The Rise of the "Man-*****"

[Loonyyy]

You can seperate people into two groups - Male and Female.
Then you can have another criteria, which is either Masculine or Feminine.
Therefore you can have one of the following : Masculine Male, Masculine Female, Feminine Male and Femenine Female.
Here, do you understand now? It makes no difference what you are, so long as you are sure of yourself and aren't a dick to other people.

Very well said. I'd go a step further, and say that the what matters more is how your behaviour influences others: if a person wants to be a dick and hate on people for doing things that harm no-one, the only one deserving of judgement is them.
Better yet, if you have a stupid opinion about what you think looks good, realise that someone else likely has the opposite: if neither of you is forcing it on the other, what harm does it do?

 

[Hagi]

A post with great argumentation but bad grammar makes a better point then one with bad argumentation but good grammar. But it makes a worse point then a post with both great argumentation and great grammar.

No that's stupid. The point is in the content of the post. Watch

"A post with. Great argumentation but bad grammar makes a better point then one with bad argumentation but good grammar but it makes a worse point then a post with both great argumentation and gooder grammar."

Look at that I made your point worse, somehow even though it's still the exact same point.


Oh and I love the irony of you making a grammatical error while talking about how important grammar is. I suppose there are worse things than that.

You did make the point worse. Not significantly worse. But still worse.

If a poster uses proper grammar then it shows that he's put some time and effort into that post.

It shows he didn't just hastily typed whatever came into his mind first, it shows he put some thought into it.

Good argumentation shows the same quality, it's much better at showing that quality. But it's not the only thing that shows it.

If a post shows no signs whatsoever, be it proper grammar or good argumentation, of having any amount of thought put into it then I don't think it should be taken seriously.

The more signs a post has that the author put time into writing that post, the more serious you should take that post.

Grammar is important. It's not major, but it does matter.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

there is a lot more overly feminine guys these days, or at least it seems that way. Though i don't agree that its a bad thing really. Guys are finally able to be more expressive of themselves with minimal persecution.

 

[Loonyyy]

Yeah... There's a reason for all this stuff happening and I can't really talk about it without facing the banhammer.

It involves a failed generation of parenting that felt that the only way to make children feel good about themselves was to undo everything their parents did for them.

Not exactly bannable material, but when I get to the part where I discuss how that same failed generation looked at the issue of prejudice and decided to remedy it by taking reverse prejudice to the ridiculous extreme.

The waves of this are everywhere from social welfare programs (not a bad thing but universally abused) to media censorship (not a bad thing but universally retarded) to fashions on the street (not a bad thing but FUCK your man-skirt) to cultural attitudes (not a bad thing but 99% of alternative medicine is a crock of shit).

I won't type out a full argument on my opinions on these matters because I am acutely aware that the argument makes me seem bigoted and narrow minded.

Then again the fact that I may seem bigoted and narrow minded kind of makes my point valid. Not necessarily agreeable, but certainly it adds proof to my point.

Wait, this is related to the original post how? If you think that they way that people dress is related to socioeconomic decay and social welfare, media censorship and Alternative medicine (And yes I agree, it is a scam, and not actual medicine, but as related to clothing as I am to Jesus Christ), then give some evidence. Citation needed. To quote a skeptical axiom: "That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." Perhaps it is the parenting, maybe it's just a changing fashion (I certainly don't dress like my father, who didn't dress like his father, and none of us wear kilts, so, I guess that fashion must change OCCASIONALLY), whether or not you like how some people dress or not, for the most part, is no-one's problem but your own. Unless they want to force you to wear it. In which case, do what you will.

Whatever your opinions about society, the way people dress has to be the most tangential reason to get on a soapbox. (Also, I don't know about you, but the welfare types in Australia where I live are the blokey ones with a cigarette in their mouths, and the well dressed types, or even just regularly dressed are the ones paying welfare in their taxes.)

Also, not explaining your arguement doesn't make you seem less of a bigot, it just makes you seem like you have no arguement. The escapist can't ban you for making a logical, polite, well reasoned arguement using facts. It's only when you illustrate views which they find offensive or crudely put that they become involved: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct

 

[Iron Mal]

What exactly does this prove? I mean you said the guy had a scowl on his face so you can either sit next to the tough guy who looks angry or you can sit next to a woman who may be too engrossed in her book to even notice you.

