babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Huh? remind claims a noun is a verb so she can deliberately misread the study and consequent posts, but you're rapping Al Q for being a meanie over grammar?! Give me a break! He wasn't the only one who felt this was a little past the point of reason.
Perhaps we could ask remind to, you know, stop making stuff up as a means to avert this kind of quibble?
Look, al-Q made, like, the hundredth snarky comment about remind's grammar and spelling here. He could have told her, hey, you can't just call a noun a verb in this case. But no, he had to go further and make a snarky comment about how he's noticed her grammar errors before on babble. Yeah, we know he has, because he's mocked her a number of times for it before. She has mostly ignored him when he's done it, but this time she called him on it. And I agree with her.
In this case, yes, grammar was actually a substantive issue. His put-down of her grammar in general was not. And it's part of a pattern on his part, so since it turned into a fight here, I called him on it here.
An even if gramatically incorrect, I totally agree with "remind" that targetting is an active process descriptive of women's treatment; it is well illustrated by this study, the media's gloating over this piece of "news", and the very hostile reaction our critiques received here.
You're reading your own biases into it, martin. Didn't you say that studies find what they set out to find? It would seem that you see what you've decided to see, whether there's a reasonable argument there or not. Apparently, so does remind.
Okay, but I still think the reaction was a little over the top, and it's not like remind doesn't provoke, either.
I provoke people to do spelling and grammer flames? LMAO!
TB: Didn't you say that studies find what they set out to find?
I wrote: "Studies tend to find what they set out to find, their working hypothesis." However, my comment was not a study; there was no working hypothesis. If you think the bias here is merely my own, I urge you to take a wider view instead of settling for what could be termed a cheap shot.It didn't look like a cheap shot to me but rather considered analysis of Timebandit's part, Martin. Her point was that in post #63 she perceives you are reading into the debate your bias. I tend to concur with her. This has never been about flaming. The noun-verb debate is substantive to discussing the article.
Exactly.
And, yes, remind, you do provoke some people by playing fast and loose with language in order to twist meaning into a shape more friendly to your biases.
Don't we all do that? :) Maybe some of us more than others, I suppose...but heck, we're all spin doctors on our pet subjects, aren't we?
If a passing reference to "your biases" is deemed "considered analysis", we just don't have the same standards, Caissa. (And I'm glad.)
(Back-edited) You can consult a bar chart of Burkley&Parker's survey in this account to gauge to what extent the media spin put on their findings is misleading.
To a degree, sure - but claiming what is clearly a noun is a verb "to me" is way beyond the pale, and it could be argued that this is actually begging for a grammar flame. I can't guarantee I wouldn't have jumped on it, too, had I been reading the thread at the time instead of coming in after the exchange. Seriously, how much self-control do you expect us to have?! ;-)
I didn't find it all that sexist, except in a tongue-in-cheek way.
I, too, am glad we don't share the same standards, Martin.
Unfortunately, your second paragraph is too oblique for my comprehension skills. You may have to state what you want me to observe more clearly.
TimeBandit: "Tongue-in-cheek" sexism is still sexism.
Caissa: Compare the authors' finding about men's and women's interest in otherwise attached mates.
martin, your quest to win the title of World's Most Sensitive New-Age Guy appears to have robbed you of your sense of humour.
I hope it's worth it.
Martin, is your point that the media is focussing on only 1 of the 4 treatments devoid from the context of the other 3?
I think the title of that article and the opening few paragraphs were mocking the findings of the study, not reinforcing them.
I agree. But I still avoided quoting it in my post.
Personally I do not think making "SNAG" disparaging comments is all that funny, nor is patriarchy.
Caissa, I made my points in posts 2, 5, 17 and 21, so I won't repeat myself. remind's points in posts 13, 22, 28 and 31 are even more to the point. See also Coyote in posts #15 and 25, and G.Pie in #30. Maybe others; no time to re-read the whole thing...
Okay. If that's your point we still disagree. I don't have time to elaborate.
Every time I read a thread on gender issues here, I regret it.
Thanks for sharing that
Ok str8 up this is the str8 goods.
Women and Men, POC and white ppl, White ppl and FN, etc
We are different BUT equal.
A lot of women do like attached men better that's true it's been known for awhile it aint even a concious decision on the women's part it's just the mating game.
The problem comes when people start attaching their own bias morality, ethics, etc to that they cant accept people for who they are
This new bullshit where between any group of people there can't be any difference from white males for them to be equal is actually a step baccwards because it ignored unique issues present in communites as well as unique things to be celebrated.
Idk what the whole argument of the target thing is but, w.e Ill go see it after.
But really though people are too insecure/scared/racist/sexist to see that differences dont mean something is better or worse it just means different.
And there's a difference between acknowledging/accepting/celebrating a difference and puttin a spin on it to be demeaning.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Examples:
You could say many women like an attached man better
All Women are "evil husband-stealers".
A lot of youth of color are in gangs.
Youth of color are murdering, drug dealing, stealing criminals.
A lot of people in the 3rd world are illiterate.
3rd world ppl are illiterate, dumasses or some shit.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Point being that differences are there but when the prevailing Euro-centric/patriarichal/white supremist societies biases are put into play it twists anything in the other to be bad,evil,inferior etc.
That's the problem nigga
This doesn't surprise me, seeing as you're part of his campaign team. Do hope the tiara and sash match his eyes. :-P
If by "hundredth" you mean "second," well, yeah, I agree with you.
[ed.] By the way, both times were in the context of remind's upbraiding someone else for his or her use of language. I'm sorry, I'm weak; but when someone mounts her moral high horse and blasts another's language use, and does so wihile mutilating the language herself (and yes, writing "grammer'), she's opening herself up for ridicule.
Funny timebandit, almost as funny as your SNAG line.
I think so.
Is it consistent with babble policy to have men called pigs?