@Sanonius Just so you know, you keep making it worse, because you’re showcasing that your initial response was, indeed, sexist.
I don’t appreciate your sexist comments towards me, focusing on my gender and somehow insisting on evaluating my position based on that. I will refer you to the people @Vsotvep @teapoweredrobot who explained very nicely what exactly was wrong in your comments.
It’s all there; if you want to keep denying seeing the issue, that’s on you.
8 Likes
Many years ago I attended the criminology classes of professor Dessaur (she was one of the leading feminists in the Netherlands, using the pseudonym Andreas Burnier for her non academical writings).
Instead of woman or man she once used the terms human being in a female or male body.
1 Like
It is very much my intention to see the issue, and I’m starting to do so. Again sorry for misjudging the effect of my words, I hope we can normalise our relation again.
5 Likes
No matter what. a male first reaction is going to be her appearance and behavior. It is up to her to set the tone on how she wants to be treated. We are human and have a reactionary tendency to how we are perceived…
3 Likes
NO
It is up to the man to set the tone on how he behaves to others!
9 Likes
@mgcjose32 Yes, please, continue to be as vocal as possible about your opinions, so we know to avoid you.
3 Likes
Who is in control of a person’s thoughts and actions? Themselves or someone else? I’m aghast.
2 Likes
In a game of go, who is in control of person’s moves? They or their opponent? While the person decides each of their moves, all of them depend on what the opponent is doing.
1 Like
Watch the video yebellz posted above. Would you repeat that that woman was partially responsible for the comments she got?
7 Likes
I was also thinking about a go analogy. My understanding is that to progress to the upper echelons of Go strength one needs to do the right thing given the whole board. It’s not that you are in complete dependence on what the opponent has just done. Rather you must consider the whole situation. You and your opponent’s past actions inform your decision but the thoughts, analysis and move you make is all your own responsibility.
Saying “I had to play there because she played here” will typically be wrong (puppy go right?). You might choose to play there because she did but it’s still your choice.
3 Likes
You have choices. But the choices are heavily limited by opponent’s moves. And if your options are limited, are you really in control?
Imagine you’re in a building that is on fire. You can choose to run out of the building or stay inside. “It’s still your choice!” you’ll say but I don’t see it as a free choice.
And I think free will doesn’t exist also, does it?
Analogies are fair enough as long as they apply. This one doesn’t.
When a woman walks over street, wearing normal clothing, not interacting with anybody, this is in no way the same as a house on fire, where there is only one reasonable option to allow for survival.
Your comment makes it appear as if you’re stating that when a certain kind of man sees a woman (who is not even actively trying to be attractive), they have no other choice than to make a harassing comment.
I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds like a pretty pathetic being, no less pathetic than a fly having no other choice than to endlessly circle around a light bulb. I like to believe humans have a lot more free choice than flies, in this regard.
7 Likes
Imagine that your opponent systemically starts with a handicap always, no matter their rank. They have 5 stones on you, at least, every single time. When you rise in ranks and make the stones 4, they cry murder.
Also, imagine that they can systemically steal your stones and take them as prisoners and you can’t do anything about that. 9 out of 10 times you are accused that you are lying/ you secretly wanted your opponent to take your stones/ it was your fault to expect a fair fight, because if the stones are there, why expect your opponent to not cheat? It’s their nature, it’s about winning and they are made to win. Also, everyone will bring up that one time that an opponent like you lied about the stones being stolen and insist it happens every day, when all the available data says it doesn’t.
Also, imagine that your opponent has systemically beat you up so often when they have lost fair and square, that even the threat of them beating you up if you win makes you reluctant to win. They don’t have to beat you, they just keep the stick in plain sight and look at you like “you know what will happen if you win”.
Also, imagine your opponent makes all the decisions about how and what you study, how you train and who you play against, so that you have no agency over your style of play and your potential improvment.
Finally, imagine that your opponent doesn’t even believe all of the above offer them an unfair advantage over the game. And they don’t care that a fair, strong game is better and more enjoyable for everyone in the long run, if they only were willing to put in the effort.
8 Likes
The argument “I have no free will” has never been a good way to justify one’s actions, in my opinion.