That we all make judgements about people just based on something superficial or insignificant, whether we realise it or not.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[AngloDoom]

You seem to be missing the point.

You seem to be missing mine.

I'm not claiming to have perfect grammar myself.

Then expecting it of other people - no matter what your justifications - is absurd.

What I'm saying is that while argumentation shouldn't be dismissed in any way or form neither should grammar be dismissed.

Agreed, but the word 'arguementation' is even more of an unforgivable mistake than that of the others you had pointed out. By your logic, the very fact that you didn't bother to download a spell-checker or put your post through something like Word shows you're not bringing much to the table.

If a post has less then perfect grammar then it becomes less credible, like my own. Less credible does not translate to 'not credible'. There's many more points on which a post should be judged. I'm just arguing that grammar is a minor point that posts should be judged upon.

No, you were arguing that content and grammar and grammar hold similar worth when that isn't at all correct. Would you argue that a text written hundreds of years ago is less relevant to the time it was written because the spelling and grammar would not be acceptable these days? Maybe, but only if it made the argument harder to understand. The points you have made, however, are not hard to understand. If the person posting them had vocalised them, there would be absolutely no confusing.

If you make a coherent, well-structured and well argued post that has a few spelling errors then you've made a great post. You've however not made a perfect post.

Also agreed, but I'm not quite sure why it needs to be perfect grammar and spelling when discussing man-bitches. It's not likely that everyone is joining into this discussion is going to be a professor now, is it?

Likewise if you make a post that's badly structured and provides no argumentation but is at least spelled properly then you've made a horrible post. You've however not made an atrocious post.

Oh? Really?
That they're point are bad. Ashamed you should be in a state of. Otherwise baffle logic it would.

That above is correctly spelled correctly, with incorrectly placed words, tenses and contractions. Notice that it's fucking hard to get anything out of it. Now let's contrast:

'That point there is bad. You be ashamed. Otherwise it would baffle your logic.'

If I use 'they're' instead of 'their' in a post that is degree-level brain-surgery type work, it does discredit the work by a minute degree. However, it does not do it in anywhere in the same league as writing drivel correctly.

Most posts however aren't that extreme. They're somewhere in the middle. Their argumentation is decent, but not great. Their structure is okay, but not really worth noticing. At that point grammar can provide a minor influence that can tip the balance for the credibility of your post.

I believe grammar and spelling will naturally add, by minute degrees, credibility to a post. It just looks more intelligent and sexier. However, it should never be a tipping-point and never never be a point of it's own.

The initial point I made was this: A point that clearly provides no argumentation and doesn't even have proper grammar is not to be taken seriously. If it at least had proper grammar it would've shown the author had put some effort into it, so it might be worth replying to that author. But if, besides all the other flaws, it doesn't even have proper grammar then it's not worth taking seriously.

Disagreed. If the author has well-founded points with well-backed evidence then no amount of spelling mistakes can remove from those words. Your points now are totally subjective with no evidence or factual basis and yet you're incorrectly spelling words and using incorrect grammar just as often, if not more than the person you are critiquing, as well as trying to use words in the wrong place. What makes you wrong aren't the words used (although the poetic justice is adding so much more to it all) but the way you've decided to wield them.

You are doing exactly what the person you've put-down has done on a much grander scale and much, much louder. In the end, it is not they way you've written your words that has left you floundering, but what you've said. You're being hypocritical.

 

[Seagoon]

You seem to be missing the point.

You seem to be missing mine.

I'm not claiming to have perfect grammar myself.

Then expecting it of other people - no matter what your justifications - is absurd.

What I'm saying is that while argumentation shouldn't be dismissed in any way or form neither should grammar be dismissed.

Agreed, but the word 'arguementation' is even more of an unforgivable mistake than that of the others you had pointed out. By your logic, the very fact that you didn't bother to download a spell-checker or put your post through something like Word shows you're not bringing much to the table.

If a post has less then perfect grammar then it becomes less credible, like my own. Less credible does not translate to 'not credible'. There's many more points on which a post should be judged. I'm just arguing that grammar is a minor point that posts should be judged upon.

No, you were arguing that content and grammar and grammar hold similar worth when that isn't at all correct. Would you argue that a text written hundreds of years ago is less relevant to the time it was written because the spelling and grammar would not be acceptable these days? Maybe, but only if it made the argument harder to understand. The points you have made, however, are not hard to understand. If the person posting them had vocalised them, there would be absolutely no confusing.

