March for women. A message from Conservatives

[laughing dog]

You are mistaken - more mansplainbabble simply prove the points that Rhea and others are making.

Specifically what?

That
1) women have a multitude of issues,
2) that women are not a monolithic single issue bloc of mindless clueless jackasses, and
3) that telling women what they really think and what they are really protesting is the hallmark of a mindless clueless jackass.

And that is simply the short version.

Now, perhaps you can answer some simple questions without resorting to mansplainbabble.
Why do you feel the persistent need to tell women what they really think?
Why do you feel the persistent need to tell women what they protest?
Why do you feel the persistent need to tell women on what days they should not protest (or which days they should protest)?
Why do you feel the persistent need to tell women who should be a protest and who should not?

 

[Rhea]

I'm quoting the website and asking a question in the second statement. My question is very straight forward so why the resistance to a direct answer to a direct question. This is asked by feminists (2 who I have quoted).

This comment, and those that preceded it, are indicative of a common misconception some conservatives have about liberals. Conservative movements (the alt-right, the Tea Party) tend to be monolithic, either because they are based on simple ideas that appeal to a lot of people without much nuance, or because they are funded by individuals and corporations with an interest in controlling the message. The left is not so easy to pin down. Even though there may have been an 'official' Occupy Wall Street charter at some point, the majority of people who participated probably didn't have any idea what it said. There is no 'leader' of Black Lives Matter, and so literally anyone can make themselves a representative of that movement by adding a hashtag to their tweet. These things are amorphous (which is probably why they will continue to fail). Conservatives often seem to insist that there must be a credo, a set of beliefs that every person involved must adhere to, because that's the only way they themselves know how to organize and protest. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what a website says about the Women's March, it matters what the women think and say. Do you really think that not a single woman who marched has a problem with the way women are treated in some Muslim countries? Are you fooling anyone when you demand that they either protest on behalf of all women everywhere, or don't protest at all? It may come as a surprise to you that not everybody receives their marching orders from a centralized authority, even if years of indoctrination from a predatory cult has conditioned you to think they do.

This is an outstanding post. Whichphilosophy, you should read it carefully.
We are not talking the same language, you don't understand how progressives even think.

It reminds me of a post made years ago on the Internet Infidels that I kept because it was so concise a description of different ways of thinking.

I realized that my fundy at work thinks about arguments differently than I do. To him, arguments help you understand the truth: to me, argument helps you discover the truth.

He already knows the truth: he just wants to explain it. The whole idea of discovering the truth through argument doesn't even make sense to him.

I think this is how a lot of fundies work, which is why we find them so frustrating. Of course we want to ask, how did you discover this truth you are explaining, and they just look at you funny because they have no idea what you mean.

 

[Angry Floof]

I've been pointing that out for years as well. Right wing authoritarian followers, as the term indicates, need something or someone to follow, someone in charge, whoever or whatever serves as the authority. Most religions cater to our insecurities this way. Scientologists, in particular are specifically trained to identify enemies and to look for a leader to try to topple.

You can explain how the phrase "herd of cats" applies to human behavior until you're blue in the face and religious boot lickers will still not get that not everyone is an obedience machine.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Mansplainbabble; That's a good one from Rhea. However asking if a person is aware of or read a document is hardly babble; it's simple English.

You are mistaken - more mansplainbabble simply prove the points that Rhea and others are making.

You can disprove something by refuting it with indefeasible evidence Facts, Incidents, Reasons, Examples, and Statistics

 

[whichphilosophy]

This comment, and those that preceded it, are indicative of a common misconception some conservatives have about liberals. Conservative movements (the alt-right, the Tea Party) tend to be monolithic, either because they are based on simple ideas that appeal to a lot of people without much nuance, or because they are funded by individuals and corporations with an interest in controlling the message. The left is not so easy to pin down. Even though there may have been an 'official' Occupy Wall Street charter at some point, the majority of people who participated probably didn't have any idea what it said. There is no 'leader' of Black Lives Matter, and so literally anyone can make themselves a representative of that movement by adding a hashtag to their tweet. These things are amorphous (which is probably why they will continue to fail). Conservatives often seem to insist that there must be a credo, a set of beliefs that every person involved must adhere to, because that's the only way they themselves know how to organize and protest. But the fact is, it doesn't matter what a website says about the Women's March, it matters what the women think and say. Do you really think that not a single woman who marched has a problem with the way women are treated in some Muslim countries? Are you fooling anyone when you demand that they either protest on behalf of all women everywhere, or don't protest at all? It may come as a surprise to you that not everybody receives their marching orders from a centralized authority, even if years of indoctrination from a predatory cult has conditioned you to think they do.

This is an outstanding post. Whichphilosophy, you should read it carefully.
We are not talking the same language, you don't understand how progressives even think.

