A lot of it is internet asshattery, but I'm thinking that for some reason, being female means you can be open to attack regarding your fuckability or whatever.
Advertisement
by Individuality-ness » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:51 pm
by Orcoa » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:51 pm
by Katganistan » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:52 pm
New haven america wrote:Katganistan wrote:
Female (but you knew that) and the worst things I have been called have NOT been on the forums -- they've been in my mod e-mail.
I particularly enjoyed the ones from a person half a world away who started out calling me a bitch and then repeatedly sending messages about how he would rape and murder me.
Sound's fun. XP
by Individuality-ness » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:52 pm
Forsher wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:It causes cancer. Boohoohoo. I don't give a fuck. You can't ban everything because someone might hurt themselves. What kind of nanny state are you talking about? A world without beer or cigarettes is one I would hate.
The fundamental difference between alcohol and tobacco is that the latter is necessarily harmful to other people. The general rule is that people have rights insofar as they do not infringe on other people's rights.
Scorpions on the moon wrote:An ad hominem is not necessarily an insult. It is an argument based on the personality of the person you are debating in order to establish a conclusion. For instance, you are a bitch, therefore gay marriage should not be legal. Calling somebody a bitch on its own is not an ad hominem. It's just verbal abuse.
by Coffee Cakes » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:53 pm
Transnapastain wrote:CC!
Posting mod mistakes now are we?
Well, sir, you can have a Vindictive warning for making us look incompetent
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:You're Invisi Gay. Super hero of the Rainbow Equality Brigade!
Nana wrote:Being CC's bf is a death worse than fate.
Nana wrote:Finally, another reasonable individual.
Nana wrote: You're Ben. And Ben is many things wrapped into one being. :)
Quotes Singing Contest of DOOM Champ. SoftballGeniasis wrote:I've seen people lose credibility. It's been a while since I've seen it cast aside so gleefully.
by Scorpions on the moon » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:55 pm
Individuality-ness wrote:Considering that in the context it was trying to conclude that my viewpoints were invalid, they were adhoms.
by Forsher » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:55 pm
Individuality-ness wrote:Scorpions on the moon wrote:An ad hominem is not necessarily an insult. It is an argument based on the personality of the person you are debating in order to establish a conclusion. For instance, you are a bitch, therefore gay marriage should not be legal. Calling somebody a bitch on its own is not an ad hominem. It's just verbal abuse.
Considering that in the context it was trying to conclude that my viewpoints were invalid, they were adhoms.
by The Serbian Empire » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:55 pm
by Individuality-ness » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:56 pm
Scorpions on the moon wrote:Individuality-ness wrote:Considering that in the context it was trying to conclude that my viewpoints were invalid, they were adhoms.
I wasn't referring to you in particular. I'm just speaking to what appears to be a very common misnomer. Also, it doesn't seem like they were trying to prove you wrong. It just looks like they were trying to hurt your feelings. Nobody thinks ''I made a picture of her with cum on her face, ergo, her ideas are wrong''. They're thinking ''This is totally going to hurt her feelings''.
Coffee Cakes wrote:Individuality-ness wrote:A lot of it is internet asshattery, but I'm thinking that for some reason, being female means you can be open to attack regarding your fuckability or whatever.
I'd reckon it's because some males still like to think that they rule the roost, and/or are sexist/chauvinistic asswipes.
by Desperate Measures » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:56 pm
by Prussia-Steinbach » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:58 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:I'm kind of happy that I can't remember any of the ad-hominems that actually hurt. The ones I can remember were either true enough to not be taken as an insult ("Liberal!" "Um... yes... very good...") or so far off the mark as to be more confusing than insulting ("Bantha poodoo!" "? ?".
by Brocwika » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:58 pm
by Individuality-ness » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:58 pm
Forsher wrote:Individuality-ness wrote:Not the thread for this debate Forsher.
It was meant to be a quick aside but I forgot I hadn't found another post yet to respond to on topic and hit submit accidentally. So, I went back and edited your last reply to me in but, obviously, I couldn't type fast enough.Individuality-ness wrote:Considering that in the context it was trying to conclude that my viewpoints were invalid, they were adhoms.
