Arguments to Avoid- comments

[ceepolk]

This is a REALLY small correction, so don't brace yourselves for some statement about opposing views.

I agree about many male issues being caused by patriarchy, and as long as you recognize that and say you oppose issues that arise from that too, it should be fine, and you can oppose patriarchy without being biased towards any sex. Issues like DV and rape associated with men, when a miscarriage of justice occurs or it's not taken seriously, for example, I know are stemmed off of negative views about women (weak) and superior views about men (strong).

Things like divorce and parental issues (parental issues being bias in court about visitation, or simple custody) aren't stemmed off of patriarchy issues, though. I guess that's just a couple of things, but I felt like correcting.

'Tis true, good feminists will address any sexist issue though and I support feminism. Atheism + is sounding great so far.

Mod Edit (This was part of a 2nd edited post)
One thing I looked at that I don't like is when it talks about the word "females" being sexist and "males" not being sexist. I think to be fair, we need to ban BOTH terms. If one is dehumanizing, so is the other. Also, one may have experienced many a sexist calling women females and not men males, but I am someone who uses both terms to represent women and girls of all ages, and men and boys of all ages. I've also experienced plenty of people using the word "female" non biasedly (meaning they use the terms female and male for the same reason I do). I don't know what else to say when I'm referring to men *and* boys or women *and* girls. Kid men and Kid women?
I will do so to avoid irritating others, but I think it's unnecessary.

[Catherine]

Nope, they are caused by patriarchy by virtue of women being seen as the primary carers in all situations, thus are assumed to be the ones to get custody...

On your second point, neither males or females as nouns should be used to refer to people, didn't see anyone arguing that males should be used, but rather that it generally is not used in the same way as females...

[Sylvia Sybil]

Actually, the gender skew of child custody in divorce is created by patriarchy. Since women are assumed to be the caregivers, they get custody more often, true. However, when fathers ASK for custody, they get it. Fathers don't get custody because overall they don't want it.

It actually works out pretty well for dads who get visitation but not custody - Mom gets stuck with making the kiddos empty the trash and eat their broccoli, while Dad gets to let them up stay up all night and eat ice cream, then send them home to Mom so she can deal with the tummy ache and sleep deprivation.

[The_Laughing_Coyote]

Mom gets stuck with making the kiddos empty the trash and eat their broccoli, while Dad gets to let them up stay up all night and eat ice cream, then send them home to Mom so she can deal with the tummy ache and sleep deprivation.

Also that way Dad gets to be the "Fun" parent while mommy has to be the responsible one. I've seen that used as a form of manipulation in some divorces/breakups.

[SubMor]

If one is dehumanizing, so is the other.

It's important not to think of things as if they were black and white, though. Two things can both be bad without being equally bad. If you're seeing "females" being responded to more harshly than "males," it's probably because there's a culture of microaggressions directed against women that men don't really experience--and if men do "experience" it, they do so on a scale that is exponentially less intense (the MRAs' often cited "idiot father" trope is an outlier, where only a very small minority of these things, on the whole, are directed at men).

Oppression is cumulative. This is why "cracker" isn't anywhere near as offensive as racial slurs directed at other groups. The same reasoning also applies to the subject of gender (which is even more complicated by its often overlooked nonbinariness).

[Robitussin]

Actually, the gender skew of child custody in divorce is created by patriarchy. Since women are assumed to be the caregivers, they get custody more often, true. However, when fathers ASK for custody, they get it. Fathers don't get custody because overall they don't want it.

It actually works out pretty well for dads who get visitation but not custody - Mom gets stuck with making the kiddos empty the trash and eat their broccoli, while Dad gets to let them up stay up all night and eat ice cream, then send them home to Mom so she can deal with the tummy ache and sleep deprivation.

I definitely disagree that when fathers ask for custody, they get it. That is certainly not true. And look at me, even. But I'm not basing this on personal experience - most times I think of other world experiences before mine, anyway. I'm weird like that. Think about myself less in general.

I will trust the claim that it's created by patriarchy, but one definitely has the advantage in getting custody if they are female.

As for the visitation thing, yeah, dads who don't complain about not seeing their children wouldn't object to it, but being balanced in fair visitation rights helps both parents. Mom has more time, and dads who care have more time with their children. It certainly sucks when one wants the father to see the children more and he just won't come enough!

[SubMor]

I definitely disagree that when fathers ask for custody, they get it.