It reminds me of a post made years ago on the Internet Infidels that I kept because it was so concise a description of different ways of thinking.

I realized that my fundy at work thinks about arguments differently than I do. To him, arguments help you understand the truth: to me, argument helps you discover the truth.

He already knows the truth: he just wants to explain it. The whole idea of discovering the truth through argument doesn't even make sense to him.

I think this is how a lot of fundies work, which is why we find them so frustrating. Of course we want to ask, how did you discover this truth you are explaining, and they just look at you funny because they have no idea what you mean.

My own observation is there are movements of people to the right and to the left fringes.
Re Pyramid's post we don't have to have exact viewpoints but it would be pure lunacy if people go on a protest march without a coherent reason. Protests are a basic right in free countries.

Are you saying you don't have a clear reason for wanting to march. Of course you don't have to say if you don't want to but I would think that you would as encouragement for others.

- - - Updated - - -

Per the website it is a Women's March Global so it follows that this would be a Global March.
The point is what are the Muslim women doing about Global issues relating to human rights in their own countries. Or didn't their parents or some of them actually flee oppression?

Do you get paid every time you repeat this falsehood?

No I get very well paid for my job in dispute resolution. (No I'm not joking).

 

[PyramidHead]

I've been pointing that out for years as well. Right wing authoritarian followers, as the term indicates, need something or someone to follow, someone in charge, whoever or whatever serves as the authority. Most religions cater to our insecurities this way. Scientologists, in particular are specifically trained to identify enemies and to look for a leader to try to topple.

We could learn something from that way of thinking, because it's better at getting people into Congress than the vagueness of OWS was. Essentially, it comes down to how we organize a movement that will have tangible results (an activity that is most successful when the core principles are rank-and-file) while still being accommodating to new perspectives (which is part of what being progressive is all about). Basically, my reaction to any peaceful protest is to ask questions about society and myself. What are these people dissatisfied with? What are they trying to put into public discourse? Do I have enough of a grasp on what they are going through to understand what they are talking about? What has been the trend recently and not so recently regarding the general thing they are protesting? Is it a long history of problems that have reached their breaking point? Is it something I have contributed to unknowingly? You can get a pretty strong sense of the answers to these questions without needing to consult The Permanent and Exclusive List of Everything We Are All Mad About, just by talking to people and educating yourself on history from reliable sources.

 

[PyramidHead]

Re Pyramid's post we don't have to have exact viewpoints but it would be pure lunacy if people go on a protest march without a coherent reason. Protests are a basic right in free countries.

Are you saying you don't have a clear reason for wanting to march. Of course you don't have to say if you don't want to but I would think that you would as encouragement for others.

That's the fallacy of composition right there. You're assuming that, since there is no single reason that everybody is marching, that everybody is marching for no reason. Individual people have their own experiences and views that resonate with the general theme of women's rights. Some just want people to recognize that there's an undercurrent of things being taken for granted as OK that they don't agree is OK. That, by itself, is enough to get people thinking. I'm sure most women in the march are also pissed off that Trump and Pence are in power, and are marching purely as a warning to the new administration not to marginalize women's reproductive freedoms. They are making a visible display of their numbers to remind people that they don't like being told what to do with their bodies. And that's effective too. Notice that I'm not linking you to any page with a bullet list of grievances, but the point is still getting across. That's how protests work sometimes, and your resistance to that mode of communication isn't doing you any favors.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I've been pointing that out for years as well. Right wing authoritarian followers, as the term indicates, need something or someone to follow, someone in charge, whoever or whatever serves as the authority. Most religions cater to our insecurities this way. Scientologists, in particular are specifically trained to identify enemies and to look for a leader to try to topple.

You can explain how the phrase "herd of cats" applies to human behavior until you're blue in the face and religious boot lickers will still not get that not everyone is an obedience machine.

In essence you are right.Right wing and Left wing authoritarians will provide something for their sheeple to follow. Religions have done the same. It is pure insanity however if people go on a protest march and can't say why. Insecurities have been a key factor in rabble rousing. History shows this. Removing a leader may not remove an ideology as we have seen with ISIS and Al Qaeda which is still around. The concept of removing a leader is not peculiar to Scientology for it's common practice.

Really the marchers most with good intentions an sincere are confused since they cannot identify why they are marching. Therefore they can be led by the nose. Indeed the pussycat hat is the perfect auto-suggestive means to pull them along.

My opinion is there could be a tacit relationship between ISIS and the left. This is how you can topple a government and the structure of democracy at the same time.

During early demonstrations such as the CND, anti Vietnam War the agenda was very clear. The current agenda is simply remove Trump/Republicans without the electoral process.
I would say that chimpanzees are more like humans when it comes to human behaviour.

 

[laughing dog]

You are mistaken - more mansplainbabble simply prove the points that Rhea and others are making.

