Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 01:45:13 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Peter, afleitch)
| | |-+  French national assembly act like construction workers towards female minister
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: French national assembly act like construction workers towards female minister  (Read 1113 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26922


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2012, 12:16:02 pm »
Ignore

The "now famous" was obviously a reference to the fact you had been mentioning her several times. It boggles my mind that you managed to interpret two absolutely bland words as if they were implying something so bizarre. But actually, I think it tells a lot about you and your tendency to assume that your opponents always have sinister hidden beliefs. I guess it would be useless to ask for apologies ?

As for the argument per se, I was about to post that I might have underestimated certain aspects of France's sexism before reading your comment. After all, I've been raised in a very progressive family where sexism almost never manifested itself, and, having lived a very sheltered life, I might never have witnessed sexist behaviors which exist in the society. So, yes, maybe my rebuttal of your claims was excessive. I still stand, however, by the fact that sexism is not as commonplace in France as you claim it is (which is demonstrated, if needed, by the public reactions to the story you reported in France itself). Especially because the patronizing attitude toward women which your articles describe is very generation-connoted (one of the problems with France being that old people dominate certain activities, like politics) and is thus fading at a steady pace.

And finally, even if France were as sexist as you described it, I still tend not to like generalizations of this kind. Remember that our discussion started when you said "I don't want to be bigoted but what is rape in NY might not be considered rape by a French bigshot." You might not have "wanted to be bigoted", but you still were, considering how you inferred something about a person's mindset based on his nationality. If the guy in question had been an African and you had said the same thing, I'm pretty sure you would have been called out for racism, even though you'll agree with me than sexism is stronger than average in African countries. That's a simple rule : you don't draw conclusions on single individuals based on generalities. The ironic thing is that you often call people out for their bigoted statements (and I applaud you when you do), yet this time you totally failed to recognize you were following the exact same logic. So yeah, I might have overreacted to this kind of comment and been aggressive toward you (but since you immediately took the same tone, you can't really put all the blame on me). Before you ask, I don't think I had any "national pride" to defend, since if you paid attention to my posts you'll know I don't really feel particularly attached to France and I actually like to criticize it every time I have the occasion. Surely, the fact that the affair involved the guy I was planning to vote for didn't help either.

The irony of all this argument is that it could have been solved very easily, if your reaction to me hadn't been so scornful and self-righteous all along. It is actually pretty funny that you are the person on the forum against which I have had the worst feuds, because, after all, we are not so different policy-wise. There is a poster, Franzl, who is basically your ideological twin and is one of my best friends on the forum. Sure, we often clash with each other, but we always keep it cordial and I think we both learn something by discussing together. It could have been the same for us, if only your arguments weren't so full of patronizing or sarcastic remarks, and if you hadn't on several occasions implied that I was a sexist myself. That's your problem : your arguments are very solid logically and, yes, I admit that you are better than me at backing your claims with evidence. But you always have to wrap them in nastiness and self-righteousness. You are so used to be right that you forgot that sometimes the opposing position is just as acceptable as yours.

Sorry if it's a bit long. If you manage to avoid snarky remarks and answer to my rant constructively, maybe this could be a step toward overcoming our animosity.

Lol, several? As far as I can see, that time was the 2nd time (the previous instance having been 1 year earlier). But, fair enough. If that was what you meant I apologize for thinking otherwise.

As for the rest, I have two issues with it.

1. You still don't seem to get that my original statement was a joke. Your African example is illustrative. I could definitely say something like "I don't want to be bigoted, but the defendant IS black" Any statement opening with the words "I'm not racist, but..." is always a joke (unless it's coming from an actual racist).

The obvious absurdity of the statement should have been a clear hint of that. Of course, as with many such jokes I make there was a hidden sort of provocation. I do believe that the kind of sexism that is more pervasive in France than many other countries make that grey area between rape and consensual sex transgressed more often.

2. I'm a strong believer in cordial discussions about politics. I couldn't be living with an active Swedish socialist, have another one as my debate partner or even do competitive debating if I weren't able to do that. But, in this case, you snapped at me very aggressively from the outset. And I have a low tolerance level for that. If someone shows me no respect, I don't give them any in return. I guess you were in an emotional state at the time though and perhaps I should've been more considerate of that.

Anyway, I'm not really upset and I'm fine with being friends and keeping it cordial and whatnot. I'd point out though that you were very scornful towards my position that France is a relatively sexist country, but now you seem to agree that I was probably mostly correct in that position (with the nuancing caveats you provided above, sure). I was a bit aggressive as well, but, then again, you were calling me an idiot for stating something that was actually (at least mostly) true. That provoked me a bit because I felt it was quite unfair.

