Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

A Quote about Femininity

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 6:56:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

Depends. There will still be misogyny, it just won't be quite as manifestly obvious. Meanwhile, past a certain point you'll see a decrease in misogyny as people get over the fact that women do not exist for men to have sex with/exploit/et cetera.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 6:59:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 6:56:47 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

Depends. There will still be misogyny, it just won't be quite as manifestly obvious.

IMHO, taken to its logical conclusion, if one were to follow the quoted sentiment, females should actively attempt to make as disadvantageous as possible their own position in order to placate male ego.

It's about as backwards a sentiment to progressiveness as I can possibly imagine.

Meanwhile, past a certain point you'll see a decrease in misogyny as people get over the fact that women do not exist for men to have sex with/exploit/et cetera.

IMHO the exact opposite will occur, as a woman's existence will indeed be only for the purpose of exploitation by men.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 7:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 6:59:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:56:47 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

Depends. There will still be misogyny, it just won't be quite as manifestly obvious.

IMHO, taken to its logical conclusion, if one were to follow the quoted sentiment, females should actively attempt to make as disadvantageous as possible their own position in order to placate male ego.

No? Life will still suck, it just won't involve MRAs and such screaming about how women are oppressing men and dumb women are just hysterical and can't be taken seriously.

IMHO the exact opposite will occur, as a woman's existence will indeed be only for the purpose of exploitation by men.

No, I mean that if you get more equality at a certain point misogyny will decline. A nadir, basically.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 7:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 7:12:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:59:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:56:47 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

Depends. There will still be misogyny, it just won't be quite as manifestly obvious.

IMHO, taken to its logical conclusion, if one were to follow the quoted sentiment, females should actively attempt to make as disadvantageous as possible their own position in order to placate male ego.

No? Life will still suck, it just won't involve MRAs and such screaming about how women are oppressing men and dumb women are just hysterical and can't be taken seriously.

IMHO the exact opposite will occur, as a woman's existence will indeed be only for the purpose of exploitation by men.

No, I mean that if you get more equality at a certain point misogyny will decline. A nadir, basically.

You've misread the quote. The female said that with more INEQUALITY, misogyny will decline.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 7:24:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

It is possibly true, wrichcirw, which demonstrates the evil inside of mankind. However, by observing cultures that suppress women's rights and freedoms, that is clearly a road we do not want to travel!

Sacrificing the thrill of sexual domination is ABSOLUTELY worth the realization of women's legal and constitutional equality!

If anyone disagrees with this I ENCOURAGE THEM TO SHOOT THEMSELVES!

But of course the belief that increased women's power equals less sexual interest in the man might not be true. It's simply a wild assumption on this point.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 7:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 7:24:12 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

It is possibly true, wrichcirw, which demonstrates the evil inside of mankind.

Explain how it can possibly be true.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 7:33:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 7:28:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:24:12 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

It is possibly true, wrichcirw, which demonstrates the evil inside of mankind.

Explain how it can possibly be true.

Wrichcirw: let me give you an example with pedophiles and children. I'm sure pedophiles find children sexually attractive because of their powerlessness, their vulnerability . . . and that must excite them!

It's still IMMORAL AS HELL and ILLEGAL!

It's still wrong! The price of civilization is worth sacrificing some very debased, animalistic tendencies!

And besides, with respect to women, they certainly still manage to fine mates in our civilized nation . . . and they do pretty good. I think the argument you're trying to establish is either wrong or factual but the effects so tiny that it makes no real significant difference once women's constitutional rights are established in a society.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:00:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correction:

It's still wrong! Establishing a well-functioning civilization is worth sacrificing some very debased, animalistic tendencies!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 5:18:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 7:33:26 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:28:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:24:12 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

It is possibly true, wrichcirw, which demonstrates the evil inside of mankind.

Explain how it can possibly be true.

Wrichcirw: let me give you an example with pedophiles and children. I'm sure pedophiles find children sexually attractive because of their powerlessness, their vulnerability . . . and that must excite them!

It's still IMMORAL AS HELL and ILLEGAL!

Let's apply your example to the quote in the OP. Let's say that the statement was "the less equality the less maltreatment of children in my experience."

Evidently from your own statements, such a quote is not possible to be seen as "correct". That was the point I was making, and it would seem you would agree.

