The Last Word
Those who have followed CF for the last few posts, will recall the recent entry concerning the Abyss2Hope blog and its quixotic attack upon the anti-falserape campaigner Archivist. If you need to refresh your memory, see here: http://tinyurl.com/5t38r2
For further refreshment, see the post and accompanying comment thread at A2H:http://tinyurl.com/6r4m5a
For the record, I left a total of three comments on that thread, but only the first survived moderation. The second and third sank into oblivion. Contrary to my usual custom, I neglected to save local copies of these comments before posting them, but that is small matter for concern since they were very short and simple.
In the first of the two suppressed comments, I responded to Marcella Chester's response to my own surviving comment. In this response, I put to Marcella three brief but structurally important queries meant to initiate a chain of clarificatory dialogue. Marcella's response, as will be noted, was to drop my statement down the memory hole and to respond to what I hadn't said, or rather, hadn't had a chance to say.
Noting this some time after Marcella's response was posted, I wrote a third comment which did nothing more than request to know why my second comment had been moderated. (I can vouch that neither my second or third comment contained anything of an even remotely offensive or scurrilous nature that would warrant moderation.)
My third comment likewise has not appeared. The total number of published comments on the thread (by various commenters) is now six, and I somehow sense that this is the end of the line. At any rate, I'll not be making any further additions myself.
Admittedly, this has been a minor episode. Still, I like to learn what I can learn from such episodes. In the present case, what I see is an effort to control the discourse, by preventing it from moving along a particular line that would open onto particular avenues, which in turn might lead to particular discoveries.
My policy in such dialogues (which I recommend to others) is to eschew anything like "debate" or "argument", and endeavor merely to elicit the other person's exact standpoint, in the fullness of its naked precision, and in the context of other factors that would afford a possibly unanticipated illumination. Such a proceeding, in my view, is of greater utility in the simple quest for truth -- inasmuch as it frees the questor from the onerous necessity of advancing any particular thesis, thereby liberating more energy in the service of a structured enquiry.
Think of it this way: you are simply a buyer in the marketplace of ideas, and your concern is simply to inspect the wares of the various merchants in their various booths. Is it cracked? Is it warped? So in the end, only YOU can decide how to spend your money. Whoever pretends to make that decision for you, is practicing a form of larceny.
For further refreshment, see the post and accompanying comment thread at A2H:http://tinyurl.com/6r4m5a
For the record, I left a total of three comments on that thread, but only the first survived moderation. The second and third sank into oblivion. Contrary to my usual custom, I neglected to save local copies of these comments before posting them, but that is small matter for concern since they were very short and simple.
In the first of the two suppressed comments, I responded to Marcella Chester's response to my own surviving comment. In this response, I put to Marcella three brief but structurally important queries meant to initiate a chain of clarificatory dialogue. Marcella's response, as will be noted, was to drop my statement down the memory hole and to respond to what I hadn't said, or rather, hadn't had a chance to say.
Noting this some time after Marcella's response was posted, I wrote a third comment which did nothing more than request to know why my second comment had been moderated. (I can vouch that neither my second or third comment contained anything of an even remotely offensive or scurrilous nature that would warrant moderation.)
My third comment likewise has not appeared. The total number of published comments on the thread (by various commenters) is now six, and I somehow sense that this is the end of the line. At any rate, I'll not be making any further additions myself.
Admittedly, this has been a minor episode. Still, I like to learn what I can learn from such episodes. In the present case, what I see is an effort to control the discourse, by preventing it from moving along a particular line that would open onto particular avenues, which in turn might lead to particular discoveries.
My policy in such dialogues (which I recommend to others) is to eschew anything like "debate" or "argument", and endeavor merely to elicit the other person's exact standpoint, in the fullness of its naked precision, and in the context of other factors that would afford a possibly unanticipated illumination. Such a proceeding, in my view, is of greater utility in the simple quest for truth -- inasmuch as it frees the questor from the onerous necessity of advancing any particular thesis, thereby liberating more energy in the service of a structured enquiry.
Think of it this way: you are simply a buyer in the marketplace of ideas, and your concern is simply to inspect the wares of the various merchants in their various booths. Is it cracked? Is it warped? So in the end, only YOU can decide how to spend your money. Whoever pretends to make that decision for you, is practicing a form of larceny.
posted by Fidelbogen at 5:26 PM
4 Comments:
Great site, and great posts... I hope that you'll check out my blog, and consider adding it to your blog list.
Sincerely,
ForeignWomenOnly
http://foreignwomenonly.blogspot.com/
@FWO: Yes, I looked at your blog, and like it! And I'll tell you why: because it's not JUST another "foreign dating site", but also has a keen POLITICAL eye upon the field of gender politics as a whole. Nicely prose-styled, too!
All of which is, of course, right up the CF alley! :)
Yes, I will add your URL to my linkroll in the next few days!
Regards
-Fidelbogen-
I think your post strikes at the crucial problem of the false rape apologists, Fidelbogen. (And for readers not familiar -- I borrow that phrase from Fidelbogen.) The sole reason I started my blog was because, for unfathomable reasons, false rape claims have been exiled from the public discourse about rape.
Unlike the angry women who insist false claims are a bugaboo, I have no desire to exile fape from the public discourse. Rape is a terrible thing, but it is beyond me why we can't acknowledge that both rape AND false rape claims exist and that there are too many victims of both (not as many rape victims as they contend, but far more false rape victims).
What troubles me most about these women who insist false claims are a "myth" is their dishonesty, their refusal even to consider anything that might get in the way of their political agenda, which is to jack up rape convictions -- as if the truth will hurt their cause. I think it would have the opposite effect. I think a lot of men, especially, would be more willing to listen to them if we knew they were honest.
But the fact is, their agenda does not seem to include protecting the innocent, does it? Their agenda seems to be one of blissful and purposeful ignorance about false claims, and if a man or boy is falsely convicted, then he's just unluckly collateral damage in the war on rape that must be waged at all costs. Too bad for him -- he only has his fellow men to blame.
What a sick and twisted agenda.
As always, please keep pounding away. Your astute take on these matters is very, very important to the cause.
Fidelbogen,
Thanks for the kind words!!
You're right, you definitely get what I'm saying... I do believe that the Feminists/Misandrists in America have been at war with men for nearly 50 years, grabbing more political power every day. Dating foreign women is just one of the many weapons that I advocate American/Western using against the Axis of Misandry.
--FWO
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home