Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6885378" data-attributes="member: 16814">I explained what I meant by the word I used.  You can claim it's a buzzword to use, I find it useful to express a concept that doesn't have it's own word, yet.Then you fail to understand the usage, both of the kafkatrap and of logical fallacy.  A mistaken usage isn't a fallacy automatically, it's can just be a mistake.  But this is not a mistaken usage.  The crime is unspecified because there is no specific crime proposed.  Instead, I am to be guilty because of my membership to a group that presumably commits some crime -- in this case harassment.  This is my guilt because of my privilege of being a white male.  Any statement to the contrary just reinforces my guilt of having privilege.  Also, the legal definition of harassment doesn't meet the usage in this thread.  That's not a logical fallacy, either, it's just a mistake.Yes, he does.  It's subtle.  He asserts that people are harassed, and that white men cannot see the harassment because of their position.  He then states that if some woman decides to be angry and categorize white men as offenders that we should just accept that categorization because we can't tell either way.  Implicit in the argument is that white men should accept the terms, like 'terrorist', used to describe us.  The point of the post was to encourage white men to accept that guilt and keep quiet because we deserve it, presumably because of our privilege.  It was rank signalling.I'm sure you do, as you based your entire argument on semantics and a failed grasp of the argument made.Yes, you should accept and ignore the language because addressing it perpetrates the heinous behavior that we should feel guilty for.  Every argument is 'you shouldn't comment on the intemperate language because, by doing so, you're harming people by distracting from the real issues.'  The unspoken part of that is that by not saying anything, you're accepting it and accepting that it's deserved.  For if it were not deserved, then there would be no problem in saying so.I reject that I cannot speak as to the words used.  I reject that by speaking I cannot contribute to the problem.  In fact, let's analyze this:  of the posts of yours in this thread, how many are about actually addressing the issues of harassment of women and how many are about ensuring ideological purity of thought and speech?  I've at least put forward ideas on how to better craft anti-harassment policies and discussed the issue at large.  You've spent a lot of words telling me how wrong it is of me to question the wording used and/or question people who're making blanket statements about those words.  Perhaps you should grow some thicker skin, ignore the distractions, and actually address the issue?  That is, if you really care more about the actual issue that ensuring that everyone in the thread conforms to the approved thoughts.Goodness me.  Given I never once refered to the origin of the term and made all of my arguments in the thread, I'm not sure what this bit is for other than to signal that I should be ignored because i used a word from a person you don't like.  I never once referenced this, and I don't need to -- I make my own arguments, even if I take some things, like a good term or a form of argument, from somewhere else.  If you feel that you've successfully shut down this argument by impeaching a source not even quoted, there's a logical fallacy for that.Also, I'd like to take a moment to congratulate you:  you've finally found an example of a tone argument.  Unfortunately, you're the one that's made it in dismissing Raymond's essay because you don't think he's nice to people.  Still, it's a step in the right direction.</blockquote>

Verification