Music Banter - Spill Your Guts: What You Really Think About MB members

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Editors Pick (https://www.musicbanter.com/editors-pick/)

- - Spill Your Guts: What You Really Think About MB members (https://www.musicbanter.com/editors-pick/41000-spill-your-guts-what-you-really-think-about-mb-members.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre (Post 1459834)

People who make and force arguments like this make me wish I didn't largely agree with them. Agreeing with people like this somehow feels like failing to make a valid counterargument.

The fact is though, I'm onboard with being against sexism, I'm onboard with being against cisgender males failing to consider alternative positions, I'm onboard with being against discrimination, both positive and negative, I'm onboard with women's rights, pro-choice, trans-inclusive, gay pride, etc. The whole shebang, short of blatant stupidity like transethnics or otherkin, is, frankly, aligned with my social and political radar. I'm against homophobics, racists, TERFs, etc.

I just wish Sansa and the rest of the goof troop didn't manage to consistently argue good things from the absolutely worst, most abhorrently arrogant positions. Particularly when it's not warranted and never needed to be forced into the conversation just so it could become an issue when someone spoke up to tell them to shut the **** up for once.

Also, doesn't anyone else think it's an amazing convenience that in the crusade against stereotyping, priveledged thought and insensitivity, white cis males in first world countries can all be conveniently lumped into one aggressive, sexually predatory and sexist group of unthinking, subjugation-reinforcing, selfish, corporatist, homophobic, racist, neo-colonialist triggering bastards that hate freedom?

Ayo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sansa Stark (Post 1459839)

http://media.tumblr.com/ec829531a9d3...MVZ1roqm64.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/wJIx8st.gif

I for one am not going to shut up about it until it's no longer an issue of hate, inequality, oppression, and infringement of inalienable human rights. I'd rather be annoying and force things into conversation than turn a blind eye or pretend these things don't exist. But that's just me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkyard Donner (Post 1459846)

Troublemaker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkyard Donner (Post 1459846)

Who's pretending anything doesn't exist? I already told you I'm well onboard with your views. I just think you're really, really hurting your cause because you turn people away from agreeing with you on a personal level, inviting them to construct a counterargument in order to reject your personality rather than your logic.

Which wouldn't happen if you actually entered into these debates in situations arenas and in ways which bore some actual relevance to what you were saying. Nobody debates war crimes or the pro-life views of Margaret Thatcher at the Manchester Derby, because it's a jarring, irrelevant change to the event's purpose. You debate that stuff at a college campus or on the news. You organise marches, write articles, publish stories through Avaaz or 38Degrees, question politicians, email your local MP/State representative, donate to funds you approve of, comment and argue against abhorrent views when they're actually presented specifically, encourage your friends to support good movements, discourage them from aligning themselves with the far right or socialy unconscionable, etc. There's no shortage of outlets for this stuff that are both better for the reach of your message, and also more effective because you'll actually be talking to people who, even if they disagree with your message, will at least be there to discuss your message and not you personally.

But if you show up and expect an actual discussion to occur (Positive or otherwise) if you drag a discussion about, say, Pepsi vs Coca Cola, into the domain of arguing against cishet white males... that smacks to me of someone who finds it very difficult to actually seperate out which elements of reality pertain to the "opposition" of their political beliefs, and instead has resorted to attacking an enemy at literally every opportunity.

And like I said, that encourages people to simply dismiss you as a person, before they even think about your argument. Most people aren't even going to get to that second stage where they, like I, say "I agree with you but this is a bad way of going about it". They're going to stop flat at "I don't like you" and the rest of whatever you said will get lost in the fog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre (Post 1459849)

Who's pretending anything doesn't exist? I already told you I'm well onboard with your views. I just think you're really, really hurting your cause because you turn people away from agreeing with you on a personal level, inviting them to construct a counterargument in order to reject your personality rather than your logic.

Which wouldn't happen if you actually entered into these debates in situations arenas and in ways which bore some actual relevance to what you were saying. Nobody debates war crimes at the Manchester Derby, because it's a jarring, irrelevant change to the event's purpose. You debate that stuff at a college campus or on the news. You organise marches, write articles, publish stories through Avaaz or 38Degrees, question politicians, email your local MP/State representative, donate to funds you approve of, comment and argue against abhorrent views when they're actually presented specifically, encourage your friends to support good movements, discourage them from aligning themselves with the far right or socialy unconscionable, etc. There's no shortage of outlets for this stuff that are both better for the reach of your message, and also more effective because you'll actually be talking to people who, even if they disagree with your message, will at least be there to discuss your message and not you personally.

But if you show up and expect an actual discussion to occur (Positive or otherwise) if you drag a discussion about, say, Pepsi, into the domain of arguing against cishet white males... that smacks to me of someone who finds it very difficult to actually seperate out which elements of reality pertain to the "opposition" of their political beliefs, and instead has resorted to attacking an enemy at literally every opportunity.

And like I said, that encourages people to simply dismiss you as a person, before they even think about your argument. Most people aren't even going to get to that second stage where they, like I, say "I agree with you but this is a bad way of going about it". They're going to stop flat at "I don't like you" and the rest of whatever you said will get lost in the fog.

It would also help if their arguments consisted of things other than gifs, condescending one word posts, and unexplained jargon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre (Post 1459849)

Who's pretending anything doesn't exist? I already told you I'm well onboard with your views. I just think you're really, really hurting your cause because you turn people away from agreeing with you on a personal level, inviting them to construct a counterargument in order to reject your personality rather than your logic.

Which wouldn't happen if you actually entered into these debates in situations arenas and in ways which bore some actual relevance to what you were saying. Nobody debates war crimes at the Manchester Derby, because it's a jarring, irrelevant change to the event's purpose. You debate that stuff at a college campus or on the news. You organise marches, write articles, publish stories through Avaaz or 38Degrees, question politicians, email your local MP/State representative, donate to funds you approve of, comment and argue against abhorrent views when they're actually presented specifically, encourage your friends to support good movements, discourage them from aligning themselves with the far right or socialy unconscionable, etc. There's no shortage of outlets for this stuff that are both better for the reach of your message, and also more effective because you'll actually be talking to people who, even if they disagree with your message, will at least be there to discuss your message and not you personally.

But if you show up and expect an actual discussion to occur (Positive or otherwise) if you drag a discussion about, say, Pepsi, into the domain of arguing against cishet white males... that smacks to me of someone who finds it very difficult to actually seperate out which elements of reality pertain to the "opposition" of their political beliefs, and instead has resorted to attacking an enemy at literally every opportunity.

And like I said, that encourages people to simply dismiss you as a person, before they even think about your argument. Most people aren't even going to get to that second stage where they, like I, say "I agree with you but this is a bad way of going about it". They're going to stop flat at "I don't like you" and the rest of whatever you said will get lost in the fog.

If people dismiss me as a person or argue against my personality rather than the points I make then that seems more their problem than mine. I don't have time for people like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1459853)

It would also help if their arguments consisted of things other than gifs, condescending one word posts, and unexplained jargon.

You mean it would help if their arguments consisted of arguments, then.