If you make a coherent, well-structured and well argued post that has a few spelling errors then you've made a great post. You've however not made a perfect post.

Also agreed, but I'm not quite sure why it needs to be perfect grammar and spelling when discussing man-bitches. It's not likely that everyone is joining into this discussion is going to be a professor now, is it?

Likewise if you make a post that's badly structured and provides no argumentation but is at least spelled properly then you've made a horrible post. You've however not made an atrocious post.

Oh? Really?
That they're point are bad. Ashamed you should be in a state of. Otherwise baffle logic it would.

That above is correctly spelled correctly, with incorrectly placed words, tenses and contractions. Notice that it's fucking hard to get anything out of it. Now let's contrast:

'That point there is bad. You be ashamed. Otherwise it would baffle your logic.'

If I use 'they're' instead of 'their' in a post that is degree-level brain-surgery type work, it does discredit the work by a minute degree. However, it does not do it in anywhere in the same league as writing drivel correctly.

Most posts however aren't that extreme. They're somewhere in the middle. Their argumentation is decent, but not great. Their structure is okay, but not really worth noticing. At that point grammar can provide a minor influence that can tip the balance for the credibility of your post.

I believe grammar and spelling will naturally add, by minute degrees, credibility to a post. It just looks more intelligent and sexier. However, it should never be a tipping-point and never never be a point of it's own.

The initial point I made was this: A point that clearly provides no argumentation and doesn't even have proper grammar is not to be taken seriously. If it at least had proper grammar it would've shown the author had put some effort into it, so it might be worth replying to that author. But if, besides all the other flaws, it doesn't even have proper grammar then it's not worth taking seriously.

Disagreed. If the author has well-founded points with well-backed evidence then no amount of spelling mistakes can remove from those words. Your points now are totally subjective with no evidence or factual basis and yet you're incorrectly spelling words and using incorrect grammar just as often, if not more than the person you are critiquing, as well as trying to use words in the wrong place. What makes you wrong aren't the words used (although the poetic justice is adding so much more to it all) but the way you've decided to wield them.

You are doing exactly what the person you've put-down has done on a much grander scale and much, much louder. In the end, it is not they way you've written your words that has left you floundering, but what you've said. You're being hypocritical.

you know you really need to lay off the poor guy! I've heard of Grammer Nazis but this is just being a dickhead!

 

[Custard_Angel]

Yeah... There's a reason for all this stuff happening and I can't really talk about it without facing the banhammer.

It involves a failed generation of parenting that felt that the only way to make children feel good about themselves was to undo everything their parents did for them.

Not exactly bannable material, but when I get to the part where I discuss how that same failed generation looked at the issue of prejudice and decided to remedy it by taking reverse prejudice to the ridiculous extreme.

I don't think every one of these feminine guys are a result of parents who frowned upon masculinity. There are men and boys who like being feminine even when their parents disapprove.

I won't type out a full argument on my opinions on these matters because I am acutely aware that the argument makes me seem bigoted and narrow minded.

Sort of to me it just makes you look simple-minded. Yeah there are (small numbers of) people out there who trash masculinity and are trying to get men to be more feminine, but to blame it all on them just seems like a scapegoat.

My point isn't that people disparage masculinity, my point is that misguided notions of genuine equality and social justice resulted in the mess that many modern cultures exist in today.

1950s American culture was very much "apple pie and baseball". 1950s Australian culture was very much "true blue, she'll be right mate".

That still exists, but for the most part its been blurred into western culture which is publicly perceived as shallow, vapid and entirely materialistically driven.

By depriving nations of an isolated culture and identity people reach out for anything to cling to.

At least that's the way I see things. I can't cite references or case studies or anything.

I'm a chemist, not an anthropologist. Or sociologist. Or whoever studies this sort of thing.

It just seems like a logical conclusion that our greatest influences dictate our personalities and attitudes and therefore the attitudes of children are dictated by their parents by either passing on positive notions, negative notions or failing to pass anything on (in which case the attitudes are defined by other authoritative figures).

Meh. Whatever. I'm not trying to write a thesis on this. I'm already working on one of those.

It is my opinion that the "retarded shit" we see these days are just echoes of misguided notions from previous generations.

 

[AngloDoom]

you know you really need to lay off the poor guy! I've heard of Grammer Nazis but this is just being a dickhead!

