Splinter: How to handle mansplaining

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Syne, Jan 20, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    LOL! You just quoted YOURSELF from here and attributed it to me. If you don't know what "it" YOU were referring to, I can't help you. Sounds like a serious personal issue.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,182
    I quoted your post, and attributed it to you.

    Your post was a response to my post, and I included your quote of my post - exactly what you were responding to, exactly as you quoted it in your post - for clarity, so you could see just how freaking clueless your response was. Because there's no way you, or anyone, could have figured out what you were responding to from your response alone.

    And if you need yet more evidence that the people telling you you aren't paying attention have a point, that last should be enough.

    You may be confusing "mansplaining" with actual explanation - something a genuinely knowledgable person does, to someone whom they have reason to believe is less knowledgable.

    Mansplaining interferes with education - is, in a sense, its opposite.
    Methinks the ones doing the more sophisticated, complex, and difficult work of domestic chores and gathering would have the most survival value to contribute via explanation. Maybe that's why women talk so much, and "mansplain" so little (and do the bulk of the educating).
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Liar. Go look for yourself. You clearly attributed what YOU said to me, without any indication that any of it was what you wrote. I'll be expecting an apology for you doubling down on this obvious lie.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,182
    This new fad of calling people liars is going to get old fast. Used to be just joe and a couple of creationists, now it's every dumbass who can't follow a posting and needs to blame somebody.

    It occurs to me that these are the guys who might benefit from a Zahavian handicap gambit - turns their flaws into assets! - and also seem (can't prove anything, but willing to bet) to be likely perps in the mansplaining arena. I'm getting fond of the notion. One complication is that social evolution intrudes, and does not follow Darwinian strictures - the theory is going to be a mess.

    Intro to the Darwinian setup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Did you even bother to go look at where you clearly did attribute your words to me? Nope? Can't be bothered?
    So a liar, and intellectually dishonest to boot. Now you're just reduced to arm waving...hoping no one goes and looks for themselves. Pathetic liar.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,228
    Mod Hat ― Intervention

    I need to put a freeze on this.


    Syne, Iceaura is correct; see #107.

    Iceaura, there are a lot of questions I can ask a lot of people around the site about the way we mark up our posts; I'm not winning any crusades, nor deigning to lecture on this point. However, please understand that it can be easy to miss that last sentence of the block quote in #97↑; it's probably easiest, I think, to leave this point of contention at that misunderstanding and move forward with the rest of the issues.

    Generally speaking, there have long been misunderstandings having to do with how information is presented. At Sciforums, asking people to put certain effort into post formatting ranges, historically, somewhere between futile and offensive. In days of increasing mobile device usage and interface, well, touchscreening markup isn't fun. Should I criticize Iceaura for maybe one more return strike? Really? After all these years? It seems futile. To the other, do I tell Syne that this is entirely his obligation? Come on, we've all had our moments, and this ... yeah, any of us can sympathize with missing the detail.

    But no, really, I even terminate my style tagging before quote tagging. I can't encourage people to cite sources in a reasonable manner; we ought not foresee obligatory markup standards beyond "don't go out of your way to be problematic".

    Thank you.
     
  10. Secular_Sanity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5

    No. Syne is right. No biggie. I’m just sort of a stickler. In post #97 iceaura misquoted syne and attributed what he/she said in post #91 to Syne. I tried to quote it in the deleted posts but it didn't show up. Just sayin'.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,228
    Mod Hat ― What am I missing?

    This is what I'm seeing:

    Iceaura at #97↑:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Syne at #94↑:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What am I missing?

    No, seriously, if I'm blowing this one that obviously―which, you know, isn't impossible―what am I missing?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,182
    I copied and pasted. You can't misquote by copying and pasting (unless you edit deceptively, which I did not do). I then - in addition, for clarity - put quote marks around the quote of my post that Syne - not me - included in his post, to differentiate it from Syne's own words in response. These I had copy/pasted at the same time - one step of copying and pasting, resulting in the quote from me Syne posted, and the first phrase of his response (my topic) which was accurately copy/pasted word for word.

    I did that because the quote function here drops already quoted material (as you have discovered, apparently) and so that was the only way to handle the matter in one step without omitting Syne's quote of me. As the object of my post was to mock the contrast between that goofball response and my actual words, I thought it best to include them both. Contrast, see, requires both.

    Are we clear?

    Hell, here it is again, copy/pasting from my post at issue the quoted bloc from syne's post, with the quote marks added to set off what he had quoted from earlier me:
    { "Genuine explanation, a knowledgable or informed person's communication of that information or knowledge to an ignorant or uninformed person ready to receive it, is never mansplaining regardless of the condescension or patronizing tone adopted.

    What's happening is not defined by its manner, and is not actually "explaining" in the ordinary sense. Adopting a humble tone of voice and diffident manner will not save you."
    So it must be explaining something you KNOW the other person already KNOWS? }

    The entire thing in the brackets was copied from syne's post, and attributed to him. The last sentence is the first sentence of syne's response to what he had quoted- note lack of quote marks and other distinguishing features, such as the all caps words and the fact that it's a response. Here it is isolated:

    { So it must be explaining something you KNOW the other person already KNOWS? }

    You can see why I included the quote he was responding to?

