
who reported experiencing no discrimination in situations such as school,
work, and in the home were more likely to say that if they were treated
unfairly theywould accept their unfair treatment as a fact of life and keep it to
themselves. Further, women who reported experiencing no discrimination
and reported accepting unfair treatment as a fact of life were more likely to
report that they had been diagnosed to have high blood pressure. Collectively,
these studies indicate that recognizing sexist events may protect women’s
psychological and physical health and not recognizing sexist events may
intensify the psychological distress associated with experiencing sexist
events. Thus, if feminist identity development attitudes reflect a recognition
(or lack of recognition) of sexism, they may moderate the relationship
between perceived sexist events and distress.

You can find the rest of the study http://www.psych.ufl.edu/~moradi

I find it interesting that there appears to be a direct correlation between calling out sexism when sexism is perceived, and the mental and physical health of the individual.

Mean Chuck · Post by **Mean Chuck** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:59 pm

Caliann wrote:
Mean Chuck wrote:
Am I going back to personal attacks?? When did I personally attack you?

MeanChuck wrote: you do as much to promote negative stereotypes as anyone you just try to sugarcoat it so you don't sound like a hypocrite.
Last I checked, saying that someone does the very things they have already said they dislike is not polite. Telling someone that they are a hypocrite and are simply trying to hide it is not exactly a compliment either.

MeanChuck wrote: Can you quote a study that never took place to back that up too?
Here, you are calling me a liar. Yet I have provided authors, departments, and/or names of every study I have quoted, so that others may check the sources themselves. I guess that is not an insult either?

Perhaps it is only my OPINION that it is an insult?

*smiles*

I never called you a hypocrite, if I did it would sound something like "you are a hypocrite". You are once again trying to turn your opinion of something (in this case what I said) into a fact. I also never said you were a liar.

(this is what quoting a study that doesn't exist looks like)

That is not to say that such a study does not exist. However, the evidence so far, in great amounts, has findings that prejudiced jokes do, indeed, cause people to shift their feelings and beliefs towards a more prejudiced outlook. I would welcome anyone that will kindly cite a single study, and tell me where they found it, that has conclusions to the contrary.

Is generalizing people by the area in the country that they live and what type of job they have polite?

My issue is not your opinion but you insistence that it is a fact. You are trying to convince people that by being a fact they cannot form their own opinion of the joke because it has already been classified. Sorry but you will not take my freedom of being able to decide that for myself.

Good luck with spreading your fear of words and phrases and your censorship.

Login

The difference between Men and Women...