It's still wrong! The price of civilization is worth sacrificing some very debased, animalistic tendencies!

And besides, with respect to women, they certainly still manage to fine mates in our civilized nation . . . and they do pretty good. I think the argument you're trying to establish is either wrong or factual but the effects so tiny that it makes no real significant difference once women's constitutional rights are established in a society.

It's not my argument, and I agree that it's wrong.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:30:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 7:13:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:12:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:59:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:56:47 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

Depends. There will still be misogyny, it just won't be quite as manifestly obvious.

IMHO, taken to its logical conclusion, if one were to follow the quoted sentiment, females should actively attempt to make as disadvantageous as possible their own position in order to placate male ego.

No? Life will still suck, it just won't involve MRAs and such screaming about how women are oppressing men and dumb women are just hysterical and can't be taken seriously.

IMHO the exact opposite will occur, as a woman's existence will indeed be only for the purpose of exploitation by men.

No, I mean that if you get more equality at a certain point misogyny will decline. A nadir, basically.

You've misread the quote. The female said that with more INEQUALITY, misogyny will decline.

I'm aware of that. My point is that there is both really freaking obvious misogyny like we sometimes see on the internet, and the more subtle kind. With more inequality, I would expect an increase in the subtle kind and a decrease in the really freaking obvious kind. With more equality, I would expect to see a decrease in both.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 11:59:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:30:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:13:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:12:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:59:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:56:47 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

Depends. There will still be misogyny, it just won't be quite as manifestly obvious.

IMHO, taken to its logical conclusion, if one were to follow the quoted sentiment, females should actively attempt to make as disadvantageous as possible their own position in order to placate male ego.

No? Life will still suck, it just won't involve MRAs and such screaming about how women are oppressing men and dumb women are just hysterical and can't be taken seriously.

IMHO the exact opposite will occur, as a woman's existence will indeed be only for the purpose of exploitation by men.

No, I mean that if you get more equality at a certain point misogyny will decline. A nadir, basically.

You've misread the quote. The female said that with more INEQUALITY, misogyny will decline.

I'm aware of that. My point is that there is both really freaking obvious misogyny like we sometimes see on the internet, and the more subtle kind. With more inequality, I would expect an increase in the subtle kind and a decrease in the really freaking obvious kind. With more equality, I would expect to see a decrease in both.

Ok fair enough, apparently you did not misread the quote. Still I fully disagree with you.

Your point really doesn't make any sense. The more you disenfranchise and dispossess someone, the more susceptible you make them to various forms of exploitation. Deprive a woman the right to hold property, and they will never be seen as any sort of economic contributor to a society. Deprive a woman suffrage in a democratic society, and they will never be seen as any sort of knowledgeable political actor. Deprive a woman of justice in instances of rape, and all kinds of sexual assault will become sanctioned by law.

Inherent in the OP quote, the more you create these disadvantages for females, supposedly you make things better for women...nonsense. You simply make women more exploitable. For any woman to support such a position is IMHO either severely misled or suffering from a severe manifestation of Stockholm syndrome.

---

In regards to efforts to achieve parity, we can see the results in race relations. Tulle recently decried how African American kids are chastised for their natural hair in the classroom. Well, at least they are allowed to be in a classroom and aren't lynched, something that was commonplace less than 100 years ago when racial equality was nothing other than a pipe dream. IMHO modern efforts to achieve racial parity results in more subtle forms of racism...it will never go away, but it can most certainly become far less severe than something like outright slavery or Jim Crow.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:30:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 11:59:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:30:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:13:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:12:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:59:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:56:47 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

Depends. There will still be misogyny, it just won't be quite as manifestly obvious.

IMHO, taken to its logical conclusion, if one were to follow the quoted sentiment, females should actively attempt to make as disadvantageous as possible their own position in order to placate male ego.

No? Life will still suck, it just won't involve MRAs and such screaming about how women are oppressing men and dumb women are just hysterical and can't be taken seriously.

IMHO the exact opposite will occur, as a woman's existence will indeed be only for the purpose of exploitation by men.

No, I mean that if you get more equality at a certain point misogyny will decline. A nadir, basically.

You've misread the quote. The female said that with more INEQUALITY, misogyny will decline.

I'm aware of that. My point is that there is both really freaking obvious misogyny like we sometimes see on the internet, and the more subtle kind. With more inequality, I would expect an increase in the subtle kind and a decrease in the really freaking obvious kind. With more equality, I would expect to see a decrease in both.