No. Stop. Stop right there.

Facts do not work this way. Reality doesn't care whether you agree or disagree. The linked article made an empirical claim backed by, you know, doing research.

Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.

You are not entitled to your disagreement if all you have is "this doesn't conform to my belief about how the world works."

[Robitussin]

If one is dehumanizing, so is the other.

It's important not to think of things as if they were black and white, though. Two things can both be bad without being equally bad. If you're seeing "females" being responded to more harshly than "males," it's probably because there's a culture of microaggressions directed against women that men don't really experience--and if men do "experience" it, they do so on a scale that is exponentially less intense.

Oppression is cumulative. This is why "cracker" isn't anywhere near as offensive as racial slurs directed at other groups. The same reasoning also applies to the subject of gender (which is even more complicated by its often overlooked nonbinariness).

It is black and white if you are arguing that it is dehumanizing because it uses a base-animal term - because females are any female sex animal or living thing in general. From what I read, there were *two* claims or support for it. One that it's dehumanizing for the reasons I said, and two that it's been used biasedly just towards women. If I've misinterpreted this, and the dehumanizing thing was only referring to its biased use, then I think it should only be disapproved of when someone actually uses it biasedly.

Just like the word cracker. It should be bad when someone uses it in a racist way, even if compared with other forms of racism it's been around for less time. After all, racism against blacks was intolerable as SOON as it started. Not after it was that way for so long. When it's used in a friendly way, I do not care.

My opinion on people calling each other the "N-word" is the same- if it's intended to be racist, it's ugly. If not, I do not care. I think intent is key. One shouldn't be accused of racism when there was no racism committed in the mind, and one should be accused of racism when racism is committed in the mind, regardless of the term. For example, if someone decides to call someone a "coal" in a racist way, I'd not tolerate that, even if it's not usually a racist term.

As for my usage, I won't be using either terms here to please all parties.

[Robitussin]

I definitely disagree that when fathers ask for custody, they get it.

No. Stop. Stop right there.

Facts do not work this way. Reality doesn't care whether you agree or disagree. The linked article made an empirical claim backed by, you know, doing research.

Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.

You are not entitled to your disagreement if all you have is "this doesn't conform to my belief about how the world works."

No need to be so firm. It can be assumed that I wasn't aware of any study like this.

They get it even more than females do? Well, that's a surprising claim. If the study does indeed turn out to be true, then I will be rooting for women to get a fair chance in main custody. (However, I still think that in some cases fathers also lose because of bias and assumption that the mother automatically gets custody). I'm definitely going to need the study's details, though. I seek out a study's details before accepting it, whether it conforms to what I originally thought happened most or not.

[The_Laughing_Coyote]

My opinion on people calling each other the "N-word" is the same- if it's intended to be racist, it's ugly. If not, I do not care. I think intent is key. One shouldn't be accused of racism when there was no racism committed in the mind, and one should be accused of racism when racism is committed in the mind, regardless of the term. For example, if someone decides to call someone a "coal" in a racist way, I'd not tolerate that, even if it's not usually a racist term.

No. No no no no no no no. Intent DOES NOT MATTER.

No drunk driver gets into his car INTENDING to go run over an innocent family. Does this mean we let them off when they do it?

Here's the thing: Most people think 'Racists' mean like, Klan members and such. But that's just the overt racism. There are microaggressions too. Little stereotypes that form a big picture of systematic oppression.

Please don't pull the Intent card here.

[SubMor]

It is black and white if you are arguing that it is dehumanizing because it uses a base-animal term - because females are any female sex animal or living thing in general.

Are we going to have a round of "yuh huh, nuh uh, yuh huh, nuh uh" here? I sure hope not. There's a difference between punching up and punching down. If you punch a professional boxer, it's different from punching someone who was just involved in a traumatic car accident and had most of their bones broken, right? Those two things aren't the same. Yes?

It should be bad when someone uses it in a racist way, even if compared with other forms of racism it's been around for less time.

No. Slurs are harmful not because the dictionary says so. Slurs are harmful because they cause actual harms by perpetuating social problems.

I think intent is key.

You're wrong.

ONLY CLICK THIS AFTER YOU'VE READ THAT LINK. [ Show ]

It doesn't matter whether you mean to harm someone or not. Doing things that are harmful is bad. "I didn't mean to hurt you!" is no comfort to those who've been hurt.

