Okay, what I actually meant by not replying to you anymore was in the context of this particular thread, not as a whole. And I wasn't going to, but this is straight up an attack on my character, rather than my arguments, at this point. So lets break these points down a bit.
- You couldn't find the word "number" in the Jezebel article? Are you okay?
The quote you gave was "phone number", which doesn't come up. Quotations typically mean that you're quoting the source directly, so it's not my fault you were sloppy and couldn't properly cite your source here.
And even then, all he says is "I was really stupid", which is interpretable, to say the very least. Is he stupid because he was abusing this girl's feelings, or is he stupid because he got himself involved in drama he ended up regretting? I ask for proof of his regret in how he treated women and this isn't exactly ironclad. It, at best, opens up the possibility. How about something to the effect of "I really regret how I badly treated and thought of the women who did this"?
- You're not even remotely grasping the "overall theme" of what I'm saying. Your attempt to summarize it as "it could happen to you so it's not sexist" is made up horseshit that I'm guessing you're promulgating because you'd rather win at feminism on the internet than engage in substantive discussion of how agency and dynamics play out in a situation where two people are using each other.
Having read your posts pretty thoroughly, this really is all your saying. Even in the quote below this one, you're not really offering a reason why it's not sexist that doesn't extend beyond "Well, that's how it is." I'll address this more in depth in the next bit, but first this "Win at feminism" thing. What your doing here basically amounts to accusing me of virtue signalling, and I'm hoping I don't have to explain how baseless not just this particular accusation is, but the concept of this accusation as a whole. In my experience, the only people who think people act falsely good on the internet (to what gain, who the fuck knows) are people who don't see the value in holding actual virtues, so they can't see how another person could. Making me out to be trying to win at feminism is a meaningless accusation because....well, yeah. I want to be the best feminist I can be. People have different definitions of that, but the core of feminism is a humanistic value of women. What kind of asswipe wouldn't to be that? It doesn't mean my arguments are flawless or that I can't be wrong, but you're framing my feministic values as inherently devaluing to the substance of the conversation, when feministic values should be the goal of everyone's relationship with gender. It doesn't mean I'm trying to 'win feminism', whatever that means, but you're not gonna shame or discredit me for having feministic values. Which brings me to....
- At no point did you address that
groupies start these relationships, and
they are starting them with their own ulterior motives, nor did you address Max's stories of how they become stalkers if they aren't getting what they want, and now you're even claiming to be unable to find any hint that he finds something negative in being involved in a relationship with a groupie. Groupies have their own forums, dude. They are very clear on what they are about. Do you need Jezebel's permission to grok this information? Because
here, have it. You seem to need to simplify the discussion so these things don't make your narrative untidy. You're only interested in blasting anybody who ends up involved with a groupie as a sexist. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But even outside the world of celebrity (I don't know if you're aware of what it's like in the dating world right now) --
even if it's 100% about getting your rocks off for Landis,
having a no-strings-attached consentual sexual relationship with someone doesn't constitute sexism, especially in the Hollywood version of it where the man didn't start it and the man is being used for professional gain. It is prudish and naive to think all sexual relationships are happening in egalitarian situations based on romantic love and equality and perfect consideration for each other's feelings.
Again, this is why I say you don't actually know what sexism constitutes. You keep banging on the point about how if these women willing participated, then it's all a-okay. And it is, from a legal perspective. No one here is accusing Landis of rape or sexual harassment or anything. What we are accusing him of is being a sexist asshole, which is something you can be with willing participants.
And the reason he is a sexist asshole is not because of any casual relationship with a groupie, but his satisfaction in exploiting that power dynamic to demean and hurt those women who willingly choose to be with him. That's the part you don't seem to get. Sexism isn't any particular action, it's a
mentality. A worldview. It's how you regard women in general. How women act towards you can influence that, but it's ultimately independent and each individual is responsible for their own sexism.
You can have a casual, no strings attached sexual relationship and not be a sexist if you maintain respect for the person as a human being. You can even do it with a groupie, though if you care about the power dynamics you'll probably want to address them in some way before proceeding. You can't, however, dehumanize, demean, and exploit women the way he does, and then claim to respect women as people. He would be sexist for this even if he DIDN'T take them up on their offers. This isn't what basic respect, even with casual hook up partners, looks like. That's the part you're consistently leaving out to make your argument seem more reasonable than it is, at least in the case of Max Landis. He didn't just have casual sex with a fangirl. He's talking about how stupid and crazy they are for doing it, while he's enjoying that he has the power over them to make them that way.
As a side note, it should be kept in mind, this is just
his judgement of these women. They might be accurate, or he might be playing up when they just wanted a casual hookup with a cool star without being truly 'crazy' as he puts it. Something tells me the girl he ended up giving 'crippling social anxiety' to wouldn't have signed on for that if she knew what she was getting with that. And before you accuse me of baseless speculation, then how about you provide something more ironclad regarding his supposed regret of his than what you've given me thus far, eh? And make sure to cite it
properly this time.
Oh, and this Jezebel thing. Again, the whole virtue signaling thing is bullshit anyway, but you've brought up a lot of contempt for this explicit feminist website, and I should just let you know that I don't read it unless someone links me a page to it, which they haven't done in atleast 6 months before this came up yet again. I bring this up because....
- You are like the supreme monarch of bad-faith oversimplifications. I've called you out on it
time, and
time again. The hallmark of "the Veelk post" seems to involve employing extreme amounts of self-righteousness and logorrhea against a strawman and I'm pretty sick of it. If you never post again to me, as you are promising, I will be glad. I am 100% sure I could describe for you what your point has been in this discussion, and 100% sure you could not do the same for me. It *could be* an interesting discussion where we both find the power dynamics make a non-exploitative/non-sexist explanation impossible IF YOU ACTUALLY TALK TO ME IN GOOD FAITH. But you don't do that with people.