As a final note, I never claimed France was super-sexist. And I don't think you or your family or whatever are either. I like to poke fun at national stereotypes a bit, it's just the way I am.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30767
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2012, 02:15:07 pm »
Ignore

Why is Gustaf acting like such a DB in this thread?  Huh
Logged



Real Americans (and Big Sky Bob) demand to know.


I just slept for 11 hours, so I should need a nap today, but we'll see.
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31253
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2012, 04:01:58 pm »
Ignore

Lol, several? As far as I can see, that time was the 2nd time (the previous instance having been 1 year earlier). But, fair enough. If that was what you meant I apologize for thinking otherwise.

Fair enough.


Quote
1. You still don't seem to get that my original statement was a joke. Your African example is illustrative. I could definitely say something like "I don't want to be bigoted, but the defendant IS black" Any statement opening with the words "I'm not racist, but..." is always a joke (unless it's coming from an actual racist).

The obvious absurdity of the statement should have been a clear hint of that. Of course, as with many such jokes I make there was a hidden sort of provocation. I do believe that the kind of sexism that is more pervasive in France than many other countries make that grey area between rape and consensual sex transgressed more often.

I find it strange how often some statements you make end up being jokes while everybody had initially taken them seriously. OK, very often I was the one in this situation, but I'm pretty sure it happened to other posters as well. And I don't think I'm particularly inept at understanding sarcasm. Sometimes I can't help thinking that you could be using this as a way to evade criticism when faced with a statement you can't defend, but I always choose to assume good faith in people. I would advise you, though, to avoid doing this kind of jokes again. I don't know if your humour sucks or if some posters are too dumb to understand it, but it's pretty clear it always results in awful misunderstandings.

In this precise case, I think that bringing out the defendant's nationality was particularly tasteless, especially because the affair had just broken up, and especially because you did it in a thread frequented by French posters who could easily have taken offense for such comments.


Quote
2. I'm a strong believer in cordial discussions about politics. I couldn't be living with an active Swedish socialist, have another one as my debate partner or even do competitive debating if I weren't able to do that. But, in this case, you snapped at me very aggressively from the outset. And I have a low tolerance level for that. If someone shows me no respect, I don't give them any in return. I guess you were in an emotional state at the time though and perhaps I should've been more considerate of that.

Anyway, I'm not really upset and I'm fine with being friends and keeping it cordial and whatnot. I'd point out though that you were very scornful towards my position that France is a relatively sexist country, but now you seem to agree that I was probably mostly correct in that position (with the nuancing caveats you provided above, sure). I was a bit aggressive as well, but, then again, you were calling me an idiot for stating something that was actually (at least mostly) true. That provoked me a bit because I felt it was quite unfair.

As a final note, I never claimed France was super-sexist. And I don't think you or your family or whatever are either. I like to poke fun at national stereotypes a bit, it's just the way I am.

I certainly have my responsibility in the turn this discussion has taken, I admitted it. I understand my initial reaction was excessive and did not prepare for a serene discussion. With that said, your statement (as you said yourself) was utterly absurd, and if someone had erroneously taken it seriously, it is understandable that they would not be very well disposed toward you. That obviously doesn't justify all my aggressiveness, but this plus the shock caused by the affair might be enough to explain it.

Still, aggressiveness is not what really bothered me. When discussions take a hostile turn, I almost always become stubborn, aggressive and insulting, calling my opponents idiots or nutjobs or whatever. That's not what I blame you for. What, however, I found deeply offensive throughout our discussion was your tendency to :

1) Sarcastically dismiss an entire argument without even addressing it. Just like when I typed four lengthy paragraphs to whom you basically replied "oh, that's so funny".

2) Display utter contempt to your interlocutor, in the form of some tongue-in-cheek remark which basically implies that the opponent is some kind of inferior being. In some way, I find it much more offensive than swear words like "retard" "scumbag" or "bastard". Those find their place in the precise context of a heated discussion, while such a sarcastic remark makes it feel like you don't even consider your interlocutor as one.

3) Strawman. It happened several times that you outright ignored what I was saying, and instead proceeded to answer to arguments which I had never made. Sometimes even after I had already corrected you. I assume you did it in good faith, but this still shows that you don't take enough time reading your opponent's posts and instead just assume he said what the stereotype you have of him would say.