No need to be so firm. It can be assumed that I wasn't aware of any study like this.

There's every need to be so firm. When you've been presented with an argument based on an empirical claim, refusing to acknowledge the evidence is irresponsible and unacceptable.

They get it even more than females do?

Didn't you just say you wouldn't be using "females" as a noun? What happened to that?

I'm definitely going to need the study's details, though. I seek out a study's details before accepting it, whether it conforms to what I originally thought happened most or not.

Great. Stop posting about this topic until you've read it, then.

[Robitussin]

My opinion on people calling each other the "N-word" is the same- if it's intended to be racist, it's ugly. If not, I do not care. I think intent is key. One shouldn't be accused of racism when there was no racism committed in the mind, and one should be accused of racism when racism is committed in the mind, regardless of the term. For example, if someone decides to call someone a "coal" in a racist way, I'd not tolerate that, even if it's not usually a racist term.

No. No no no no no no no. Intent DOES NOT MATTER.

No drunk driver gets into his car INTENDING to go run over an innocent family. Does this mean we let them off when they do it?

Here's the thing: Most people think 'Racists' mean like, Klan members and such. But that's just the overt racism. There are microaggressions too. Little stereotypes that form a big picture of systematic oppression.

Please don't pull the Intent card here.

That's not the same at all. Accidentally causing a *real* accident that takes someone life isn't the same thing. Sorry, it's not a good analogy. You can dislike my opinion, but it really doesn't matter if I'm not using either term here, right?

Any situation that causes damage, whether by accident, or not, is not to be tolerated (well actually I guess I can't say that, because one could accidentally make someone trip...while this can be forgiven, purposely tripping someone isn't, for example). This isn't the same thing though. There's no use in calling foul on a word when someone isn't using it to degrade others. Stereotyping people has nothing to do with using the N-word. First of all, some people use it to refer to any race. Second of all, there's no stereotype in mind when people say the N-word. (And hey, if they are using it to encompass some sort of stereotype then it it's called using it racistly...yeah I know racistly isn't a word).

It doesn't help at all, to me, to make a word so negative, no matter what its use is. It doesn't help anyone. One who's worried about the word itself, no matter what its use is, is surely more unhappy in the world than someone who only opposes it when its used for racist purposes.

I repeat, I won't be using either term in here and I hope that if one word is not to be used than the other isn't - even if one word has been used in a racist way longer than the other one.

[Robitussin]

It is black and white if you are arguing that it is dehumanizing because it uses a base-animal term - because females are any female sex animal or living thing in general.

Are we going to have a round of "yuh huh, nuh uh, yuh huh, nuh uh" here? I sure hope not. There's a difference between punching up and punching down. If you punch a professional boxer, it's different from punching someone who was just involved in a traumatic car accident and had most of their bones broken, right? Those two things aren't the same. Yes?

It should be bad when someone uses it in a racist way, even if compared with other forms of racism it's been around for less time.

No. Slurs are harmful not because the dictionary says so. Slurs are harmful because they cause actual harms by perpetuating social problems.

I think intent is key.

You're wrong.

ONLY CLICK THIS AFTER YOU'VE READ THAT LINK. [ Show ]

It doesn't matter whether you mean to harm someone or not. Doing things that are harmful is bad. "I didn't mean to hurt you!" is no comfort to those who've been hurt.

No need to be so firm. It can be assumed that I wasn't aware of any study like this.

There's every need to be so firm. When you've been presented with an argument based on an empirical claim, refusing to acknowledge the evidence is irresponsible and unacceptable.

They get it even more than females do?

Didn't you just say you wouldn't be using "females" as a noun? What happened to that?

I'm definitely going to need the study's details, though. I seek out a study's details before accepting it, whether it conforms to what I originally thought happened most or not.

Great. Stop posting about this topic until you've read it, then.

Agreed, I'll stop posting about the topic of custody until I've read it. As for the noun thing, well, when someone is discussing the use of words so much, I just might use that word. On any other day I would have kept to my word.

As for the dictionary claim, you're only supporting my point... The slur is harmful, not because of the meaning it was given, but how it's been used. I don't see why one should oppose a word even when there *is* no harm being directed at a target, though. What are your opinions on using the N-word towards races other than blacks, to get a general idea of your exact view here? Is it bad to use it directed at any race, because of the history of its usage, for example?


