?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

theidolhands
Jun. 1st, 2012 02:16 am (UTC)
I know that somehow, in your universe, that this is actually a conversation, and while I would love to keep bantering on behalf of tatjna (who was never directly addressed), or at the threat of being further perceived as being "stubborn" or an "ass"...I have this pesky thing called a life.

And so, I will have to bid you good day -- person who keeps accusing people and getting upset about exactly what they, themselves, are doing.



writerspleasure
Jun. 1st, 2012 02:18 am (UTC)
You bring to mind the clunky pomposity of the liberal bumper-sticker that begins "It'll be a great day..."
tatjna
Jun. 29th, 2012 08:55 am (UTC)
Oddly enough, my lj note for you includes the word 'pompous'.

And yes, it was a dissenting opinion. I disagree that this study strikes any kind of blow for evo psych theory against feminism because evo psych is only set up against feminism by people who would use it in simplistic ways to reinforce constructed stereotypes that disadvantage women. Witness you posting it here as if it proves anything about feminism.

Note the lack of studies into what blind women find attractive. Why is that, I wonder? Why do we only care what men fancy? Note also the continuing ability of people with a variety of body shapes to reproduce successfully. Note the different body shapes that have been seen as attractive in different times and different cultures. I can't buy this stuff as either unbiased or realistic and it certainly can't be used to draw any conclusions about what is 'natural' to find attractive. Touting it as some kind of blow against feminism is just the sort of puffed-up crap I'd expect from you though.

Now please, show me how pompous you're not with your masterful schooling of the uppity feminist. Put me back in my natural place, go on.

writerspleasure
Jun. 29th, 2012 08:58 am (UTC)
Ooh, lj notes! Including an adjective, even. That's definitive.

"Dissenting opinion" nothing. It was snark, and treated as such.

Typical of your breed, who phase in and out of serious discussion at will. If you want to express an opinion, express an opinion and argue for it - without attitude.
tatjna
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:07 am (UTC)
I just did, as I did in the first comment - it is not my problem if you choose to be too dense to see it. I've repeated myself for your benefit because you argued elsewhere that my original comment wasn't dissenting, which is a misrepresentation. Ball's in your court, sunshine. And if you don't want attitude, I'd suggest you don't attempt to attribute qualities to me based on my 'breed'.
writerspleasure
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:32 am (UTC)
Lead off with snark, and as a snarker shall ye be treated. No instant reformations or conversions along the way.

( Also, memory is not magically erased. You've done it before. You're not here to opine or reason. )
tatjna
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:38 am (UTC)
No, you're right. Mostly I'm here to point and laugh at you, because mostly the things you say are laughable.

However, my opinion is dissenting, mostly because I disagree with almost everything you say. And I have historically opined and reasoned and discovered that your responses, as this one has been, are exactly as you are described in my note - pompous. Frankly, it puts me off wanting to engage more deeply.

It's also noteworthy that I've had discussions with evo-psych fans many times and it gets old refuting the same old assumptions over and over again. So here. A summary of why I'd rather snap off a one-line snark that amuses people than engage you seriously. Make sure you read the comments, you might learn something.
writerspleasure
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:40 am (UTC)
You ... think I'm interested in your opinions? Or want you to engage more?

I consider you a clown. Now, bumble off and go talk to the Stupids.
tatjna
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:43 am (UTC)
Hahaha funnily enough, I was just coming to realise that you don't actually have an argument of your own.

But please, continue to pretend you're above it all if it makes you feel more superior. I'm off to bed. 'Night!

writerspleasure
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:45 am (UTC)
You're stuck in a robotic mode.

Listen carefully to a simple explanation: you're not a serious reasoner, at least here. (You might be lovely offline, but here you are an ass.) Therefore, you don't receive serious argument. This is what I'm talking about re. conversions: you can't start out as a snark, and then profess to suddenly want to reason, then flip back into snarking.

Interesting psychological confession about the superiority.

Sleep well. : )
tatjna
Jun. 29th, 2012 07:40 pm (UTC)
I did sleep well, thank you.

Now, let me keep this simple. I don't care if you can't/won't debate the point with me, that's not why I returned to this thread. I returned because I don't like it when fuckwits like you misrepresent me in other forums. I returned for the benefit of those who might follow that link here, to do two things:

1. Make it clear that my snark was, in fact, expressing a dissenting opinion.

2. Create a thread in which you demonstrate just how pissy you are about it.

Achievement, as they say, unlocked.

Now, I'm done. Congratulations, you get the last word. Please, spend more of your time explaining to me why I'm not worth your time.
writerspleasure
Jun. 29th, 2012 08:58 pm (UTC)
"Dissenting opinion[s]" are serious and occur in a rational setting. You, by contrast, are a snarker and are writing here. Q.E.D.

Oh, you're wonderfully worth my time. Mocking the Stupids is never time wasted!

[ And autolulz at replying to old threads. Clearly my good example infects. ]

Have a joyous afternoon. : )

Profile

WHAT NOW!?
anti_feminism
Who said it was about equality anyway?

Latest Month

June 2016
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Golly Kim