Ok fair enough, apparently you did not misread the quote. Still I fully disagree with you.

Your point really doesn't make any sense. The more you disenfranchise and dispossess someone, the more susceptible you make them to various forms of exploitation. Deprive a woman the right to hold property, and they will never be seen as any sort of economic contributor to a society. Deprive a woman suffrage in a democratic society, and they will never be seen as any sort of knowledgeable political actor. Deprive a woman of justice in instances of rape, and all kinds of sexual assault will become sanctioned by law.

Inherent in the OP quote, the more you create these disadvantages for females, supposedly you make things better for women...nonsense. You simply make women more exploitable. For any woman to support such a position is IMHO either severely misled or suffering from a severe manifestation of Stockholm syndrome.

---

In regards to efforts to achieve parity, we can see the results in race relations. Tulle recently decried how African American kids are chastised for their natural hair in the classroom. Well, at least they are allowed to be in a classroom and aren't lynched, something that was commonplace less than 100 years ago when racial equality was nothing other than a pipe dream. IMHO modern efforts to achieve racial parity results in more subtle forms of racism...it will never go away, but it can most certainly become far less severe than something like outright slavery or Jim Crow.

That's true... but people won't notice these things as injustices. I'll admit, mind, that that wasn't what was going through my brain--what was going through my mind was that, while times like the 18th and 19th centuries did have deep, entrenched sexism, there was little of the... I don't even know what to call it. Random campaigns of terror, I suppose? There would be less of that--at least the most extreme rhetoric--for similar reasons that you saw a lot of terror campaigns during the nadir of race relations as opposed to during the 1700s.

Things weren't better for blacks during the 1700s than the early 1900s. However, it would be accurate to say that racism as an institution did not feel threatened, so they did not resort to attempting to physical/emotional assault, because if you sit back and take the sh!t that gets thrown at you, they're never going to bother fighting you in the same way that they do when you pose a threat to racism/sexism/whatever.

Gandi said it far better than I: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 1:33:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:30:36 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:59:38 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:30:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:13:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 7:12:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:59:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:56:47 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

Depends. There will still be misogyny, it just won't be quite as manifestly obvious.

IMHO, taken to its logical conclusion, if one were to follow the quoted sentiment, females should actively attempt to make as disadvantageous as possible their own position in order to placate male ego.

No? Life will still suck, it just won't involve MRAs and such screaming about how women are oppressing men and dumb women are just hysterical and can't be taken seriously.

IMHO the exact opposite will occur, as a woman's existence will indeed be only for the purpose of exploitation by men.

No, I mean that if you get more equality at a certain point misogyny will decline. A nadir, basically.

You've misread the quote. The female said that with more INEQUALITY, misogyny will decline.

I'm aware of that. My point is that there is both really freaking obvious misogyny like we sometimes see on the internet, and the more subtle kind. With more inequality, I would expect an increase in the subtle kind and a decrease in the really freaking obvious kind. With more equality, I would expect to see a decrease in both.

Ok fair enough, apparently you did not misread the quote. Still I fully disagree with you.

Your point really doesn't make any sense. The more you disenfranchise and dispossess someone, the more susceptible you make them to various forms of exploitation. Deprive a woman the right to hold property, and they will never be seen as any sort of economic contributor to a society. Deprive a woman suffrage in a democratic society, and they will never be seen as any sort of knowledgeable political actor. Deprive a woman of justice in instances of rape, and all kinds of sexual assault will become sanctioned by law.

Inherent in the OP quote, the more you create these disadvantages for females, supposedly you make things better for women...nonsense. You simply make women more exploitable. For any woman to support such a position is IMHO either severely misled or suffering from a severe manifestation of Stockholm syndrome.

---

In regards to efforts to achieve parity, we can see the results in race relations. Tulle recently decried how African American kids are chastised for their natural hair in the classroom. Well, at least they are allowed to be in a classroom and aren't lynched, something that was commonplace less than 100 years ago when racial equality was nothing other than a pipe dream. IMHO modern efforts to achieve racial parity results in more subtle forms of racism...it will never go away, but it can most certainly become far less severe than something like outright slavery or Jim Crow.