And whoa, whoa, I never rejected or ignored any evidence. I actually accepted it. Please do not accuse me of things I never did. It's one thing to say someone still technically broke a law, even if they were ignorant of it, but it's another thing to claim they knew of it and purposely broke it. Same here. It's one thing to say I'm wrong because of evidence here, but it's another thing to claim I knew of it and purposely rejected it...especially when I accepted it.

[The_Laughing_Coyote]

Second of all, there's no stereotype in mind when people say the N-word. (And hey, if they are using it to encompass some sort of stereotype then it it's called using it racistly...yeah I know racistly isn't a word).

Yes there is. You seriously don't think there's a stereotype in mind? You seriously don't think there's a stereotype associated with the N word? (hint: Think Dumbo and Crows.)

Also... I'm gonna make another example. I used to see nothing wrong with rape jokes. "What's the big deal?" I'd think... "I'm just making a joke, I know I'd never go out and rape someone!"

But what I wasn't realizing is, actual misogynists and rapists think ALL straight men think the way they do about women, and they're just the ones ballsy enough to 'tell it like it is.' (Being a sexist douche in order to be 'edgy.' OOoh how clever and original!) And when they see otherwise good dudes like me cracking rapey or misogynistic jokes, they take it as confirmation of their worldview.

Such is the same with racist stereotypes.

[The_Laughing_Coyote]

I'm really curious Robitussin, what exactly IS a non-racist way to use the N word?

And why would applying it to other racial or ethnic minorities besides black people be any different? I've seen it done "racistly"... I've heard, for example, both Irish AND Natives called "Red N*****s".

[SubMor]

You did not answer my question about punching. Please do so.

I don't see why one should oppose a word even when there *is* no harm being directed at a target, though. What are your opinions on using the N-word towards races other than blacks

If it is your contention that using a slur against someone of a group that is not the one targeted by that slur does not cause harm, you're going to have to make an argument for that. This begging the question thing isn't going to fly.

But since I don't have the patience for you to make that argument, and since I'm going to debunk it anyway, let's just pretend you didn't just engage in fallacious reasoning, and I'll answer both your implicit argument and your explicit question.

Using a slur causes harm because it says that being like a member of (group x) is a bad thing. Since being a member of (group x) is not a bad thing, using slurs in this way causes splash damage that does indeed perpetuate bigotry, and thus, by extension, it does harm people.

Thus, my opinion is that such usages are unacceptable.

And whoa, whoa, I never rejected or ignored any evidence.

You most certainly did. I was not the first person to link you to that article. I'll refer you to this post, which was made before mine, in which you completely ignored the empirical claim.

Actually, the gender skew of child custody in divorce is created by patriarchy. Since women are assumed to be the caregivers, they get custody more often, true. However, when fathers ASK for custody, they get it. Fathers don't get custody because overall they don't want it.

It actually works out pretty well for dads who get visitation but not custody - Mom gets stuck with making the kiddos empty the trash and eat their broccoli, while Dad gets to let them up stay up all night and eat ice cream, then send them home to Mom so she can deal with the tummy ache and sleep deprivation.

To which your response was:

I definitely disagree that when fathers ask for custody, they get it.

[AlexSeanchai]

Is it bad that I'm kind of fascinated by this? Like, in the minds of people who use this collection of terms, are black people the archetypal n*s, and other ethnic minorities, while still n*s (obviously so because they're not white, or since we're including Irish I suppose because they're not WASP), need adjectives such as 'red' and 'sand' to distinguish them from n*s in general and from what I presume is the worst sort of n*?

[Robitussin]

No, the two things aren't the same. However, your boxer vs broken ribs analogy is only valid when you call someone who specifically experienced being called a "female" only because they were a woman, a "female", making that "punch" harder. When you object to it no matter what, even if the woman/girl in question has never experienced this, it doesn't fit the analogy. Just like I can't brush off consideration for those who have experienced sexism with the word "female" themselves, just because I've always experienced it being used in an equal way, by those who would say both the terms "male" *and* "female." Women aren't one body. I will always have the opinion that I've never done anything wrong when I used the word "female" as much as "male", myself being one who isn't sexist with it, but again I won't use the terms here to avoid issues.