I assure you, I am not being a grammar-nazi.

The poster put down an individual for their grammar and spelling and stated a point as to why. I have argued that point using my own subjective standpoints and examples I believe emphasise this. I am trying to point out this attitude of "my spelling-cock is bigger than yours" is poisonous and needs to die because it allows people to defy logic and insult people based upon something totally irrelevant.

Unlike yourself, who has insulted me for defending someone from a person I believe to be putting them down for no adequate reason. Wonderful.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Who cares?

What the Lanister said

 

[Kolby Jack]

Personally I can't stand effeminate males. I don't know what it is, but they annoy the shit out of me and I want to punch every single one of them I meet. I don't mind if a guy is gay. He can be as gay as he feels like being as long he's a frickin' man about it. Straight effeminate males (metros) piss me off as much as the gay ones.

I mean, I'm not some temple of manhood myself, being pasty, scrawny, somewhat pudgy and non-athletic. Athleticism has nothing to do with being a man. You don't have to be macho to be a man, but you also can't be a pussy.

I don't know if that makes me sound like an ass or not, but it's really tough to describe what it is to be a man, as much as it is to describe what it is to be a woman, I'm sure. It's not really about pride so much as it is about dignity. And even then, that doesn't paint the whole picture.

 

[Hagi]

You seem to be missing the point.

You seem to be missing mine.

I'm not claiming to have perfect grammar myself.

Then expecting it of other people - no matter what your justifications - is absurd.

What I'm saying is that while argumentation shouldn't be dismissed in any way or form neither should grammar be dismissed.

Agreed, but the word 'arguementation' is even more of an unforgivable mistake than that of the others you had pointed out. By your logic, the very fact that you didn't bother to download a spell-checker or put your post through something like Word shows you're not bringing much to the table.

If a post has less then perfect grammar then it becomes less credible, like my own. Less credible does not translate to 'not credible'. There's many more points on which a post should be judged. I'm just arguing that grammar is a minor point that posts should be judged upon.

No, you were arguing that content and grammar and grammar hold similar worth when that isn't at all correct. Would you argue that a text written hundreds of years ago is less relevant to the time it was written because the spelling and grammar would not be acceptable these days? Maybe, but only if it made the argument harder to understand. The points you have made, however, are not hard to understand. If the person posting them had vocalised them, there would be absolutely no confusing.

If you make a coherent, well-structured and well argued post that has a few spelling errors then you've made a great post. You've however not made a perfect post.

Also agreed, but I'm not quite sure why it needs to be perfect grammar and spelling when discussing man-bitches. It's not likely that everyone is joining into this discussion is going to be a professor now, is it?

Likewise if you make a post that's badly structured and provides no argumentation but is at least spelled properly then you've made a horrible post. You've however not made an atrocious post.

Oh? Really?
That they're point are bad. Ashamed you should be in a state of. Otherwise baffle logic it would.

That above is correctly spelled correctly, with incorrectly placed words, tenses and contractions. Notice that it's fucking hard to get anything out of it. Now let's contrast:

'That point there is bad. You be ashamed. Otherwise it would baffle your logic.'

If I use 'they're' instead of 'their' in a post that is degree-level brain-surgery type work, it does discredit the work by a minute degree. However, it does not do it in anywhere in the same league as writing drivel correctly.

Most posts however aren't that extreme. They're somewhere in the middle. Their argumentation is decent, but not great. Their structure is okay, but not really worth noticing. At that point grammar can provide a minor influence that can tip the balance for the credibility of your post.

I believe grammar and spelling will naturally add, by minute degrees, credibility to a post. It just looks more intelligent and sexier. However, it should never be a tipping-point and never never be a point of it's own.

The initial point I made was this: A point that clearly provides no argumentation and doesn't even have proper grammar is not to be taken seriously. If it at least had proper grammar it would've shown the author had put some effort into it, so it might be worth replying to that author. But if, besides all the other flaws, it doesn't even have proper grammar then it's not worth taking seriously.

Disagreed. If the author has well-founded points with well-backed evidence then no amount of spelling mistakes can remove from those words. Your points now are totally subjective with no evidence or factual basis and yet you're incorrectly spelling words and using incorrect grammar just as often, if not more than the person you are critiquing, as well as trying to use words in the wrong place. What makes you wrong aren't the words used (although the poetic justice is adding so much more to it all) but the way you've decided to wield them.

