The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Chessmistress]

Yeah, it was very much a pissing contest. She lost in the Rust belt because she used idpol, but not intersectionality - she ignored the working class, especially the white working class. It was her own damn fault there, not to mention the DNC for thinking she was ever a good choice to run.

It may be due within intersectionality the social class factor is sometimes ignored, as in such definition
http://www.wikigender.org/wiki/intersec ... imination/

The theory of Intersectionality is based on the concept that oppressive institutions within a society, such as racism, ageism, sexism, and homophobia, do not act independently, but are instead interrelated and continuously shaped by one another.

And more often, much more often, almost always, while the class factor is highlighted it's used the stereotype "white middle-class women" - that's like subtly suggesting that all white women are middle-class.
So the result have been a terrible defeat, since 53% white women actually voted for Trump: many, most, of those were rich women, but there were even working class white women, especially in the Rust Belt.

That's another problem I have with intersectionalism.
Not mentioning the further problems arising when within intersectionality are included even "exotic" factors unrelated with women like "anti-speciesism" and "pro-veganism": those are philosophies that are totally unrelated with equality between all human beings, and are, I think, actually weakening the whole meaning of the message.

[GabrieIa]

Yeah, it was very much a pissing contest. She lost in the Rust belt because she used idpol, but not intersectionality - she ignored the working class, especially the white working class. It was her own damn fault there, not to mention the DNC for thinking she was ever a good choice to run.

It may be due within intersectionality the social class factor is sometimes ignored, as in such definition
http://www.wikigender.org/wiki/intersec ... imination/

The Rust belt did hate her. She offered the same thing, when Trump offered change. So that also explains why he won. But the Rust Belt states were sick and tired of Intersectional feminism, and feminism in general. Same with Florida, when he won that it was over basically for her.

The theory of Intersectionality is based on the concept that oppressive institutions within a society, such as racism, ageism, sexism, and homophobia, do not act independently, but are instead interrelated and continuously shaped by one another.

And more often, much more often, almost always, while the class factor is highlighted it's used the stereotype "white middle-class women" - that's like subtly suggesting that all white women are middle-class.
So the result have been a terrible defeat, since 53% white women actually voted for Trump: many, most, of those were rich women, but there were even working class white women, especially in the Rust Belt.

That's another problem I have with intersectionalism.
Not mentioning the further problems arising when within intersectionality are included even "exotic" factors unrelated with women like "anti-speciesism" and "pro-veganism": those are philosophies that are totally unrelated with equality between all human beings, and are, I think, actually weakening the whole meaning of the message.

Intersectional feminism is bs.

[New Edom]

Here's something most of the feminists here suck at: actually responding to queries about their posts. Though it could be just not understanding how the thread works. You can go to 'first unread post' or even search for your nick to see what people have been talking about in response to things you've written. My suspicion is that it's a way of avoiding being accountable but I'd love to be proved wrong.

[GabrieIa]

Here's something most of the feminists here suck at: actually responding to queries about their posts. Though it could be just not understanding how the thread works. You can go to 'first unread post' or even search for your nick to see what people have been talking about in response to things you've written. My suspicion is that it's a way of avoiding being accountable but I'd love to be proved wrong.

Well for Chessmistress she is on rarely. So that is for her. Me on the other hand just dont check the forums as much as you want and the query you are trying to ask is lost in the messages.

[Galloism]

Here's something most of the feminists here suck at: actually responding to queries about their posts. Though it could be just not understanding how the thread works. You can go to 'first unread post' or even search for your nick to see what people have been talking about in response to things you've written. My suspicion is that it's a way of avoiding being accountable but I'd love to be proved wrong.

Well for Chessmistress she is on rarely. So that is for her. Me on the other hand just dont check the forums as much as you want and the query you are trying to ask is lost in the messages.

You can be on rarely and still check your own name to see if anyone's said anything to you that's worth responding to.

Even if it's 10 pages later, you can still do it, provided the thread itself isn't dead and buried.

So, that's no excuse.

[GabrieIa]

Well for Chessmistress she is on rarely. So that is for her. Me on the other hand just dont check the forums as much as you want and the query you are trying to ask is lost in the messages.

You can be on rarely and still check your own name to see if anyone's said anything to you that's worth responding to.

Even if it's 10 pages later, you can still do it, provided the thread itself isn't dead and buried.

So, that's no excuse.

We must not be on the same platform, because when people respond to me i dont get notifications. So yes it is

[The Alexanderians]

GSM in this context means "Gender and/or Sexual Minority." It's a variation on LGBT.

Huh. I kind of like this.

It's certainly more descriptive and catch all (considering the dozens of variations otherwise).

[Neutraligon]

Well for Chessmistress she is on rarely. So that is for her. Me on the other hand just dont check the forums as much as you want and the query you are trying to ask is lost in the messages.

You can be on rarely and still check your own name to see if anyone's said anything to you that's worth responding to.

Even if it's 10 pages later, you can still do it, provided the thread itself isn't dead and buried.

So, that's no excuse.