Also, I've read the study. If I read correctly (the paper was so careful in it's wording that it was hard to understand, but I don't do well in reading legal or buisiness jargon either, so excuse me), in relevance to the topic, it's speaking of when women do not have enough financial support to hire aid due to divorces. I was talking about bias towards women being more likely to get a child in general, due to the simple assumption that the mother should. I didn't have more specific scenarios, like when women are messed over by divorce in mind. For the sake of understand what I meant, imagine a scenario in which they aren't married, and there was no divorce. Imagine the man and woman making equal wage or salary. Many times, the court would be in favor of the woman getting full custody simply because it's assumed the mother should be the caretaker.

(By the way, someone here actually acknowledged this I believe, and told me it was due to patriarchy... and I accepted that. So there's no claim here that it's mainly sexist against men. so I don't see why someone would object to the claim.)



To TLC, it's when it's used in a 'friendly' way. The rest of your post seems to imply that you do not automatically consider certain race-based terms to be racist, (by saying that you've seen them used in a *racist* way.)

As for SubMor, it should be apparent that I wasn't aware there was a study link in there. I'm not sitting here telling a bold-faced lie. If you don't believe me or something, oh well, but I tell the truth when I was ignorant of the study.

"f it is your contention that using a slur against someone of a group that is not the one targeted by that slur does not cause harm, you're going to have to make an argument for that. This begging the question thing isn't going to fly." This isn't my contention. I was trying to see if it was YOUR view, as I said, I was attempting to figure out YOUR views.

And yes, slurs are harmful when they actually imply that being part of that group is a *bad* thing...when it's implied that someone is a friend of yours, it's not. I'm not harmed by a friend calling me any sort of slur in a friendly way. Seeing the word as automatically negative doesn't help anyone. In fact, it causes more hurt I believe. I'm much more happy being someone who isn't irritated or angered every time they see a slur used depending on intent. As for the perpetuation claim, I think the view that intent doesn't matter is what's more hurtful. If, by perpetuate, you meant it continues the use of it by racists, I definitely don't agree. If condensed, it actually would do the opposite... I don't feel *more* powerful using the N-word to be racist in a community when people are called the N-word all the time in a neutral or light manner, for example. I might even feel discouraged about using it. Thinking "well now *they've* taken over the word and turned it into something positive! I'll just go to other insults"... my best attempt at getting in the mind of a racist.

[AlexSeanchai]

Didn't read the study far enough, did you. Here's the bit your attention was supposed to go to:

We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.

Family service officers, probate judges, and appellate judges all say that giving primary consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent is in the best interests of children. In practice, however, it appears that as soon as physical custody is contested, any weight given to a history of primary caretaking disappears. Mothers who have been primary caretakers throughout the child's life are subjected to differential and stricter scrutiny, and they may lose custody if the role of primary caretaker has been assumed, however briefly and for whatever reason, by someone else.

Two other aspects of child custody determination raised concern for us. The presumption in favor of shared legal custody that is currently held by many family service officers can result in the awarding of shared legal custody in inappropriate circumstances. We also found that abuse targeted at the mother is not always seen as relevant to custody and visitation decisions. Our research indicates that witnessing, as well as personally experiencing, abuse within the family causes serious harm to children.

[The_Laughing_Coyote]

I don't feel *more* powerful using the N-word to be racist in a community when people are called the N-word all the time in a neutral or light manner, for example. I might even feel discouraged about using it. Thinking "well now *they've* taken over the word and turned it into something positive! I'll just go to other insults"... my best attempt at getting in the mind of a racist.

I believe you just described the phenomenon of 'Reclaiming', much like gay people did with the word Queer?

If a PoC is OK with saying the N-word, doesn't mean it's ok for a white boy like me to use it. It's 'their' word. This is one of the absolute basics of not being a clueless 'colorblind' idiot around them.

[Robitussin]

Didn't read the study far enough, did you. Here's the bit your attention was supposed to go to:

We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.

Family service officers, probate judges, and appellate judges all say that giving primary consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent is in the best interests of children. In practice, however, it appears that as soon as physical custody is contested, any weight given to a history of primary caretaking disappears. Mothers who have been primary caretakers throughout the child's life are subjected to differential and stricter scrutiny, and they may lose custody if the role of primary caretaker has been assumed, however briefly and for whatever reason, by someone else.

Two other aspects of child custody determination raised concern for us. The presumption in favor of shared legal custody that is currently held by many family service officers can result in the awarding of shared legal custody in inappropriate circumstances. We also found that abuse targeted at the mother is not always seen as relevant to custody and visitation decisions. Our research indicates that witnessing, as well as personally experiencing, abuse within the family causes serious harm to children.