That's true... but people won't notice these things as injustices. I'll admit, mind, that that wasn't what was going through my brain--what was going through my mind was that, while times like the 18th and 19th centuries did have deep, entrenched sexism, there was little of the... I don't even know what to call it. Random campaigns of terror, I suppose? There would be less of that--at least the most extreme rhetoric--for similar reasons that you saw a lot of terror campaigns during the nadir of race relations as opposed to during the 1700s.

This is interesting but IMHO still untrue. You're right that the "random campaigns of terror" like the KKK weren't really around during slavery days, but have you seen "12 Years a Slave?" or pictures like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org...(slave)) Slave life (at least in America) was far worse than KKK lynch mobs.

Things weren't better for blacks during the 1700s than the early 1900s. However, it would be accurate to say that racism as an institution did not feel threatened, so they did not resort to attempting to physical/emotional assault, because if you sit back and take the sh!t that gets thrown at you, they're never going to bother fighting you in the same way that they do when you pose a threat to racism/sexism/whatever.

Yeah, it's an interesting point...but you said it yourself that things weren't better for blacks during slave days. So, the statement "the less equality the less misogyny in my experience" is fundamentally flawed and untrue.

Gandi said it far better than I: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

The evident, albeit implicit advice in this line is "prepare to fight".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 8:01:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 6:53:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
A female on this website told me the following:

"the less equality the less misogyny in my experience...the less of a threat you are, the more men will like you."

What to make of this?

Discuss.

I would also simply ask...what if a man had said the above statement to a woman? How would the man be perceived?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 10:34:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 1:33:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is interesting but IMHO still untrue. You're right that the "random campaigns of terror" like the KKK weren't really around during slavery days, but have you seen "12 Years a Slave?" or pictures like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org...(slave)) Slave life (at least in America) was far worse than KKK lynch mobs.

Was it specifically a campaign of terror?

(Also I just found the word I'm looking for: reactionary.)

Yeah, it's an interesting point...but you said it yourself that things weren't better for blacks during slave days. So, the statement "the less equality the less misogyny in my experience" is fundamentally flawed and untrue.

Well, yeah, and I said so... I just was pointing out that the misogyny might take a different form.

The evident, albeit implicit advice in this line is "prepare to fight".

Indeed.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 12:27:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 10:34:19 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/17/2014 1:33:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is interesting but IMHO still untrue. You're right that the "random campaigns of terror" like the KKK weren't really around during slavery days, but have you seen "12 Years a Slave?" or pictures like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org...(slave)) Slave life (at least in America) was far worse than KKK lynch mobs.

Was it specifically a campaign of terror?

The way it was depicted in that film, and the way I remember it described in school, the answer is invariably yes, except it was not random or reactionary, but deliberate.

(Also I just found the word I'm looking for: reactionary.)

Yeah, it's an interesting point...but you said it yourself that things weren't better for blacks during slave days. So, the statement "the less equality the less misogyny in my experience" is fundamentally flawed and untrue.

Well, yeah, and I said so... I just was pointing out that the misogyny might take a different form.

Agree.

The evident, albeit implicit advice in this line is "prepare to fight".

Indeed.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 12:44:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 12:27:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2014 10:34:19 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/17/2014 1:33:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is interesting but IMHO still untrue. You're right that the "random campaigns of terror" like the KKK weren't really around during slavery days, but have you seen "12 Years a Slave?" or pictures like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org...(slave)) Slave life (at least in America) was far worse than KKK lynch mobs.

Was it specifically a campaign of terror?

The way it was depicted in that film, and the way I remember it described in school, the answer is invariably yes, except it was not random or reactionary, but deliberate.

(Also I just found the word I'm looking for: reactionary.)

Thinking a little bit more about the movie, I thought it was interesting that even though it was superbly acted by everyone in there (with the exception of Brad Pitt IMHO, who looked like Mr. Modernity injecting his sensibilities into the setting), it was the female that won the Academy. Without spoiling the movie and without diminishing Lupita Nyong'o's acting ability, I thought her story was a much more profound statement on American slavery than the man's, and that it was interesting that the Academy awarded her even though (I can't even pronounce his name) Chiwetel Ejiofor gave an amazing performance.

It's one of those movies that even though I recognize it as a great movie, I'd never want to watch it again. I had the same reaction after I watched the Machinist, although this one is obviously more historically significant, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?