You can disprove something by refuting it with indefeasible evidence Facts, Incidents, Reasons, Examples, and Statistics

If you are under the impression that posts that such as
"Really the marchers most with good intentions an sincere are confused since they cannot identify why they are marching. Therefore they can be led by the nose. Indeed the pussycat hat is the perfect auto-suggestive means to pull them along. " is an example of such a refutation, you are mistaken.

On the otherhand, it is classic and irrefutable evidence that supports the position that you feel the need to tell women what they really were protesting.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You can disprove something by refuting it with indefeasible evidence Facts, Incidents, Reasons, Examples, and Statistics

Of course. Are you under the delusion that is what you are doing with your mansplainbabble?

I gave specifics. Feel free to disagree with your refutations. One liners don't do it.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course. Are you under the delusion that is what you are doing with your mansplainbabble?

I gave specifics.

No, you did not give relevant specifics. You continue

[
Feel free to disagree with your refutations.

Why would I disagree with my own posts? You are babbling.

One liners don't do it.

I cannot decide whether the irony of that post overwhelms it lack of content or the reverse.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Re Pyramid's post we don't have to have exact viewpoints but it would be pure lunacy if people go on a protest march without a coherent reason. Protests are a basic right in free countries.

Are you saying you don't have a clear reason for wanting to march. Of course you don't have to say if you don't want to but I would think that you would as encouragement for others.

That's the fallacy of composition right there. You're assuming that, since there is no single reason that everybody is marching, that everybody is marching for no reason. Individual people have their own experiences and views that resonate with the general theme of women's rights. Some just want people to recognize that there's an undercurrent of things being taken for granted as OK that they don't agree is OK. That, by itself, is enough to get people thinking. I'm sure most women in the march are also pissed off that Trump and Pence are in power, and are marching purely as a warning to the new administration not to marginalize women's reproductive freedoms. They are making a visible display of their numbers to remind people that they don't like being told what to do with their bodies. And that's effective too. Notice that I'm not linking you to any page with a bullet list of grievances, but the point is still getting across. That's how protests work sometimes, and your resistance to that mode of communication isn't doing you any favors.

People will protests for a reason. If it is women's rights some will protest against the mistreatment of women others more about discrimination in the work place. However when individuals cannot say exactly why they protest, it indicates sheepishness where it is easy to pull the wool over their eyes.

Possible abortion law changes are one reason to protest. However there were Muslim women who protested against abortion. (Pro Life groups were not permitted).

- - - Updated - - -

I gave specifics.

No, you did not give relevant specifics. You continue

[
Feel free to disagree with your refutations.

Why would I disagree with my own posts? You are babbling.

One liners don't do it.

I cannot decide whether the irony of that post overwhelms it lack of content or the reverse.

So specifically what did you disagree with. You can also disagree with your refutations. (Supply your refutations).

 

[laughing dog]

So specifically what did you disagree with.

That you posted anything relevant.

You can also disagree with your refutations. (Supply your refutations).

I did not disagree that it was possible to disagree with one's refutation, I asked why would I. Is English your native language.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I've been pointing that out for years as well. Right wing authoritarian followers, as the term indicates, need something or someone to follow, someone in charge, whoever or whatever serves as the authority. Most religions cater to our insecurities this way. Scientologists, in particular are specifically trained to identify enemies and to look for a leader to try to topple.

We could learn something from that way of thinking, because it's better at getting people into Congress than the vagueness of OWS was. Essentially, it comes down to how we organize a movement that will have tangible results (an activity that is most successful when the core principles are rank-and-file) while still being accommodating to new perspectives (which is part of what being progressive is all about). Basically, my reaction to any peaceful protest is to ask questions about society and myself. What are these people dissatisfied with? What are they trying to put into public discourse? Do I have enough of a grasp on what they are going through to understand what they are talking about? What has been the trend recently and not so recently regarding the general thing they are protesting? Is it a long history of problems that have reached their breaking point? Is it something I have contributed to unknowingly? You can get a pretty strong sense of the answers to these questions without needing to consult The Permanent and Exclusive List of Everything We Are All Mad About, just by talking to people and educating yourself on history from reliable sources.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying; see my reply to Angry Floof.

I will copy and slightly later your statement here
Basically, my reaction to any peaceful protest is to highlight what they wish to change and possibly ask questions about society and myself[/STRIKE].
What are these people dissatisfied with? What are they trying to put into public discourse?

However in such circumstances the protesters would be able to clearly articulate why they are protesting in relation to real and perceived wrongs.

 

[Elixir]

That you posted anything relevant.

You can also disagree with your refutations. (Supply your refutations).

I did not disagree that it was possible to disagree with one's refutation, I asked why would I. Is English your native language.

