[Scrapped]

[Hayteria]

I figured I'd edit this post as well, just to prove the following things were said on 6/6/2016 in case the other two threads I edited this into get obliterated. For this one you can see the OP in the replies.

A lot of what I had to say on this site was an act, often out of curiosity as to how people would respond, such as pretending to think it was always wrong to even participate in 4chan, (I think what I was expecting people to say was that it's more meaningful to figure out what makes them tick than merely wash your hands of it.) Or pretending to think that if you don't know why a given anecdote-author would lie you must assume that he or she is telling the truth. (I think what I was expecting people to say was that this was a false dichotomy because there could always be reasons one might not anticipate.)

And that's just counting examples of things I know were an act.

I felt justified in this because I had come to resent so much of the groupthink and strawmanning and jumping-to-conclusions on the part of so many others on this site, (which itself may have been an act on their part for all I know, but that wouldn't exactly be a point in their favour) and figured that if there were any sites I could feel justified lying to, it's sites that were full of people I found obnoxious, including but not limited to this site.

Incidentally, I've since done the same on sites I didn't find so obnoxious, probably out of force of habit.

Talking to specific NSG users since quitting the forum years ago, I reminded myself that at the very least there are people here who are not so obnoxious, so I regret it more than I thought I could.

[UCUMAY]

Gender issues can only be measured by what falls within standard deviation. Women and men get shit in different ways where the gender issues are concerned.

[Neo Art]

I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"

That's.....nice? Get a blog?

[Quailtopia]

Wah, I should have the ability to hit someone if they're being mean to me!

What is this, Ender's Game? Get civilized and less might-makes-right.

EDIT: after rereading OP, I do have to say that relying on consistency when you're talking about sexism is absurd, since 1) the issue is pretty polarizing and 2) if two classes of people are being treated unequally, you cannot expect the marginalized to want anything less than to be in power. Lets get some Derrida up in here!

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"

That's.....nice? Get a blog?

So here's my new theory. He's learned language somehow but is completely new to communication and is now completely fascinated by how it works and thinks that we're all new to it as well.

Perhaps, home schooled?

[Hayteria]

I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"

Uh, no, I'm talking about the implications of one of the anecdotes within it. Nice strawman though.

[Zilam]

how is it that women are classified as "weaker" than men when and only whenever it's so fucking convenient for them to get away with shit? If a Non Action Guy was verbally abusing an un-hot strong Amazon by calling her a dork, ugly, horrible, and gay, would that mean she's not allowed to hit him? Calling a girl ugly alone would get him beaten up, and witnesses would cheer the girl for it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/T ... eUnfairSex

This is basically one of the responses to the 2nd anecdote (namely, the one about a guy hitting one girl among a group of girls berating him) relating to the TV tropes concept "the unfair sex." While I'm not quite sure about the extent there, I do agree that were the genders of that anecdote reversed, the girl would probably be viewed a lot more sympathetically than the guy in this case was.

First off, I know we can't rely on its truthfulness since this is the Internet and all, but that it is even plausible carries implications all its own... whatever reasons there are for this kind of double standard consist of either the idea that women are physically weaker or that they're held to lower standards of rationality... popular opinion seems to regard either line of reasoning as unacceptable in the context of workplace discrimination, and yet seems fond of it in contexts like these. Somewhere along the line, someone abandoned consistency.

Are you posting a question for us to answer? Or are you blogging?

[The Evil Reich]

Hayteria, I am confused what you are trying to say or ask.

If this is about who is allowed to hit who, the answer is you shouldn't hit people regardless of gender. If you are getting at something else, then you need to explain it more clearly.

[Hayteria]

Hayteria, I am confused what you are trying to say or ask.

If this is about who is allowed to hit who, the answer is you shouldn't hit people regardless of gender. If you are getting at something else, then you need to explain it more clearly.

I thought I made myself clear enough. Yes, he shouldn't have resorted to violence. However, that the person resorting to violence would probably be regarded more sympathetically had this been a case of a girl hitting a guy reflects on the inconsistency in the logic with which society views double standards.

[Nobel Hobos]

Yeah, I've got the same problem. It's not clear what we're supposed to discuss.

Sometimes the 'question' or discussion topic is implied by an OP which takes a clear position itself, but this thread isn't one of those. It's not going anywhere (anywhere good) without a better example and a more clearly stated question.

It's not acceptable to punch anyone "really hard in the head" except in self-defence. I don't accept 'fighting words' as any such justification.

[Nobel Hobos]

Hayteria, I am confused what you are trying to say or ask.

If this is about who is allowed to hit who, the answer is you shouldn't hit people regardless of gender. If you are getting at something else, then you need to explain it more clearly.

I thought I made myself clear enough. Yes, he shouldn't have resorted to violence. However, that the person resorting to violence would probably be regarded more sympathetically had this been a case of a girl hitting a guy reflects on the inconsistency in the logic with which society views double standards.

Society? They're a bunch of idiots in school.

Please, do something about the OP or you're just going to get the same complaint from poster after poster. You can't extract sweeping conclusions about "society" from such a bad example.

[The Evil Reich]

Hayteria, I am confused what you are trying to say or ask.

If this is about who is allowed to hit who, the answer is you shouldn't hit people regardless of gender. If you are getting at something else, then you need to explain it more clearly.