That's about cases in divorce, is it not? 70% in *divorce*? Also, where are the details of the study? The amount of people studied and how varied the samples were would be great.- One other concern.. I seriously hope I wasn't linked to a study about the MASSACHUSETTS court, because that can only be used to generalize chances about MASSACHUSETTS courts!

"Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. "

Did these perceptions of gender bias come from the sky? Why do people think this if 70% of the time, in general, divorced or gf/bf, the father gets custody? Well...wait.. I see... what is the percentage of when the mom gets main custody vs the percentage of when the dad gets main custody? That's pretty important.. It doesn't mention that, I checked. in fact it's what it was all about. Joint custody is when both parents get custody.

As for abuse, I'd think that would be very relevant if abuse against fathers was considered while abuse against mothers isn't, but if it's a problem about abuse in general not being considered, then it's a disadvantage for the child in both cases- abusive to partner fathers and abusive to partner mothers.


@ TLC, I don't know what a PoC is, but I definitely object to the claim that "only black people are allowed to use the N-word in a friendly way." That's just...ugh. Makes me mad. It isn't okay when another black person calls someone the N-word in a racist way just because they're also black, is it? So if it should be considered *bad* with *negative consequence* no matter what the intent is, it shouldn't matter what the race of the person using it is... especially since you've said that it doesn't matter what the race of the person you are calling the N-word is.. (or was that submor? my apologies if I'm wrong). I'm pretty disappointed that I came across this argument.

[SubMor]

No, the two things aren't the same. However, your boxer vs broken ribs analogy is only valid when you call someone who specifically experienced being called a "female" only because they were a woman, a "female", making that "punch" harder.

Are you forgetting why I brought up the difference? Your argument appeared to be that "male" and "female" are equally bad. Similarly, your argument that "['cracker'] should be bad when someone uses it in -a racist way" creates a false equivalence between using a word that references a dominant group and using a word that references a marginalized group. The words "strong" and "weak" are not equivalent just because they both reference the same concept of "strength."

Do you understand what I am saying here? That two words may both be harmful does not mean they are equally bad. Do you agree or disagree?

I was talking about bias towards women being more likely to get a child in general, due to the simple assumption that the mother should.

No, this is also a logical fallacy. You are including a conclusion in your argument, and that conclusion is not accurate. You are making an argument based on your perceptions about how the world works instead of on evidentiary claims. This is fundamentally unacceptable. If men get custody in 70% of the cases where they pursue it, this means that the default position is not that women get custody because of sexism. It means the majority of men are not pursuing custody. This invalidates your entire hypothetical. If this is an inaccurate interpretation, you will need to spell out the inaccuracies, preferably with empirical figures of your own.

As for SubMor, it should be apparent that I wasn't aware there was a study link in there. I'm not sitting here telling a bold-faced lie. If you don't believe me or something, oh well, but I tell the truth when I was ignorant of the study.

It was presented to you as an empirical claim about the world. "I didn't know it was there" is a pretty weak defense.

"f it is your contention that using a slur against someone of a group that is not the one targeted by that slur does not cause harm, you're going to have to make an argument for that. This begging the question thing isn't going to fly." This isn't my contention. I was trying to see if it was YOUR view, as I said, I was attempting to figure out YOUR views.

You asked the following:

I don't see why one should oppose a word even when there *is* no harm being directed at a target, though.

In the most charitable light, it suggests that you either 1) think that slurs can cause harm only to the direct target of a slur, or 2) think that I think that.

And yes, slurs are harmful when they actually imply that being part of that group is a *bad* thing

What do you mean "when" they do that? That's what slurs do. All the time. That's why they're slurs.

I'm not harmed by a friend calling me any sort of slur in a friendly way.

My god, it's almost as if you aren't actually reading the words I say for comprehension. The harm that slurs cause is NOT just that they make you feel bad when you're targeted with one! Splash damage.

Seeing the word as automatically negative doesn't help anyone.

I'm not seeing words like that. I have reasons. This makes it not automatic.

In fact, it causes more hurt I believe.

You believe that? That's nice. Until you can present an argument for that belief, I couldn't really care less. I reject your conclusion, at least until you can come up with some sort of argument for why that's the case.

I'm much more happy being someone who isn't irritated or angered every time they see a slur used depending on intent.

