You already admitted to it and you should stop.

From "Zappa was misogynistic because he viewed women as exclusively sexualized or childish as reflected in his lyrics and actions" to "well what does misogyny even mean? I am so confused"

Quit jacking off in front of everybody, it's unbecoming.

Good reading comprehension. I wish I could say I'm surprised.

What I said was that if Zappa's lyrics are misogynistic then I must not understand what someone has in mind by misogynistic. Because on my view his lyrics aren't misogynistic.

Zappa said nothing in lyrics about women being "exclusively sexualized," but even if he had, that wouldn't be misogynistic, unless you'd have some unusual thing in mind re what "misogynistic" denotes.

If we say that "Zappa exclusively referred to women in a sexual manner" that would be different than "Zappa referred to women as exclusively sexualized" by the way.

Re "childish" you'd have to specify anything you're reading that way.

Change the channel if you're not into it.

Oy vey. The old "If it wasn't in the quotation, it wasn't read."

I think the difference between us is that I'm viewing the lyrics within the context of a misogynistic and sexist culture that can readily be affirmed by a popular artist, where you're viewing the situation through abstracted dictionary definitions as obvious parameters for reality to exist under. My piece is clear here, I guess we'll agree to disagree. It's not something I like to do since I don't like you having the wrong ideas or misconceptions but I think it's the best route to go.

"I'm viewing the lyrics within the context of a misogynistic and sexist culture"--which is something I don't agree with; I don't agree that we have a (generally) misogynistic and sexist culture. It's not that I think that no one is misogynistic or sexist (or racist or anything like that), but I think that people have gone completely off the rails with making claims about that sort of stuff, because those things aren't very common in my view, and the vast majority of things interpreted in those ways are ridiculous.

It's not that I'm going along with dictionary definitions as "fixed rules," but if we're going to be making accusations about this stuff, and especially if we're going to be socially ostracizing people because of it and so on, we'd better damn well be able to specify exactly what we have in mind as the problem, and the accusations better hold water, including in light of how things like meaning really work ontologically. (Of course, I'd still think that ostracizing people would be an overreaction, but that's another issue.)

I also don't like "agreeing to disagree" and I want you to not hold wack views. I'm willing to do the work to achieve that--even if it takes weeks, months, years, whatever, but you don't seem willing to put in that kind of work from your perspective.

And again, crap reading comprehension, lol.

Ja, the inability to grasp how common it is is what I was poking fun at with the original "I don't think" post.


I was using your quote for irony. Here's two bucks, go buy some self-awareness.

It's rather an unwillingness to conform to mistaken beliefs.

Sure. In a place where it didn't fit unless you didn't understand it or any of the surrounding context. Hence crap reading comprehension.

I know

Then you should probably use the closer word in the first place. Unless you're trying to be imprecise for some reason?

Closemindedness is a pretty rude accusation off of the bat.

There goes that crap reading comprehension again. How is anyone supposed to be persuaded by your hermeneutic abilities (for issues like this) when you continually show such rudimentary reading comprehension problems? I'm guessing you're probably an Aspie?