I thought I made myself clear enough. Yes, he shouldn't have resorted to violence. However, that the person resorting to violence would probably be regarded more sympathetically had this been a case of a girl hitting a guy reflects on the inconsistency in the logic with which society views double standards.

That's because statistically speaking violence against women is still a more common problem than violence by women. People tend to generalize and simplify to make the world less confusing, so they come up with, "Violence against women is a problem; we have to stop it!" It's basically a good concept, but like any good concept, it doesn't get applied perfectly in all cases.

In many situations, it's unclear who the victim was because there are conflicting versions of the story, so people make guesses based on what seems most likely, and those guesses are not accurate 100% of the time.

[Turmoilandia]

I don't view any man who defends himself or any woman who defends herself unsympathetically. If they just attack first, that is uncalled for, regardless of whether they are male or female. As far as I'm concerned, any man who doesn't defend himself when attacked is pathetic and unsympathetic.

But, then again, I am not a misogynist or a misandrist. The claim that it is somehow "wrong" for a man to defend himself when attacked by a woman is disgusting and sexist.

[Gagatron]

Why do you make a new topic every time you find a flaw in an argument?

[Hayteria]

I thought I made myself clear enough. Yes, he shouldn't have resorted to violence. However, that the person resorting to violence would probably be regarded more sympathetically had this been a case of a girl hitting a guy reflects on the inconsistency in the logic with which society views double standards.

Society? They're a bunch of idiots in school.

Uh-huh, and where do you suppose their behaviour came out of, thin air?

As for your other post, I take it you'd agree that a girl who hits guys for "verbally abusing" her shouldn't be regarded sympathetically either, then?

[Blouman Empire]

I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"

That's.....nice? Get a blog?

And I thought you had left us Neo.

Hope things have turned on the up for you. I need someone to answer my US law questions

[The Evil Reich]

Why do you make a new topic every time you find a flaw in an argument?

Because he's Hayteria and that's how he rolls. That's like asking why are you preoccupied with God or why do I post so many Nazi jokes.

[Hayteria]

Why do you make a new topic every time you find a flaw in an argument?

Because he's Hayteria and that's how he rolls. That's like asking why are you preoccupied with God or why do I post so many Nazi jokes.

You think you have me all figured out, huh? If that's what you want to believe go ahead. -.-

[The Evil Reich]

Because he's Hayteria and that's how he rolls. That's like asking why are you preoccupied with God or why do I post so many Nazi jokes.

You think you have me all figured out, huh? If that's what you want to believe go ahead. -.-

You post a LOT of these threads. Is it so wrong to point out a pattern?

[Ryadn]

I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"

That's.....nice? Get a blog?

I didn't even know tvtropes had a "personal anecdotes" section. Did you know they had that?

[Ryadn]

Because he's Hayteria and that's how he rolls. That's like asking why are you preoccupied with God or why do I post so many Nazi jokes.

You think you have me all figured out, huh? If that's what you want to believe go ahead. -.-

He's going to make a thread about people on the internet who presume to know things about him, now.

Well, not NOW, but in, like, maybe 9 months, totally.

[Qazox]

regarding the OP:

As a guy, you're screwed either way. If she hits you and you hit her back, 101 times out of 100, the guy's going to jail.
If she hits you and you don't hit back, odds are next time, she'll hit you w/ something harder.

My only exception is, if the girl/woman is holding a lethal weapon (a gun, knife, baseball/cricket bat, etc) and she takes a swing/stab/shot at you, then all bets are off. Self-preservation secedes proper behavior at that point.

[Ryadn]

regarding the OP:

As a guy, you're screwed either way. If she hits you and you hit her back, 101 times out of 100, the guy's going to jail.
If she hits you and you don't hit back, odds are next time, she'll hit you w/ something harder.

My only exception is, if the girl/woman is holding a lethal weapon (a gun, knife, baseball/cricket bat, etc) and she takes a swing/stab/shot at you, then all bets are off. Self-preservation secedes proper behavior at that point.

I'm trying to decide whether you hate women, or you've just never been in close proximity to one.

Also whether you meant to use 'supersedes' there.

[New Manvir]

regarding the OP:

As a guy, you're screwed either way. If she hits you and you hit her back, 101 times out of 100, the guy's going to jail.
If she hits you and you don't hit back, odds are next time, she'll hit you w/ something harder.

My only exception is, if the girl/woman is holding a lethal weapon (a gun, knife, baseball/cricket bat, etc) and she takes a swing/stab/shot at you, then all bets are off. Self-preservation secedes proper behavior at that point.

I'm trying to decide whether you hate women, or you've just never been in close proximity to one.

Also whether you meant to use 'supersedes' there.

Just because someone complains that they can't hit women doesn't mean they hate women, you devilish harpy.

[Ryadn]

I'm trying to decide whether you hate women, or you've just never been in close proximity to one.

Also whether you meant to use 'supersedes' there.

Just because someone complains that they can't hit women doesn't mean they hate women, you devilish harpy.

The bit that really tickled me was that if you don't hit a woman back, she'll hit you with something harder!

"Well, shit, I thought that was a pretty heavy book. But since he hasn't reacted violently in return, I'd better break out the frying pans."