- Another great Veelk hallmark is that touch of intellectual dishonesty. "Now I don't know whether you get involved with groupies or not, but..." (Of course I didn't, by the way. Boring old romantic relationships are the only thing for me, and I'm very happily married anyway.) But you would absolutely love it if I did, I can see that plainly. In the BB thread, I said the scene where Walter White's family dissolves in a desperate knife fight was heartbreaking and Skyler's actions in that scene weren't making sense to me, and you said, "I can't say for sure whether you are a sexist because of this, but..." You might as well have finished that with "but I love inferring that it does."
I'm combining these posts, because they basically say the same thing. Regarding those links you posted, well, you're completely wrong, but if we're now going to start replying from other threads, we're gonna be here forever, and this is already pretty long.
Now, first off, you're misusing the term intellectual dishonesty in about as wrong a way as you possibly can. Intellectual Dishonesty is about arguing from a position known to be false for ulterior purposes, like a racist who hides behind economic anxiety when he really just wants black people punished for percieved wrongs. In this case, to be intellectually dishonest, I would act as if I knew that you were in a groupie relationship and use that as bias to discredit your arguments.
What's happening is actually the complete opposite. I really
don't know if you've been involved with groupies or not(Until you told me, I guess, assuming you're telling the truth, which I don't know that either) and I am admitting it. And when I say what I said above about virtue signalling, again, I don't know for sure if you value the virtues of feminism, but between your seemingly compulsive hate for jezebel as well as the accusation of falsely trying to be a good feminist, it's worth bringing up as a possibility. And for completely different reasons, when I said that I couldn't say for sure whether you are a sexist in the other thread, that was me speaking the truth too, because it's hard to pin down what actions come from a stable world view, which is what sexism actually is. It's not me being evasive, it's genuinely difficult to tell in a lot of cases, because a lot of people are well-intentioned and sexism is ingrained into everyone on some level. It wasn't an accusation, because these things affect all of us to various degrees, myself included. So all these things I said I don't know, it wasn't me trying to sneakily insult you, I genuinely do not know, so I say I do not know them.
But I did bring those up to point out that they
were possibilities, and you can't deny that they aren't, since I gain more and more reason to believe them as the conversation continues. Or you can deny it, but that would only further expose your own ignorance of how sexism works, because everyone, including me, has the potential for sexism. See? I'm very blunt. At this point in the conversation, I genuinely don't think you're very intelligent or worth speaking to (if this wasn't a public forum, I definitely would have left you alone a while ago, but as I said in the previous post, this is for the benefit of third party spectators. Hi, lurker!). You arguments ignore critical information, your understanding of sexism is highly underdeveloped, and now it seems you don't even know your logical fallacies, formal or otherwise, and you've insulted and condescended me on multiple occasions. So, I am not impressed with you at all and I have no trouble saying it. However, those things aren't actually relevant (or weren't until now) because to just cast accusations without backing things up is not only against the ToS, which wouldn't do me any favors, it's also an ad hominem and thus worthless as a counter point. So, that ought to put to bed any illusions you might have had about my lack of willingness to state my very low opinion of you to hide behind some air of legitimacy. I want whatever legitimacy I can gain to be from the merit and rigor of the arguments I make against your arguments.
Like this strawman thing you're accusing me of. Now, this one, you haven't
technically used incorrectly, but you've failed to substantiate it. You never pointed out what component I'm misconstruing your argument as. You just say that I am and that it's possible to have a casual relationship with a groupie and not be sexist (which is technically true, sure, I never said it wasn't, but not what happened with Landis) and continuing to insist that reality is not some fairy tale rom com where everyone respects one another, which was never my claim in the first place and only really reinforces my argument that there existed a lack of respect for women on his part. Perhaps on the women's too, but we're discussing Landis, not them (and we don't have their side of the story in any case). But that's not me misconstruing your argument, that's me disagreeing with it's conclusion.
To the best of my honest intellectual ability to assess your argument, you're saying that because the women involved themselves with Landis willingly, it's not sexist for him to exploit them and think the demeaning thoughts he had about them (which I've addressed how that's wrong multiple times) and that I and plenty of others could//would do similar to him in a similar situation. I genuinely don't see what your point was trying to paint a scenerio where I'm in Landis' shoes if your intention was not an appeal to relatability (which I'm pretty sure is a fallacy, maybe under a different name, but don't quote me on this one. Maybe a subcatergory of an appeal to nature?). As far as I can tell, I haven't excluded any part of your argument and you're main objection seems to lie in the fact that I came to the conclusion that Landis can be sexist despite the women's willing participation and that's it's a normal position for a man to be in, so what can ya do ¯\_(ツ
_/¯. Now, if you feel I've misconstrued some part of what your saying, feel free to clarify, and if I then go on to ignore that clarification (which, btw, would NOT be the same thing as retorting that clarification in turn), THAT would be an argument that I'm strawmanning. Though I genuinely missed whatever clarification you offered if you have offered it before. But this petulant whining about it without actually substantiating your claim isn't a strawman until you do, though I doubt either of us have enough respect for each other to care anymore.
All this, and you accuse
me of bad faith while you're blindly trying to associate a website you have no reason to think I even visit (because I don't) which also somehow further discredits me because I'm arguing from feministic values? Get the f out of here.
And THIS is the last post you'll see from me on this topic. I know I said that before, but like I said, that was before you brought in the factor of coming after me personally as a poster, so I needed to put that to bed atleast. If you find a way to up the ante from here on out, I might renege on my not posting yet again, sure, but I don't see how. And even if you're right about nothing else, this is way off the rails from the main topic anyway.