    In the future, I will further manipulate the copied text to increase visual demarcation of voice, although that will diverge from what I present as a copy - we'll see who calls me a liar for that, adding spaces or altering fonts or whatever seems to work.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2017
  13. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    384
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,088
    This whole thing is ridiculous but if you're going to go to all that trouble why not just mark it up right?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And you... You may be a stickler but you are also wrong.
     
  15. Secular_Sanity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5

    Post #94 is irrelevant. Notice how in #97 iceaura has quoted Syne as saying:

    "Genuine explanation, a knowledgable or informed person's communication of that information or knowledge to an ignorant or uninformed person ready to receive it, is never mansplaining regardless of the condescension or patronizing tone adopted.

    What's happening is not defined by its manner, and is not actually "explaining" in the ordinary sense. Adopting a humble tone of voice and diffident manner will not save you."


    Iceaura is asking him what he's talking about, but he never even said that, iceaura did. Iceaura said it in post #91.

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/how-to-handle-mansplaining.158202/page-5#post-3430933
     
  16. Secular_Sanity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5
    Am I? No, I am not.

    Iceaura made a minor mistake. No biggie, but nevertheless, Syne was not lying.

    I'm assuming that this is what iceaura was trying to quote and respond to.

    Ta-Da! Womansplaining... at its finest.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2017
  17. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,088
    I'm assuming that you are incapable of or unwilling to read a properly marked up version of post #97 or even to look at the pretty picture that Tiassa provided.

    What is it with this post-truth world? What the f**k constitutes compelling evidence anymore?

    And, how did you get back in here anyway? Aren't you on permanent vacation?
     
  18. Secular_Sanity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5
    There was not a properly marked up version of #97, that is, until I provided one. Tiassa directed us to #107.

    In #107 iceaura is still incorrect.
    Well, shit happens to sticklers.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,731
    Mod Note

    You also left out the part of that quote, where he actually quotes himself in the quote and then includes this from Syne (in other words, he wasn't lying, he included his comment and then Syne's question in his response to iceaura's comment):

    Which is from post#94.

    Iceaura included his own comment and then that question from Syne, as thus:


    I have highlighted the portion he quoted from Syne in post#94.. You know, since you appear to be incapable of noticing it.

    Syne was avoiding the question and trolling.

    Question here is, why have you decided to attempt to circumvent 2 permanent bans on your previous characters on this site to simply help him troll and take the thread off topic?

    Does not matter, as you won't get the chance to answer.
     
  20. Secular_Sanity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5
    That’s not the only way to handle it, and besides, you didn’t even quote his sentence in #97. The one that you were trying to question. You left that out entirely. You made a mistake. It happens, but you were starting to get a little—um—how should I say this?..."condescending".

    This is how it should have read.

    Carry on.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,731
    Mod Note

    Please be advised that Secular_Sanity has been banned for being a sock puppet. Previous accounts have been banned repeatedly in the past, only for new ones to pop up again. This appears to be the latest one, along with another. Both banned.

    Please be mindful of this site's rules on the subject of sock puppets:

    Sock puppets
    A4. We have a ‘no sock puppets’ policy, which means one screen name per member. Members found to be using two or more names may be banned.

    A5. Banned members who register under a different name will have all identities permanently banned upon discovery. This may result in a temporary ban becoming permanent.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,228
    Mod Hat ― On an interesting point

    Truth told, there is nothing about Sciforums history encouraging a larger trend toward such outcomes. Back before mobile touchscreen interface was so prominent, we still couldn't get people to reliably undertake "extra" effort; was a time when an older generation so insisted on Usenet methods that the former owner, Dave, pleaded with people to use the quote tag instead of marking quotes with large amounts of asterisks or sharp brackets. (It really was about basic presentation and end users; he never got 'round to insisting on the reply button, which would in turn organize the posts into spooled threads; honestly, I only started using the reply button last year, after seventeen years.

    But little things, like the necessary bits to avoid plagiarism, often seem too much to ask. In this case it is easy enough to sympathize with both Syne's confusion and Iceaura's expectation that the usual bubble-gum patchwork presentation would have sufficed. And I would also beg remember we are turning to Iceaura in this moment because the alternative is tacking Syne to the shed for being wrong when the benefit of this particular doubt seems easy enough to attend; I'm pretty sure I've missed a detail like that before, for instance.

    As a larger question, we would probably need to gather up in SFOG and talk about what people expect as far as information presentation is concerned. (Isn't that an encouraging prospect?)
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,182
    A fair point, but if what followed in your post was an attempt at demonstration perhaps the results will engender a bit of sympathy for my situation. The forum software handles this common situation rather poorly, imho - one would like to able to simply quote a section of the screen. Maybe there is a way, and I don't know it?

    Next time I will insert extra space between the voices, and possibly alter the font - but that will open the door to being accused of making changes to what is presented as a quote.

    Bad faith can be a strategy.

    Which brings things back around to the OP, and my temporary fondness for evolutionary Handicap as an explanation for the ubiquity and gender specificity of mansplaining. Because if there is bad faith at the root of mansplaining, and it is (as it may be by appearance) an evolutionary Handicap, that combination intrigues.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page