No. Not at all. You are free to have an opinion on any subject not in breach of the rules and articulate it here in a reasonable and hopefully polite manner. There are rules you can view in the TOS or address with moderators via PM if you wish, but they do not included banning your political opponent from discussion. They do not include banning views that do not conform with the majority one while staying otherwise within those TOS. They do not include banning members or topics you do not much personally care for.
Ask yourself who is more problematic in a thread on a discussion website. The person who made a topic you completely disagree with that has over 6000 views and 5 pages? Or the person who questions the validity of allowing the discussion at all and has made no other contribution to it? You can counter the points of the topic with reasoned and informed discussion, potentially altering the thing you vehemently disagree with. Or you can whine about other peoples right to share views that differ from your own, while making no counter points yourself, and change nothing at all.
I could create a thread on the merits of Young Earth, Flat Earth, Phrenology, behaviorism based on body types (somototypes), and other topics of a similar caliber which would generate discussion, but you still have to ask yourself if they are fruitful, because sensible intellectuals before us have already established the flaws in those past practices, which is why we no longer take them seriously.
Tyler himself stepped in and closed the "Gamer Gate Isn't Actually Evil" thread. It had 41 replies and 3,000 reviews, if that is a metric you value. Can its closure be attributed to the fact that he was personally victimized by GGers and NeoGaf is his personal website, so that closure is an outlier? Or is it because,
as I said on the first page here, the OP was never really interested in arguing in good faith, and advocating for a cause that did more harm than good?
I have yet to see anyone up in here
actually present the ideological underpinnings of a single noteworthy feminist. To get back to the OP specifically, there have been scholars writing on the Prison Industrial Complex from Angela Davis to Michelle Alexander for reference, who cite issues in their ongoing work that
feminine products are infrequent budgetary investments, so women prisoners bleed themselves like lepers; supplies for nursing mothers to relieve themselves of lactation are hardly entertained. Unsavory interactions between corrections officers of either sex and female inmates, and the like.
All I've seen here are anecdotes. Few have addressed the actual articles. People are presenting their ideas, which are hardly more evolved than their personal feelings towards feminism. Yet that counts as "discussion." The implications of
Vorg
's dissent that a topic like this actually
discourages active conversation is valid. As you can see, I do have a vested interest in the thread, but the overall tone of OT, and an earlier post I made demonstrated that some folks are just being reactionary for the sake of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the above considering if I should post it. I decided I shall, but with some addendums.
So when I say something like:
*topic has now shifted from feminism to taking a dump on women in general, i.e. "women kill their own babies!" while ignoring the role that men play in sexual assault (RAPE!), domestic violence, and ****ing MASS SHOOTINGS*
In a thread about feminism, and get this in response:
This topic is about "not treating women like men" in justice system.
Data doesn't show much gender difference in domestic violence victimization (both genders are also quite often the perpetrators, there is a gap, but not that big one)
We could talk about it, when you decide to descent from the high moral altitudes.
(emphasis added is mine)
I get not only a
whataboutism logical fallacy, but a response that demonstrates that the user didn't even read the class material.
Straight from the guardian article in the OP:
Moreover, when it comes to sexual offences, rounded off to the nearest whole number, women constitute 0% of all offenders – that’s right, zero. The crimes they most commonly commit are drug and property offences. Thus, in the US, approximately 30% of female prisoners are incarcerated for property offences, and a further 26% for drug offences. The percentages for these offences are 26% and 17%, respectively, in Australia.
And in the next paragraph:
Women do of course commit homicide offences, but nearly always the victim is a relative and the crime was committed against the backdrop of an abusive relationship or depressive mindset. All homicides are heinous crimes but the types of homicides committed by women rarely involve random victims and hence do not engender community fear.
I'm very much not interested in "discussion" with folks who obfuscate, omit, or feign ignorance; question topics that have been long-established as sensible; demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to make deductions; and (most annoyingly to me)
beg the question. Especially if they don't bring anything
of substance to the table, when their "contributions" have been long-relegated as marginal for good reason (see the intro to this long post).
So yes, if you wanna engage with me on my high horse, the elevator is that way, llien. And I'm gonna keep sitting here unless the pretentiousness on this message board fades and people start posting
in good faith.