He says English is his first language, but... his consistent misuse of syntax would indicate that it's probably some cyrrilic language - Slavic or... could it be? Russian.
Try sub-vocalizing a Russian accent when you read his shit - ring any bells?

 

[whichphilosophy]

That you posted anything relevant.

You can also disagree with your refutations. (Supply your refutations).

I did not disagree that it was possible to disagree with one's refutation, I asked why would I. Is English your native language.

It is ambiguous. Supply your own refutations/rebuttals.

 

[PyramidHead]

That's the fallacy of composition right there. You're assuming that, since there is no single reason that everybody is marching, that everybody is marching for no reason. Individual people have their own experiences and views that resonate with the general theme of women's rights. Some just want people to recognize that there's an undercurrent of things being taken for granted as OK that they don't agree is OK. That, by itself, is enough to get people thinking. I'm sure most women in the march are also pissed off that Trump and Pence are in power, and are marching purely as a warning to the new administration not to marginalize women's reproductive freedoms. They are making a visible display of their numbers to remind people that they don't like being told what to do with their bodies. And that's effective too. Notice that I'm not linking you to any page with a bullet list of grievances, but the point is still getting across. That's how protests work sometimes, and your resistance to that mode of communication isn't doing you any favors.

People will protests for a reason. If it is women's rights some will protest against the mistreatment of women others more about discrimination in the work place. However when individuals cannot say exactly why they protest, it indicates sheepishness where it is easy to pull the wool over their eyes.

Or maybe it indicates thoughtfulness, an acknowledgement that they want to participate in something they agree with in spirit but haven't worked out completely in the details, or maybe they have their own reasons and just don't want to tell them to everyone who asks about it. Sometimes the best way to contribute to a movement is to join a crowd. Not all cases of collective action are cases of herd mentality. Again, you're thinking like a conservative (more accurately, you're thinking like a Scientologist). Large gatherings of people always have subtle motivations that can't be easily put into words, and you're jumping to the conclusion that it's an indicator of mindlessly following the leader, when it's actually an indicator of the opposite. If anything, being able to immediately articulate precisely why you are part of a protest is the hallmark of a drone, someone reading from a script. Real people have complicated motivations and don't always express them logically.

If I met someone in the women's march and asked why they were there, I would expect an honest person to describe their overall feeling of dissatisfaction about the way women are viewed or treated in society, maybe with some specific problems related to recent events. I would expect a brainwashed sycophant to give me a laundry list of talking points, and I'd expect a flock of sheep to all have the same list. What you're expecting of the protesters is to behave in a consistent and precisely articulated way, but that's what 'sheeple' do, not grassroots protesters. You've got it all backwards, man.

 

[laughing dog]

That you posted anything relevant.
I did not disagree that it was possible to disagree with one's refutation, I asked why would I. Is English your native language.

It is ambiguous. Supply your own refutations/rebuttals.

There is nothing ambiguous about "Nothing you posted is relevant". There is nothing ambiguous about "I did not disagree that it was possible to disagree with one's refutation, I asked why would I". There is nothing for me to refute. You are claiming whatever babble you posted is specific. I said it is not relevant. You need to show why it is . For example, you need to explain why something written in 2014 is relevant to a women's protest march in 2017.

I am beginning to think the real problem here is you don't comprehend written English.

 

[Rhea]

Are you saying you don't have a clear reason for wanting to march. Of course you don't have to say if you don't want to but I would think that you would as encouragement for others.

earlier I wrote, "Go re-read the thread. I have no expectation that my telling you a tenth time will obviate the need for an eleventh, so I am moving on without you. So sorry you couldn’t keep up. "


If you are genuine that you actually want to know, I've told you. I've told you again. I've told you a third time. I laid out a map of how and where I've told you. You can find that map in post 454.


I'm sorry you're having such a hard time keeping up, but that's on you because the information is in front of you in detail using very easy words. "Go re-read the thread. I have no expectation that my telling you a tenth time will obviate the need for an eleventh, so I am moving on without you. So sorry you couldn’t keep up. "

No I get very well paid for my job in dispute resolution. (No I'm not joking).

I find it hard to picture how you could resolve a conflict using the behavior you've shown here. You've been told one side's position again and again. And not only do you not get it, you think you haven't even heard it. And it's in writing! That you can go back and re-read! I've been in rooms with conflict resolution professionals who were horrible at their job. I'm now picturing you as one of those. Not joking.

I have no idea how you can NOT know yet why I went.

 

[Rhea]

It is pure insanity however if people go on a protest march and can't say why.

What's pure insanity is people telling you why, in detail, and you responding with the claim that they don't know why. That's insane. I don't understand how you can think like that.

My opinion is there could be a tacit relationship between ISIS and the left.

are you kidding me?

The current agenda is simply remove Trump/Republicans without the electoral process.

NO ONE HAS SAID THIS. This is an incredibly bold straw man.
It's insanity.