4) Make insinuations about your opponent's hidden beliefs. This is a nastier, more insidious version of the above. On several occasions, you seemed to basically imply that I was being a sexist or somehow tolerant to sexual harassment and rape. Of course, you are too clever to say it outright : instead, you phrase it in a subtle way, like "oh, so you said this ? I think that's exactly what a sexist would say...". Or "oh, you think so ? That's probably because you also think [insert sexist comment]." You are very good at this, I must say, but this is exactly the kind of hypocritical sarcasm which I can't stand, and which easily leads me to insult my interlocutor. I don't know if this is a tactic to destabilize your opponents, or if you actually think they think this way. In any case, you should stop this.

This, more than simple insults, is what really turned me on you throughout the discussion. If you combine these four, what you get is the attitude of someone who seems to consider himself as the voice of Righteousness, and can't understand disagreement otherwise than as coming from morally flawed people which are not worth considerations. I have hypothesized that this might be a side effect of your constant arguments with Opebo, where you have ended up with identifying all your opponents as opeboes.

I know my own attitude didn't help the cordiality of the discussion, but, really, this kind of behavior just didn't leave me any chance to calm down. If even Joe says you act like a douchebag, you should be aware there is something wrong with your arguing style. Honestly, I think you should work on it, because it's pretty clear you're a smart person able of articulate arguments - certainly more so than I am.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 04:03:35 pm by Antonio V »Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Insula Dei
belgiansocialist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4233
Belgium


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2012, 06:00:22 pm »
Ignore

I see it's still okay to not be overfond of those sexist, racist,... working masses.
Logged

Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26922


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2012, 07:36:08 pm »
Ignore

I'm not really serious most of the time. It's an essential part of my personality. I realize a lot of people don't share my humour, but then again, I tend to not get along with such people in the long run anyway. So, no, it's not a defense tactic. Tongue If people have such a low opinion of me that they might think that statements that are deliberately ludicrous are seriously meant I assume it is unlikely that they will like me anyway.

As to the way I debate.

Your points 1 and 2 refer to sarcasm. I reserve this for cases where I don't really see an argument or see an attitude so aggressive and one-sided that I've already given up on reasoning with the other person. Of course, you might say, why even respond? Well, most of the time I don't. Sometimes I'm in the mood to do it and that's when we end up where we did.

3 and 4 is just a form of arguing that I find useful to cut to the chase. I try to find out where people actually stand by challenging more radical versions of their positions. I find that people get upset over this it is typically because they have taken positions they don't actually agree with the full implications of.

I don't think that people who disagree with me are morally flawed. There are actually relatively few positions I find morally abhorrent. These are usually the ones I discuss so people probably have a more radical impression of me than is actually true.

And while I won't deny being a douche, I think Joe if anything is more of one so I'm fine with that. Wink

---------------------------

Now, I guess what it comes down to here is this (and this really isn't intended to be very harsh, so I'll apologize in advance if it comes off that way): I don't have many important social relations on this internet forum. Thus, I have no really strong incentive to make people like me and thus adapt my personality to please you. If you don't share my sense of humour, fine. Few people do. If you don't like my way of arguing, sure. I probably don't like yours either.

But I see no reason to change myself so that random poster X will like me more. If you can prove me wrong about something or demonstrate an inconsistency in my beliefs or provide me with an original insight that I hadn't thought of - great. That's why I come on here. I don't really do it to make internet friends (although it's great when that happens).

So, I accept that I don't always behave as nicely as I could (though I certainly could also be a lot harsher than I am). I'd add that me being harsh is a sign of respect - I don't go after the forum's resident retards, because I think that's mean bullying. So don't take it too personally. But if you treat me with respect, don't do name-calling and approach issues with a humble attitude, I'll certainly do my best to respond in kind.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31253
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2012, 05:00:44 am »
Ignore

I perfectly understand that you are not posting on this forum to make friends. I don't think we will ever really get along, so this isn't my goal either. My point, however, isn't about being friendly : it's about having a serene policy discussion which doesn't turn into a violent conflict. The kind of tactics you have admitted to use while debating are exactly what makes it impossible to have normal debates with you. At least personally, I have a very low tolerance to sarcastic attacks, strawmen or - particularly - nasty insinuations. I might be more sensitive to them than the average poster, but I don't think anybody is going to take them well. I might have started the argument in an already hostile tone, but the fact you resorted to this kind of methods is what definitively turned me against you. Had you avoided it, it is quite possible that we would have come to an agreement on this issue far earlier, with my admittance that I was somewhat misinformed on the issue. Instead, my attention shifted from the argument itself to your style of arguing, and I focused on calling you out for it. I know that was not a smart move, but you can understand that it is not easy to admit your opponent is partly right when he is acting like a douchebag.