How very nice of you. It must be convenient to have Vulcan like control over your emotional responses. You're begging the question again. You're presupposing that people choose their emotional reactions. This has not been shown to be the case. Make your argument or recognize that your conclusion is false.

As for the perpetuation claim, I think the view that intent doesn't matter is what's more hurtful.

Again, your opinion is worthless if you have no argument to back it up.

My advice to you is that you spend a whole lot more time lurking here. You're arguing based on your feelings, and this community values skepticism and critical thinking. Unevidenced claims are about as welcome as farts in a crowded elevator here, and the rest of us here are concerned about that guilty look on your face right now.

[SubMor]

That's about cases in divorce, is it not? 70% in *divorce*? Also, where are the details of the study? The amount of people studied and how varied the samples were would be great.- One other concern.. I seriously hope I wasn't linked to a study about the MASSACHUSETTS court, because that can only be used to generalize chances about MASSACHUSETTS courts!

You are doing this very, very wrong. You are making claims with absolutely no evidence. Criticizing the evidence offered to refute your claims does not get you any closer to being right. If you want to argue that MA courts are different from the rest of the US's courts, cite statistics to do so.

Why do people think this if 70% of the time, in general, divorced or gf/bf, the father gets custody?

70% if the father pursues custody. As to the "why," well, people just believe nonsense. Maybe you believe some of these things? "Why do people believe a false thing" does not refute an empirical claim that shows that thing to be false.

[b]@ TLC, I don't know what a PoC is, but I definitely object to the claim that "only black people are allowed to use the N-word in a friendly way." That's just...ugh. Makes me mad.

Your emotional reaction to the argument does not refute the argument. You can't "reclaim" a word that doesn't apply to you.

[Robitussin]

No, the two things aren't the same. However, your boxer vs broken ribs analogy is only valid when you call someone who specifically experienced being called a "female" only because they were a woman, a "female", making that "punch" harder.

Are you forgetting why I brought up the difference? Your argument appeared to be that "male" and "female" are equally bad. Similarly, your argument that "['cracker'] should be bad when someone uses it in -a racist way" creates a false equivalence between using a word that references a dominant group and using a word that references a marginalized group. The words "strong" and "weak" are not equivalent just because they both reference the same concept of "strength."

Do you understand what I am saying here? That two words may both be harmful does not mean they are equally bad. Do you agree or disagree?

I was talking about bias towards women being more likely to get a child in general, due to the simple assumption that the mother should.

No, this is also a logical fallacy. You are including a conclusion in your argument, and that conclusion is not accurate. You are making an argument based on your perceptions about how the world works instead of on evidentiary claims. This is fundamentally unacceptable. If men get custody in 70% of the cases where they pursue it, this means that the default position is not that women get custody because of sexism. It means the majority of men are not pursuing custody. This invalidates your entire hypothetical.

As for SubMor, it should be apparent that I wasn't aware there was a study link in there. I'm not sitting here telling a bold-faced lie. If you don't believe me or something, oh well, but I tell the truth when I was ignorant of the study.

It was presented to you as an empirical claim about the world. "I didn't know it was there" is a pretty weak defense.

"f it is your contention that using a slur against someone of a group that is not the one targeted by that slur does not cause harm, you're going to have to make an argument for that. This begging the question thing isn't going to fly." This isn't my contention. I was trying to see if it was YOUR view, as I said, I was attempting to figure out YOUR views.

You asked the following:

I don't see why one should oppose a word even when there *is* no harm being directed at a target, though.

In the most charitable light, it suggests that you either 1) think that slurs can cause harm only to the direct target of a slur, or 2) think that I think that.

And yes, slurs are harmful when they actually imply that being part of that group is a *bad* thing

What do you mean "when" they do that? That's what slurs do. All the time. That's why they're slurs.

I'm not harmed by a friend calling me any sort of slur in a friendly way.

My god, it's almost as if you aren't actually reading the words I say for comprehension. The harm that slurs cause is NOT just that they make you feel bad when you're targeted with one! Splash damage.

Seeing the word as automatically negative doesn't help anyone.

I'm not seeing words like that. I have reasons. This makes it not automatic.

In fact, it causes more hurt I believe.

You believe that? That's nice. Until you can present an argument for that belief, I couldn't really care less. I reject your conclusion, at least until you can come up with some sort of argument for why that's the case.

