Objectification Dilemma
Objectification is a freaking complex issue that is now being tossed around and used in such an inquisitorial device like "Heresy".
To ask for Due Dilligence is tantamount to arguing for the unpopular side - the Trolls and death / rape threaters. Which I fucking hate.
So I failed my self control for curiosity and got creamed. Like 5e, it was a topic with sharp emotional notes and there is a strong knee jerk emotional reaction. One thing is being emotional about something and having bias, but it is another failing in Due Diligence or Due Process of argument and constructive listening and conversation.
I am furious about the Crusading side because I got called out as a Troll for asking for the chain of conclusions one of the people in my feed posted. I asked him, why are the Trolls mad at Anita - and they say - because she's successful... WTF kinda answer is that. What freaking oversimplification is that - he basically dehumanized the opposition into a simple category. How does that make him any better than them!
So yeah I was pissed, I fucking can't argue against the Crusaders because I get called out as a Troll.
I have this badge, a history of activism for Womens Rights in the Philppines. Why do I feel the need to flash this BADGE! F*CK that, take me by my argument do not assume everyone who dissents or questions is a freaking Men's Rights Activist Troll.
This was in public, and of course I got DOG PILED. One went as far as to Assert I didn't believe she was threatened with Rape and Death. WTF, read my post and quote me (Google preserves the history of edits, QUOTE ME THERE!).
I got shocked, and didn't have the coping mechanisms to take such a hit from my blind side. yeah I allowed myself to be blind sided. I went back to friends and linked the discussion. They were wise not to participate. I feel comfort that they came to point out the flaws of my argument, particularly my very emotional reaction to the Social Justice Warriors who felt incredibly reactionary to the cause.
Ok, it didnt end there. So I did my due diligence. She does paint with a broad brush, and her flaws are very small compared to the cause she supports. Thats true - BUT... read the definition of Objectification from the primary source (see link). This is a freaking complex concept, in most instances you can say a piece of material Objectifies X people AFTER the an action that can be strongly proved to be causality. Now I'm fucking jumping at shadows!
What she has created is a precedent, a very powerful precedent, that allows an arbitrary assignment of Objectification to anyone. It becomes something like "Heresy" an IT word that can be used as a weapon.
Here is one more aspect of the argument that I really hate - The Golden Rule does not apply because you're a MAN and you cannot understand what women go through. After you remove The Golden Rule from my basic Ethical Armory and Pushing an Authoritative Interpretation of what is Objectification I'm fucking pissed. I'm not allowed to think for myself and because of my gender I have no right to pursue certain ideals.
You cannot say, she only intends Dialogue, while threatening HERESY! How am I supposed to react when I cannot be anymore the judge of my own actions. To be fair, she's not threatening Heresy, her Banner Men are the ones threatening Heresy. A cascade that begins by a slight exaggeration.
Going back to Objectification - it is to treat something dehumanized, disposable, and of value unequal to the self by such a degree empathy does not apply. Thats strong language, but I do agree you can objectify by minor degrees that will add up a lot in a society. The thing is, like in economics, how much objectification affects a person matters, a little will matter less than a lot.
Fucking EH, my freaking games are centered around exploring Dehumanization. Not just of gender, but of race, and sapience. You would get really angry, like myself, if you were accused as some MRA after so much life work focused on appreciating and instilling Humanistic values. FUCK THAT.
To ask for Due Dilligence is tantamount to arguing for the unpopular side - the Trolls and death / rape threaters. Which I fucking hate.
So I failed my self control for curiosity and got creamed. Like 5e, it was a topic with sharp emotional notes and there is a strong knee jerk emotional reaction. One thing is being emotional about something and having bias, but it is another failing in Due Diligence or Due Process of argument and constructive listening and conversation.
I am furious about the Crusading side because I got called out as a Troll for asking for the chain of conclusions one of the people in my feed posted. I asked him, why are the Trolls mad at Anita - and they say - because she's successful... WTF kinda answer is that. What freaking oversimplification is that - he basically dehumanized the opposition into a simple category. How does that make him any better than them!
So yeah I was pissed, I fucking can't argue against the Crusaders because I get called out as a Troll.
I have this badge, a history of activism for Womens Rights in the Philppines. Why do I feel the need to flash this BADGE! F*CK that, take me by my argument do not assume everyone who dissents or questions is a freaking Men's Rights Activist Troll.
This was in public, and of course I got DOG PILED. One went as far as to Assert I didn't believe she was threatened with Rape and Death. WTF, read my post and quote me (Google preserves the history of edits, QUOTE ME THERE!).
I got shocked, and didn't have the coping mechanisms to take such a hit from my blind side. yeah I allowed myself to be blind sided. I went back to friends and linked the discussion. They were wise not to participate. I feel comfort that they came to point out the flaws of my argument, particularly my very emotional reaction to the Social Justice Warriors who felt incredibly reactionary to the cause.
Ok, it didnt end there. So I did my due diligence. She does paint with a broad brush, and her flaws are very small compared to the cause she supports. Thats true - BUT... read the definition of Objectification from the primary source (see link). This is a freaking complex concept, in most instances you can say a piece of material Objectifies X people AFTER the an action that can be strongly proved to be causality. Now I'm fucking jumping at shadows!
What she has created is a precedent, a very powerful precedent, that allows an arbitrary assignment of Objectification to anyone. It becomes something like "Heresy" an IT word that can be used as a weapon.
Here is one more aspect of the argument that I really hate - The Golden Rule does not apply because you're a MAN and you cannot understand what women go through. After you remove The Golden Rule from my basic Ethical Armory and Pushing an Authoritative Interpretation of what is Objectification I'm fucking pissed. I'm not allowed to think for myself and because of my gender I have no right to pursue certain ideals.
You cannot say, she only intends Dialogue, while threatening HERESY! How am I supposed to react when I cannot be anymore the judge of my own actions. To be fair, she's not threatening Heresy, her Banner Men are the ones threatening Heresy. A cascade that begins by a slight exaggeration.
Going back to Objectification - it is to treat something dehumanized, disposable, and of value unequal to the self by such a degree empathy does not apply. Thats strong language, but I do agree you can objectify by minor degrees that will add up a lot in a society. The thing is, like in economics, how much objectification affects a person matters, a little will matter less than a lot.
Fucking EH, my freaking games are centered around exploring Dehumanization. Not just of gender, but of race, and sapience. You would get really angry, like myself, if you were accused as some MRA after so much life work focused on appreciating and instilling Humanistic values. FUCK THAT.
Comments
Post a Comment