It seems pretty clear I won't make you change your arguing style, and that's a pity for me because I keep thinking it would be possible to have real debates with you. I can only warn you that, if confronted with this kind of attitude again, I will probably react the same way I have reacted in the past and there is no chance for a constructive discussion to emerge.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72586
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2012, 11:09:06 am »
Ignore

Why is Gustaf acting like such a DB in this thread?  Huh

Par for the course for him.

So basically French right wingers are sexist tools, and also throw a fit about wearing jeans? Wow, those are some Horrible People right there. Honestly if it was reversed and a right wing politician was wearing jeans and some leftist one bashed her for it I'd have a hard time voting for the critic, though I would believe the French left would never be that stupid (not to mention the attitude is very right wing in nature, "tradition" and all that.)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 09:16:18 pm by They Move on Tracks of Never-Ending Light »Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26922


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2012, 11:49:27 am »
Ignore

Why is Gustaf acting like such a DB in this thread?  Huh

Part for the course for him.

So basically French right wingers are sexist tools, and also throw a fit about wearing jeans? Wow, those are some Horrible People right there. Honestly if it was reversed and a right wing politician was wearing jeans and some leftist one bashed her for it I'd have a hard time voting for the critic, though I would believe the French left would never be that stupid (not to mention the attitude is very right wing in nature, "tradition" and all that.)

The expression is "par for the course".
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31511
South Africa


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -7.30

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2012, 12:24:02 pm »
Ignore

So basically French right wingers are sexist tools, and also throw a fit about wearing jeans? Wow, those are some Horrible People right there. Honestly if it was reversed and a right wing politician was wearing jeans and some leftist one bashed her for it I'd have a hard time voting for the critic, though I would believe the French left would never be that stupid (not to mention the attitude is very right wing in nature, "tradition" and all that.)

As always, you're generalizing and applying your biases to an entire group based on a small sample. While I have no great love for the UMP, calling the entire French right-wing a bunch of sexist tools is obviously intellectually dishonest and stupid. The jeans thing, as I said, was the work, largely of a small gang of right-wing UMP-Sarkozyst tools led notably by Nadine Morano, who has been a walking self-parody and dictionary defintion for "mentally retarded" since May 6. The whistling and hissing thing, again, as I mentioned, was the work of the old machos/creepsters like Patrick Balkany (find a picture of him, and you'll see just from his face that he's a creepy old macho crook) and a few others. Please note that the decent right-wingers, like Fillon, Juppé, Wauquiez, Le Maire, Baroin and the 'smart' UMP women like NKM and Pécresse all stayed clear of this (even if some might have partaked in the jeans brouhaha). 
Logged

black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72586
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2012, 09:18:17 pm »
Ignore

Why is Gustaf acting like such a DB in this thread?  Huh

Part for the course for him.

So basically French right wingers are sexist tools, and also throw a fit about wearing jeans? Wow, those are some Horrible People right there. Honestly if it was reversed and a right wing politician was wearing jeans and some leftist one bashed her for it I'd have a hard time voting for the critic, though I would believe the French left would never be that stupid (not to mention the attitude is very right wing in nature, "tradition" and all that.)

The expression is "par for the course".

Yeah, typo. Fixed.

So basically French right wingers are sexist tools, and also throw a fit about wearing jeans? Wow, those are some Horrible People right there. Honestly if it was reversed and a right wing politician was wearing jeans and some leftist one bashed her for it I'd have a hard time voting for the critic, though I would believe the French left would never be that stupid (not to mention the attitude is very right wing in nature, "tradition" and all that.)

As always, you're generalizing and applying your biases to an entire group based on a small sample. While I have no great love for the UMP, calling the entire French right-wing a bunch of sexist tools is obviously intellectually dishonest and stupid. The jeans thing, as I said, was the work, largely of a small gang of right-wing UMP-Sarkozyst tools led notably by Nadine Morano, who has been a walking self-parody and dictionary defintion for "mentally retarded" since May 6. The whistling and hissing thing, again, as I mentioned, was the work of the old machos/creepsters like Patrick Balkany (find a picture of him, and you'll see just from his face that he's a creepy old macho crook) and a few others. Please note that the decent right-wingers, like Fillon, Juppé, Wauquiez, Le Maire, Baroin and the 'smart' UMP women like NKM and Pécresse all stayed clear of this (even if some might have partaked in the jeans brouhaha). 

Well if they were involved in that jeans nonsense too that's still pretty bad. Just read about Morano though, and ha ha, wow. Probably the closest thing France has to Michele Bachmann. And yeah Balkany looks like an obvious creep too.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines