This week in patriarchy: Ukraine expels women and children so men can have combat to themselves

[Metaphor]

If my audience were the general public who had an objective perspective on a neutral subject (or at least had a neutral response to me as author), you might have a point.

However, this is not the only forum I post on, so I have other perspectives on my writing. I'm not nearly so "misunderstood" on other fora, and it's not because my writing is any different.

Assuming your assessment of the other audiences is accurate (a big assumption), it misses the point. When you post here, the participants here are your audience.

One would expect that an intellectually honest and intelligent writer who found they had to constantly explain their "satire" to their audience would realize that perhaps the problem was not with audience.

Non. It might be practical to abandon my rhetorical style in the face of a hostile audience determined to miss the point, but there is nothing intellectually honest about it.

Blaming your audience for your inability to present your ideas in a manner that fosters fruitful discussion is a horseshit excuse even for you.

Someone who is truly interested in honest discussion would want to present their ideas as clearly as possible. Apparently you are not interested in intellectually honest discussion.

On the contrary. I am certainly interested in honest discussion, and I reckon my OP has had people tell me exactly what they believe.

I disagree, of course, that I have not presented my ideas clearly.

 

[Metaphor]

I agree that you generally seem uninterested in a straight forward discussion.

I did not say it and don't believe it.

And if someone misunderstands, you do not offer a simple clarification. Nope. You become insulting and add further distractions and obfuscation. Or have a temper tantrum.

How many times over how many years did I tell you, as plainly as possible, about my beliefs about university admissions? And how many times did you repeatedly and relentlessly and ruthlessly put forward a fantasy version of my beliefs, no matter how much I corrected you?

How many times have you repeatedly and relentlessly and ruthlessly pretended I was talking about inspecting genitals when I talk about sex differences in humans? No matter how many times I correct you, you never retract, you never admit you were wrong, you never apologise and you never ever pledge to not misrepresent my views in the future.

 

[Toni]

I agree that you generally seem uninterested in a straight forward discussion.

I did not say it and don't believe it.

And if someone misunderstands, you do not offer a simple clarification. Nope. You become insulting and add further distractions and obfuscation. Or have a temper tantrum.

How many times over how many years did I tell you, as plainly as possible, about my beliefs about university admissions? And how many times did you repeatedly and relentlessly and ruthlessly put forward a fantasy version of my beliefs, no matter how much I corrected you?

How many times have you repeatedly and relentlessly and ruthlessly pretended I was talking about inspecting genitals when I talk about sex differences in humans? No matter how many times I correct you, you never retract, you never admit you were wrong, you never apologise and you never ever pledge to not misrepresent my views in the future.

I give up.

You do you.

 

[laughing dog]

If my audience were the general public who had an objective perspective on a neutral subject (or at least had a neutral response to me as author), you might have a point.

However, this is not the only forum I post on, so I have other perspectives on my writing. I'm not nearly so "misunderstood" on other fora, and it's not because my writing is any different.

Assuming your assessment of the other audiences is accurate (a big assumption), it misses the point. When you post here, the participants here are your audience.

One would expect that an intellectually honest and intelligent writer who found they had to constantly explain their "satire" to their audience would realize that perhaps the problem was not with audience.

Non. It might be practical to abandon my rhetorical style in the face of a hostile audience determined to miss the point, but there is nothing intellectually honest about it.

Blaming your audience for your inability to present your ideas in a manner that fosters fruitful discussion is a horseshit excuse even for you.

Someone who is truly interested in honest discussion would want to present their ideas as clearly as possible. Apparently you are not interested in intellectually honest discussion.

On the contrary. I am certainly interested in honest discussion, and I reckon my OP has had people tell me exactly what they believe.

There is little evidence from your side. Honest discussion requires clarity.

I disagree, of course, that I have not presented my ideas clearly.

There is sufficient evidence to the contrary with your "satires".

 

[Elixir]

The trumpo playbook demands that when you make incorrect statements, if anyone calls you on it, you were “joking”.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I truly wish that I were a good enough person to be able to always embrace pacifism.

This is an interesting side. I don't think pacifism is good. I think non-aggression is good.

Actually, I kind of think that pacifists are parasites. Pacifists are at the complete mercy of any aggressor, and their continued existence relies on the willingness of non-pacifists to engage in violence on their behalf.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm sure it would.

Me? I'm old and out of shape but I know enough chemistry to do some damage. I'd stay. But that's me.

How much use would chemistry knowledge be? I would think you wouldn't have much ability to get your hands on stuff to do useful chemistry on.

Obviously chemistry is not your thing.

In normal times I would certainly think someone who knows chemistry could make useful stuff. I'm saying that in the current situation I think there won't be much in the way of raw ingredients available.

I'm going to echo Toni here. Chemistry is clearly not your thing. I'm not even a great chemist... but with the items on hand in my house for basic maintenance and cleaning, I could do considerable damage in the space of about 15 minutes. Give me a couple of hours and I can cause serious problems.

 

[Emily Lake]

My god! The reason I embrace pacifism is because I know what it does to people to kill someone, to see others killed. I write this knowing full well that I would kill before I let someone kill a loved one. And I’d bear the burden for those soldiers if it made any difference.

War is evil. Sometimes, it absolutely is the lesser of two evils. But that doesn’t make it any less evil or any more noble.

I agree with your sentiment. I believe I am drawing a distinction between pacifism and non-aggression, and that you are not making that distinction. To me, pacifism is not engaging in violence under any circumstances, even when faced with harm to yourself or a loved one. Non-aggression, however, is a commitment to not instigating violence; it allows for purely defensive actions.

I also agree that violence is evil, sometimes just a lesser evil.

 

[Emily Lake]

You’re right: it is so amazing that it is absolutely fucking unbelievable.
@EmilyLake in case you wonder about poor little Met’s little fee fees getting hurt.

Meh, I don't actually care about Met's fee-fees. I just laugh at the instant pile on, often with very shaky justification. There are plenty of things to legitimately attack Met for... I see no good reason to invent or misinterpret them. It's overkill.

That said... I actually do agree with Metaphor's principle on this. I'm not a fan of single-sex drafts or conscription.

I'm not particularly pro-draft to begin with, but I can understand the pragmatic need for one in some circumstances. But if it is enacted, I don't think it should be men only. I also, however, understand that use of sex as a quick-and-easy proxy to make sure children aren't left without a caregiver.

I think I said up thread that I'd prefer a registration process that children have a designated parent who is exempted from draft. For single-parent households, that would mean the primary custodial parent is automatically exempted. For two-parent households, the parents would decide amongst themselves who would register and who would take the exemption. And if both parents wished to register, they'd need to provide for a registered guardian for their children. If a person has no kids, they get automatically registered.

The problem is... that is something that has to be put in place during peace-time. It's not something that can be enacted on the fly.

So while I share much the same principle as Metaphor, I'm pragmatic about it during active wartime.

 

[Toni]

No, I truly wish that I were a good enough person to be able to always embrace pacifism.

This is an interesting side. I don't think pacifism is good. I think non-aggression is good.

Actually, I kind of think that pacifists are parasites. Pacifists are at the complete mercy of any aggressor, and their continued existence relies on the willingness of non-pacifists to engage in violence on their behalf.

Pacifism is ideal but it must be embraced by all or else it falls apart end ends in violence.

I understand fully what you are saying. Even if I never observed anything outside of my own family, or growing up with siblings, or going to school, for that matter, I see how easily things devolve into those who feel they can safely opt out, and call themselves pacifists will leave the dirty work of actual fighting to those they consider not quite their equal.

Of course, I’ve been in this world a long time. With eyes wide open. Pacifism can be cowardly and hypocritical. So can taking up arms.

Non-aggression can also be exploitative, in the wrong hands. If we’re honest, when we got into scuffles as kids, didn’t we all say that the other guy started it? And usually mean it?

I mean, that’s what Putin is saying right now.

 

[laughing dog]

You’re right: it is so amazing that it is absolutely fucking unbelievable.
@EmilyLake in case you wonder about poor little Met’s little fee fees getting hurt.

Meh, I don't actually care about Met's fee-fees. I just laugh at the instant pile on, often with very shaky justification. There are plenty of things to legitimately attack Met for... I see no good reason to invent or misinterpret them. It's overkill.

That said... I actually do agree with Metaphor's principle on this. I'm not a fan of single-sex drafts or conscription.

I'm not particularly pro-draft to begin with, but I can understand the pragmatic need for one in some circumstances. But if it is enacted, I don't think it should be men only. I also, however, understand that use of sex as a quick-and-easy proxy to make sure children aren't left without a caregiver.

I think I said up thread that I'd prefer a registration process that children have a designated parent who is exempted from draft. For single-parent households, that would mean the primary custodial parent is automatically exempted. For two-parent households, the parents would decide amongst themselves who would register and who would take the exemption. And if both parents wished to register, they'd need to provide for a registered guardian for their children. If a person has no kids, they get automatically registered.

The problem is... that is something that has to be put in place during peace-time. It's not something that can be enacted on the fly.

Exactly. Ukraine is on the fly right now.

Conscription is not the best way to amass a defensive force, but when a country is invaded, it may be necessary. Any form of conscription is going to be unfair along some dimension.

I do think it is immoral for able-bodied and able-minded people to expect others to defend their country while they leave.

So while I share much the same principle as Metaphor, I'm pragmatic about it during active wartime.

Adherence to principle regardless of the consequences is sometimes an indication of mindless fanaticism.

 

[Emily Lake]

So while I share much the same principle as Metaphor, I'm pragmatic about it during active wartime.

Adherence to principle regardless of the consequences is sometimes an indication of mindless fanaticism.

Sure. But given that we on this forum aren't actually directly involved, there's no reason to make the topic verboten either. And I can see Met's perspective on this - as a society we do tend to think it's just fine to exploit men for cannon fodder. Were I a man, I suspect I'd object rather strongly.

 

[laughing dog]

So while I share much the same principle as Metaphor, I'm pragmatic about it during active wartime.