I'm not sure if it's still an ad-hom if the purpose of the personal commentary is to avoid responding to the core of the argument rather than concluding the argument is wrong. Because my example is more this than the latter.
by Coffee Cakes » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:59 pm
Transnapastain wrote:CC!
Posting mod mistakes now are we?
Well, sir, you can have a Vindictive warning for making us look incompetent
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:You're Invisi Gay. Super hero of the Rainbow Equality Brigade!
Nana wrote:Being CC's bf is a death worse than fate.
Nana wrote:Finally, another reasonable individual.
Nana wrote: You're Ben. And Ben is many things wrapped into one being. :)
Quotes Singing Contest of DOOM Champ. SoftballGeniasis wrote:I've seen people lose credibility. It's been a while since I've seen it cast aside so gleefully.
by Herrebrugh » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:59 pm
by Individuality-ness » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:02 pm
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Desperate Measures wrote:I'm kind of happy that I can't remember any of the ad-hominems that actually hurt. The ones I can remember were either true enough to not be taken as an insult ("Liberal!" "Um... yes... very good...") or so far off the mark as to be more confusing than insulting ("Bantha poodoo!" "? ?".
Did you ever get involved with Karinzistan, while he was around? I was called a "poophead."
Individuality-ness knows what I'm talking about.
by Forsher » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:02 pm
Individuality-ness wrote:Forsher wrote:It was meant to be a quick aside but I forgot I hadn't found another post yet to respond to on topic and hit submit accidentally. So, I went back and edited your last reply to me in but, obviously, I couldn't type fast enough.
I'm not sure if it's still an ad-hom if the purpose of the personal commentary is to avoid responding to the core of the argument rather than concluding the argument is wrong. Because my example is more this than the latter.
It's fine, just reminding people to not threadjack my thread.
I think someone actually tried to ask about what my sexual orientation was. I asked them why, and they said something along the lines of "well, if you like x gender, then you yourself are sexist, ergo your opinion is invalid and you should shut up you hypocrite".
by Prussia-Steinbach » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:03 pm
by Individuality-ness » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:04 pm
Forsher wrote:Individuality-ness wrote:It's fine, just reminding people to not threadjack my thread.
I think someone actually tried to ask about what my sexual orientation was. I asked them why, and they said something along the lines of "well, if you like x gender, then you yourself are sexist, ergo your opinion is invalid and you should shut up you hypocrite".
There are only a few times where someone's sexuality and gender make a difference towards their opinion. For example the Straight White Male default thread, it was sort of relevant when we were comparing the nature of the default characters in our own works to look at the idea more personally.
by Individuality-ness » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:05 pm
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Individuality-ness wrote:I remember that, actually, heh. I think we discussed warnings and records too.
That was, quite literally, one of the best times I've had on an NSG thread. So much fun. We trolled the troll... or, more like just let him spout shit until the mods came and shut him down.
by Dumb Ideologies » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:07 pm
by Desperate Measures » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:07 pm
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Desperate Measures wrote:I'm kind of happy that I can't remember any of the ad-hominems that actually hurt. The ones I can remember were either true enough to not be taken as an insult ("Liberal!" "Um... yes... very good...") or so far off the mark as to be more confusing than insulting ("Bantha poodoo!" "? ?".
Did you ever get involved with Karinzistan, while he was around? I was called a "poophead."
Individuality-ness knows what I'm talking about.
by Nazi Flower Power » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:08 pm
by Individuality-ness » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:09 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Did you ever get involved with Karinzistan, while he was around? I was called a "poophead."
Individuality-ness knows what I'm talking about.
Was that the REVOLUTION! guy? I think he liked me... or maybe I just had too much fun and twisted that into "he liked me".
by Desperate Measures » Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:09 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:I've only ever really had the problem of people creating ridiculous strawmen of things I've posted and then going "therefore you are an x" where x is whatever scareword is appropriate to the conversation - statist shill, fascist, commie etc.
Pure ad hominems aren't something I ever really remember encountering. Maybe it's because my gender confuses people.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Barinive, Bienenhalde, Cyptopir, Galactic Powers, Hypron, Kastopoli Salegliari, Keltionialang, The Lone Alliance, The Pilgrims in the Desert
Advertisement