You are doing exactly what the person you've put-down has done on a much grander scale and much, much louder. In the end, it is not they way you've written your words that has left you floundering, but what you've said. You're being hypocritical.

1. There's this thing called a gradient. It means that there's more alternatives then just perfect and not perfect.

2. Argumentation is spelled properly.

3. I never made grammar a point on it's own. I made grammar a point because the post that sparked this didn't include anything, not even grammar. I'm willing to talk to someone who doesn't present good arguments but does take the time and effort to spell properly, I'm not willing to talk to someone who neither (important word there) takes the time and effort to spell properly or provide good argumentation.

4.

it does discredit the work by a minute degree. However, it does not do it in anywhere in the same league as writing drivel correctly.

Thank you for making exactly the point I'm making. Grammar isn't a huge deal, but neither is it not a deal at all.

Look you've apparently gotten it into your head that I'm wrong and that you're somehow being very smart by noticing it. To the point where you seem incapable of reading my posts objectively.

This:

it does discredit the work by a minute degree. However, it does not do it in anywhere in the same league as writing drivel correctly.

I believe grammar and spelling will naturally add, by minute degrees, credibility to a post. It just looks more intelligent

Is the point I'm making.

Now if you desire to keep on arguing because you feel it makes you very smart be my guest, but please stop trying to twist my words.

Grammar matters, it doesn't matter nearly as much as argumentation, but it does matter.

 

[Arrrgh_Bruce]

Personally i find it brillient the agressive defence by some people of a persons right to wear what they want and not be segragated or labeled or whatnot, yet the op wasnt in anyway agressive or trying to be mean about it, it makes the former look quite the fool. I think its more or an example of political correctness gone over board again. Power to you to wear what you want but power to the people who want to make a comment on it, as long as it isnt inciting some kind of violence or segregation.

Back to the topic, no scarfs on guys unless its for sports or its actually to keep you warm, my girlfriend agrees with this.

 

[AngloDoom]

1. There's this thing called a gradient. It means that there's more alternatives then just perfect and not perfect.

2. Argumentation is spelled properly.

3. I never made grammar a point on it's own. I made grammar a point because the post that sparked this didn't include anything, not even grammar. I'm willing to talk to someone who doesn't present good arguments but does take the time and effort to spell properly, I'm not willing to talk to someone who neither (important word there) takes the time and effort to spell properly or provide good argumentation.

4.

it does discredit the work by a minute degree. However, it does not do it in anywhere in the same league as writing drivel correctly.

Thank you for making exactly the point I'm making. Grammar isn't a huge deal, but neither is it not a deal at all.

Look you've apparently gotten it into your head that I'm wrong and that you're somehow being very smart by noticing it. To the point where you seem incapable of reading my posts objectively.

This:

it does discredit the work by a minute degree. However, it does not do it in anywhere in the same league as writing drivel correctly.

I believe grammar and spelling will naturally add, by minute degrees, credibility to a post. It just looks more intelligent

Is the point I'm making.

Now if you desire to keep on arguing because you feel it makes you very smart be my guest, but please stop trying to twist my words.

Grammar matters, it doesn't matter nearly as much as argumentation, but it does matter.

The whole point of all this wasn't that you were 'wrong' or 'right'. It's the fact that you attacked someone and totally dismissed them. I acknowledged what you said about content and the way it's displayed and agreed with you. It wasn't unintentional.

What I'm saying is that attacking someone of the basis of it is wrong. I'm doing the same to you and it's made you totally uncomfortable and indeed very hostile. You've made points, not illustrated them with evidence or studies or similar, that happen to oppose the points made by the other poster. You've done exactly the same thing but you feel you have the power to disregard him based upon the fact that your spelling is superior - therefore you are.

I'll drop this now. I'm irritated by that viewpoint and it's reflecting in my posts. I apologise if I have insulted you when my intent truly was to point out the part where I felt you were being unreasonable. I genuinely did not mean to come across as the braggart with internet-cock on his side, but if that is how you have seen me then I've obviously gone about this the wrong way. Any additional point made would just be petty remarks on a spirally discussion.

 

[Sordak]

oh yess call me ignorant for stating men and women are different, this is so typical for this time we live in.
So you realy do think that men and women think totaly the same? and all those differences that ALWAYS have been there are just cause of "male dominant culture" im sorry but i am not buying that.