I only rarely check on this thread, since feminism isn't really something that particularly interests me. Normally it is weeks before I check again, and by that time any response is kinda stupid. That and i tend to find it hard not getting angry at radical feminists.

[Galloism]

You can be on rarely and still check your own name to see if anyone's said anything to you that's worth responding to.

Even if it's 10 pages later, you can still do it, provided the thread itself isn't dead and buried.

So, that's no excuse.

We must not be on the same platform, because when people respond to me i dont get notifications. So yes it is

It's really easy. Go to general, with the listing of all the threads.

Type in "GabrieIa" in the search box. It shows all the posts where people quoted you in response.

Easy peasy.

[GabrieIa]

We must not be on the same platform, because when people respond to me i dont get notifications. So yes it is

It's really easy. Go to general, with the listing of all the threads.

Type in "GabrieIa" in the search box. It shows all the posts where people quoted you in response.

Easy peasy.

Yeah no way i am doing that. First off i dont even understand what you said. Secondly i just refresh the page. Thirdly. i lost my train of thought. Literally i did. Dont even know what we are talking about now. It is one of these times where i dont know where i left off at.

[Galloism]

It's really easy. Go to general, with the listing of all the threads.

Type in "GabrieIa" in the search box. It shows all the posts where people quoted you in response.

Easy peasy.

Yeah no way i am doing that. First off i dont even understand what you said. Secondly i just refresh the page. Thirdly. i lost my train of thought. Literally i did. Dont even know what we are talking about now. It is one of these times where i dont know where i left off at.

if you can't figure out how to click on "general", type your own name, and hit the enter key, I'm not sure I can help you.

[Forsher]

It's really easy. Go to general, with the listing of all the threads.

Type in "GabrieIa" in the search box. It shows all the posts where people quoted you in response.

Easy peasy.

Yeah no way i am doing that. First off i dont even understand what you said. Secondly i just refresh the page. Thirdly. i lost my train of thought. Literally i did. Dont even know what we are talking about now. It is one of these times where i dont know where i left off at.

This forum is called General... it's the general forum, it's referred to as NSG.

At the top of this forum's page, there is a box. This is the search box. Click on it. Type Gabriela. Hit Search.

Congratulations, you now have all posts containing GabrieIa in them.

This works because, as you apparently aren't aware, you can read the previous quotes in posts... this is useful if you can't remember where you left off.

[Abazhaka]

Thread bans all X are Y statements...

All carrots are vegetables

All People need vegtables

All Nationstates Threads are replaced/forgotten

All NS Threads are kinda pointless

Therefore by the logical fallacy of lunacy:

All NS Threads are worth less than a carrot

(Especially ones with a number after them)

If this is flaming, trolling, whatever...well...hope in the internet lost. (as if I had any)

PS If it wasnt for the no all x are y thing, I wouldn't have even posted anything on this thread

[Neutraligon]

Thread bans all X are Y statements...

All carrots are vegetables

All People need vegtables

All Nationstates Threads are replaced/forgotten

All NS Threads are kinda pointless

Therefore by the logical fallacy of lunacy:

All NS Threads are worth less than a carrot

(Especially ones with a number after them)

If this is flaming, trolling, whatever...well...hope in the internet lost. (as if I had any)

PS If it wasnt for the no all x are y thing, I wouldn't have even posted anything on this thread

If you have an issue with moderation bring it up there, not in General.

[Liberonscien]

It's really easy. Go to general, with the listing of all the threads.

Type in "GabrieIa" in the search box. It shows all the posts where people quoted you in response.

Easy peasy.

Yeah no way i am doing that. First off i dont even understand what you said. Secondly i just refresh the page. Thirdly. i lost my train of thought. Literally i did. Dont even know what we are talking about now. It is one of these times where i dont know where i left off at.

This link should contain every instance of your name in this section of the forum:
Link

[Wallenburg]

Here's something most of the feminists here suck at: actually responding to queries about their posts. Though it could be just not understanding how the thread works. You can go to 'first unread post' or even search for your nick to see what people have been talking about in response to things you've written. My suspicion is that it's a way of avoiding being accountable but I'd love to be proved wrong.

As I have been talking about in a private conversation with a fellow GA forumgoer, RL > NS. Sure, there are plenty of frequent posters, but if something occupies their time in real life, there's absolutely no reason to expect that person to get back to you on each individual conversation.

[Mattopilos]

Thread bans all X are Y statements...

All carrots are vegetables

All People need vegtables

All Nationstates Threads are replaced/forgotten

All NS Threads are kinda pointless

Therefore by the logical fallacy of lunacy:

All NS Threads are worth less than a carrot

(Especially ones with a number after them)

If this is flaming, trolling, whatever...well...hope in the internet lost. (as if I had any)

PS If it wasnt for the no all x are y thing, I wouldn't have even posted anything on this thread

It bans all FALLACIOUS use of it.

[Mattopilos]

Yeah, it was very much a pissing contest. She lost in the Rust belt because she used idpol, but not intersectionality - she ignored the working class, especially the white working class. It was her own damn fault there, not to mention the DNC for thinking she was ever a good choice to run.

It may be due within intersectionality the social class factor is sometimes ignored, as in such definition
http://www.wikigender.org/wiki/intersec ... imination/

The theory of Intersectionality is based on the concept that oppressive institutions within a society, such as racism, ageism, sexism, and homophobia, do not act independently, but are instead interrelated and continuously shaped by one another.

And more often, much more often, almost always, while the class factor is highlighted it's used the stereotype "white middle-class women" - that's like subtly suggesting that all white women are middle-class.
So the result have been a terrible defeat, since 53% white women actually voted for Trump: many, most, of those were rich women, but there were even working class white women, especially in the Rust Belt.

That's another problem I have with intersectionalism.
Not mentioning the further problems arising when within intersectionality are included even "exotic" factors unrelated with women like "anti-speciesism" and "pro-veganism": those are philosophies that are totally unrelated with equality between all human beings, and are, I think, actually weakening the whole meaning of the message.

From the Wiki:
"the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage."
That pretty much covers it.
Except the issue is that Hillary DIDN'T use intersectionality - she use solely idpol on its own. That is a very different and more specific idea. She didn't lose because of intersectionality. Also, it isn't focused on JUST women, so the last part confuses me to why you brought it up.

Intersectional feminism is bs.

Man, great analysis right here.

[The Plonks]

Thread bans all X are Y statements...

All carrots are vegetables

All People need vegtables

All Nationstates Threads are replaced/forgotten

All NS Threads are kinda pointless

Therefore by the logical fallacy of lunacy:

All NS Threads are worth less than a carrot

(Especially ones with a number after them)

If this is flaming, trolling, whatever...well...hope in the internet lost. (as if I had any)

PS If it wasnt for the no all x are y thing, I wouldn't have even posted anything on this thread

It bans all FALLACIOUS use of it.

Where does it specifically say it only bans all fallacious use of it? What I read was that any uses of "all x are y", including the ones used in the post you quoted, will not be tolerated. Only fallacious uses of "all x are y" are banned is simply an inference.

[Mattopilos]

It bans all FALLACIOUS use of it.

Where does it specifically say it only bans all fallacious use of it? What I read was that any uses of "all x are y", including the ones used in the post you quoted, will not be tolerated. Only fallacious uses of "all x are y" are banned is simply an inference.

Obviously it is inferred. All X are Y is allowed in obvious circumstances, but not in others. Also, this is not the thread to discuss this.

[Alkasia]

In terms of Hillary, idpol was almost exclusively what she ran on. That, and an insane amount a generous amount of money from rich donors. Claiming to put women's issues first, whilst supporting mass incarceration bills in the past and just recently getting on the train for LGBT+ rights politically (although I still feel that she has different views personally) really doesn't scream feminism. She used her gender to justify voting for her (the amount of times she emphasizes that she would be the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT is astounding), without any sort of solid foundation. In politics, there are much better people to look to on the subject of feminism. (Tulsi Gabbard and Nina Turner come to mind)

It also didn't help that her opponent took measures to be derogatory (and in some cases sickening) to women. Trump himself gave the women's vote to Hillary, at least in liberal and moderate areas.

[Mattopilos]

In terms of Hillary, idpol was almost exclusively what she ran on. That, and an insane amount a generous amount of money from rich donors. Claiming to put women's issues first, whilst supporting mass incarceration bills in the past and just recently getting on the train for LGBT+ rights politically (although I still feel that she has different views personally) really doesn't scream feminism. She used her gender to justify voting for her (the amount of times she emphasizes that she would be the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT is astounding), without any sort of solid foundation. In politics, there are much better people to look to on the subject of feminism. (Tulsi Gabbard and Nina Turner come to mind)

It also didn't help that her opponent took measures to be derogatory (and in some cases sickening) to women. Trump himself gave the women's vote to Hillary, at least in liberal and moderate areas.

Exactly. That is why I don't have an issue with idpol, but the use of only idpol.
Oh, and her INSANE focus on celebrities to make her look good. That backfired amazingly.

[Vashty]

Here's something most of the feminists here suck at: actually responding to queries about their posts. Though it could be just not understanding how the thread works. You can go to 'first unread post' or even search for your nick to see what people have been talking about in response to things you've written. My suspicion is that it's a way of avoiding being accountable but I'd love to be proved wrong.

As I have been talking about in a private conversation with a fellow GA forumgoer, RL > NS. Sure, there are plenty of frequent posters, but if something occupies their time in real life, there's absolutely no reason to expect that person to get back to you on each individual conversation.

To be fair I can count how many times Chessmistress has blanked me making decent points on at least three hands New Edom is however being a little broad saying all feminists do this

[Forsher]

Oh, and her INSANE focus on celebrities to make her look good. That backfired amazingly.

She lost to a celebrity... but had more votes than said celebrity. What evidence do you base that claim on?

[Mattopilos]

Oh, and her INSANE focus on celebrities to make her look good. That backfired amazingly.

She lost to a celebrity... but had more votes than said celebrity. What evidence do you base that claim on?

Sorry, I meant to say "I think That backfired amazingly". It was more opinion than factual. I think it alienated people.