Adherence to principle regardless of the consequences is sometimes an indication of mindless fanaticism.

Sure. But given that we on this forum aren't actually directly involved, there's no reason to make the topic verboten either. And I can see Met's perspective on this - as a society we do tend to think it's just fine to exploit men for cannon fodder. Were I a man, I suspect I'd object rather strongly.

I'm a man, and I don't. Now, I don't think a draft ought to be restricted by gender. But in the case of an unexpected invasion, sometimes countries need to improvise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sure it would.

Me? I'm old and out of shape but I know enough chemistry to do some damage. I'd stay. But that's me.

How much use would chemistry knowledge be? I would think you wouldn't have much ability to get your hands on stuff to do useful chemistry on.

Obviously chemistry is not your thing.

In normal times I would certainly think someone who knows chemistry could make useful stuff. I'm saying that in the current situation I think there won't be much in the way of raw ingredients available.

I'm going to echo Toni here. Chemistry is clearly not your thing. I'm not even a great chemist... but with the items on hand in my house for basic maintenance and cleaning, I could do considerable damage in the space of about 15 minutes. Give me a couple of hours and I can cause serious problems.

You could make chlorine gas but enough to be a hazard outside? There just aren't that many reactive chemicals in the average house. I'm sure there are plenty of nasty things you could make with adequate supplies, it's the lack of those supplies I'm questioning.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm sure it would.

Me? I'm old and out of shape but I know enough chemistry to do some damage. I'd stay. But that's me.

How much use would chemistry knowledge be? I would think you wouldn't have much ability to get your hands on stuff to do useful chemistry on.

Obviously chemistry is not your thing.

In normal times I would certainly think someone who knows chemistry could make useful stuff. I'm saying that in the current situation I think there won't be much in the way of raw ingredients available.

I'm going to echo Toni here. Chemistry is clearly not your thing. I'm not even a great chemist... but with the items on hand in my house for basic maintenance and cleaning, I could do considerable damage in the space of about 15 minutes. Give me a couple of hours and I can cause serious problems.

You could make chlorine gas but enough to be a hazard outside? There just aren't that many reactive chemicals in the average house. I'm sure there are plenty of nasty things you could make with adequate supplies, it's the lack of those supplies I'm questioning.

Honestly, I contemplated posting a variety of things I can make with literally what I have in my house right now and a couple of hours. But I don't want to end up on an FBI watch list.

Seriously, yes. I can make several things that would be very effective outside. You're talking about toxic gases, but you seem to be completely overlooking flammable and explosive options.

 

[Toni]

I'm sure it would.

Me? I'm old and out of shape but I know enough chemistry to do some damage. I'd stay. But that's me.

How much use would chemistry knowledge be? I would think you wouldn't have much ability to get your hands on stuff to do useful chemistry on.

Obviously chemistry is not your thing.

In normal times I would certainly think someone who knows chemistry could make useful stuff. I'm saying that in the current situation I think there won't be much in the way of raw ingredients available.

I'm going to echo Toni here. Chemistry is clearly not your thing. I'm not even a great chemist... but with the items on hand in my house for basic maintenance and cleaning, I could do considerable damage in the space of about 15 minutes. Give me a couple of hours and I can cause serious problems.

You could make chlorine gas but enough to be a hazard outside? There just aren't that many reactive chemicals in the average house. I'm sure there are plenty of nasty things you could make with adequate supplies, it's the lack of those supplies I'm questioning.

Honestly, I contemplated posting a variety of things I can make with literally what I have in my house right now and a couple of hours. But I don't want to end up on an FBI watch list.

Seriously, yes. I can make several things that would be very effective outside. You're talking about toxic gases, but you seem to be completely overlooking flammable and explosive options.

Exactly. Without even having to siphon gasoline out of my car.

I’m not claiming to be a babushka with a jar of pickled tomatoes but….

 

[Emily Lake]

Exactly. Without even having to siphon gasoline out of my car.

I’m not claiming to be a babushka with a jar of pickled tomatoes but….

I find myself a little bit concerned that people are NOT aware of the explosive and flammable potentials of many household items. Like... they should never be stored near each other in case of accidental leakage kind of concern.

 

[Emily Lake]

True Story: I worked in a photo lab for a bit in college. I got hired on the spot during the interview, because they showed me the equipment room, and I said "Hey, are you aware that you've got a strong base with a tap stored directly above a strong acid with a tap, and if those mix they will at minimum damage property... and very likely harm your employees?"

 

[Toni]

Exactly. Without even having to siphon gasoline out of my car.

I’m not claiming to be a babushka with a jar of pickled tomatoes but….

I find myself a little bit concerned that people are NOT aware of the explosive and flammable potentials of many household items. Like... they should never be stored near each other in case of accidental leakage kind of concern.

Yeah. Me, too. I've spent a lot of time working in labs and we've done some renovation in our house. Outside of the usual cleaning products and liquor cabinet, I could do some real damage with stuff we have lying around.

 

[Toni]

It's almost as though no one has ever watched the inspirational Home Alone.