10 Likes
@Vsotvep you’re writing as if I was responding to you or that video, I wasn’t. And it’s not like walking on the street is analogous to a go club either.
Let me ask you this one. Are go clubs really such horrible places? Because I never thought of them this way. They looked really nice, with kids, parents, elderly. Are they really like a man-cave?
2 Likes
If you were not responding to me, what would be your response to me? Because I asked my question in response to your statement.
As a man who only ever visited go clubs while there were no female players attending, I cannot answer this question in a way relevant to this thread.
4 Likes
Most likely not but the reaction from my daughters was that if they didn’t know about Go and they saw that cartoon and it’s intention was to attract new female players, it would put them off…
6 Likes
The answer is no, that woman wasn’t responsible*, of course. And I never said she was.
*Unless you want to argue technicalities.
Good, so a similar scenario, where a woman is the only female in a go club, and comes there just to play go, then similarly she is not responsible for men making unwanted comments, or treading outside of decent bounds, right?
That is, in the situation sketched in the comic, the guys are fully responsible for their possibly unwanted reaction to Mary’s presence, since nothing in the comic hints that Mary is acting in a way to attract attention.
Unless you disagree with the above, I don’t really understand why you would bring up the analogy of who is in control during a game of go (which I believe was meant as an analogy that in some situations the man’s hand is forced)
6 Likes
Thank you for your kind comment 
I should have left this topic at what I said earlier, but since a lot of things have been added since, I feel that I should place here an explanation for what was posted by me.
The main premise of the opinion in my initial post (“If you think long enough EVERYTHING is sexist/racist/whatever.”) that was considered “white male priviledge” was actually not mine, but it is the opinion of a very prominent, very famous and very agenda-defining modern feminist, Anita Sarkeesian.
Proof:
Quite often such discussions go beyond reason and are loaded with undertones of our personal experiences and so, initially, I decided to begin with something that most modern feminists and marginalised groups not only agree with, but consider a pillar of their ideological positions. I thought it was a safe choice, but I was a bit surprised that it was so easily and automatically labelled as “white priviledge” and that a lot of people disagreed with that, just because a male was copy-pasting that point. Well, I found that interesting (the main reason I go into discussions is to explore other people’s viewpoints, after all) so I rolled with it.
Everyone missing the reference to the most famous feminist quote of a decade, more or less, proves the point that in such topics it is very easy to misunderstand what is being said and go off on different and quite surprizing tangents.
For example, this:
Someone delegated all the LGBTQ community to a “minor aspect”. 
What if someone posted “I am LGBTQ and I found that offensive” ? Just imagine how this post I quoted would look then.
Are the LGBTQ fewer than women in number? Yes. But that does not make their issues less important. More inclusion is the modern goal, not more exclusion. That is why that recent Go initiative was about womxn and not just women, More inclusion is the goal. ( I am talking about this: https://www.usgo.org/news/2020/09/womxns-online-go-club-holds-first-meeting-looking-for-new-members/)
And another similar post:
A lot of groups of people are small, but we care for them equally and that is the point of the current social reform. Is that something that can be achieved? I do not know that, but I do know that we cannot be so callous about marginalised groups, just because they are small or we do not know of their struggles. For example, to steer away a bit from the social issues, people in wheelchairs or blind people are “a very small group of people”, but we still make ramps and special pathways, because we should care for them equally. We are all humans, despite our differences.
Epimyth:
The matter of equality and/or, indeed, justice is very old, very complex and very difficult to solve.
As far as I am concerned, we should all be aware of how serious a topic it really is for a lot of people and that we should all try to be as calm and objective and understanding during such a conversation, especially when it is conducted in the written form which is a medium that can lead to misunderstandings.
Easy solutions do not exist in this matter, else we would have already solved it as a specied instead of having it as an open problem that has remained with our kind for such a long time. Noone is expecting us, in particular, to solve such a complex and gigantic problem, so we should keep and open mind and avoid telling people that their opinions are automatically invalid due to their gender or position in life. If we are ever going to rise above the issue of discrimination and start approaching equality, I’d say that it is a good place to begin bringing people together instead of immediately focusing on our differences.
And now I really have nothing else to add.
Have a nice day everyone.
1 Like