I'm much more happy being someone who isn't irritated or angered every time they see a slur used depending on intent.

How very nice of you. It must be convenient to have Vulcan like control over your emotional responses. You're begging the question again. You're presupposing that people choose their emotional reactions. This has not been shown to be the case. Make your argument or recognize that your conclusion is false.

As for the perpetuation claim, I think the view that intent doesn't matter is what's more hurtful.

Again, your opinion is worthless if you have no argument to back it up.

My advice to you is that you spend a whole lot more time lurking here. You're arguing based on your feelings, and this community values skepticism and critical thinking. Unevidenced claims are about as welcome as farts in a crowded elevator here, and the rest of us here are concerned about that guilty look on your face right now.

SubMor, you simply isolated my claims, when I made the points about what's more hurtful...you just took out my support for it, and acted like I didn't give a reason why I'm saying this. I disagree with the whole "cracker" thing, if you are implying that when a race is the majority, it's more acceptable to be racist towards them. Because it's not. Note I opposed saying it's "more acceptable" not "acceptable" period. It's like the whole neurotypical stuff...autistics may be the minority, but neurotypism against NTs hurts NTs just as much! It doesn't matter who the majority is! And I'm not just arguing with "feelings" here. This whole thing is about feelings and impact, is it not? The logic is *from* the claim it hurts others, no matter what the intent is. There are words like "normie" that are used to imply offensive meaning in themselves. However, I only get offended when someone uses this word in a negative way. If they, for whatever reason, want to use the word because they believe it to be...idk...catchy, or just like it better, I'm fine with it. If someone calls me a slur, and it's not their intent to use it as such, I'm fine with it. No harm is brought. As for people saying it's alright to use slurs when you are the same race...just blech.

As for your saying I have a fallacy... I don't see it. o.o That *is* their thinking. I see how another user brought up the same point and wasn't corrected. As for the study stuff, you didn't read my post about questions regarding the study... I need those fulfilled. Worst case scenario, this "70%" not only applies to divorce cases when the mother has less chance of because of financial things involved in *divorce* cases, (and not bias against them, if I unerstood the study), but it also only applies to Massachusetts courts, and if not all court cases that have occurred there, a sample size too small to be eclared...it would also be nice if the study compared times when a father wins custody *VS* a mother winning it, with like, more than one state involved, in more than just divorce cases, with a nice, even, big enough sample size so that it's not BIASED! That would be great.

This looks like "There, a study was provided, it doesn't matter how good it is, and what part of the country it actually covers, you've been proven wrong."

And, you take away my support YET AGAIN. I wasn't refuting the argument with "it makes me mad." Please actually refute my entire argument, with the support for it, SubMor. If you can do that, I'll read it. But all you've done is point out that I *added* my feelings on it. I would never go and say "that doesn't refute your argument" to someone here just because they ADDED how annoyed it makes them.Are you hinting that you actually support one race using it, and not another? Then what, exactly, is your argument for saying it has negative consequences, no matter what the intent? Maybe we need to define these consequences now. Call me dumb, but I'm not seeing them. And my support for saying it's more hurtful to take the opposite position was basically this (again..the original version you purposely left out was better): I think that condemning a word so much gives it more power. While if everyone today, literally started using it in a way other than racist, it would discourage racists using it. It wouldn't have much power anymore. Kinda how like the "he who shall not be named" jazz just increases the impact of the name 'Voldemort."

[Robitussin]

Im seriously thinking about withdrawing from this argument if I have to repeat arguments anymore or if only half of my argument is addressed one more time. Conflict is rather stressful anyway. So if I see one more reply that tries to cut stuff I've said out, making my going about actually writing it pointless, I'm just done with the topic. At the end of the day all that matters to me is what people do when they see it in action - will they, for example, punch those using the terms, or make them feel bad, or leave it alone? (some people do get fisty..). Will they, for example, judge anyone (woman or man..be fair ) who uses the term "female", whether or not they use the term male too, and confront them about it? All that matters in the end...the consequences to the views...

Edit: In fact, I've decided to withdraw... conflict too much for me, the tension, the attitude thrown at one another... please no comments about whether or not I'm new to the internet or life, by the way. Don't worry about how I handle life conflict.

And I don't want anymore stemming from it, so I'm deleting the other stuff (if possible?) but I *am* making it known that I've deleted things so that no one lookslike they're talking to themselves - I'll leave this post up.