Master



Fourth: she misunderstood/completely understood his answer about whether the magazine was particularly masculine: "It's called The Economist." Uh oh. If I ask, "Is Cosmo Magazine particularly feminine?" and you reply, "Duh, stupid, it's called Cosmo, any more feminine and it would have a tailbone tattoo," then you are implying not only that the magazine is feminine, but that I should have been able to infer that because cosmos are feminine. To him, The Economist is masculine is because economics is intrinsically masculine-- and she implicitly accepts this. Now who's the sexist? Whose theoretical daughters have a better chance of learning economics? Of course she'd say any women can learn economics, yay women, but her daughters would be learning a masculine discipline, see also math, which I predict she's bad at. The barrier is in herself, sexism is merely her projection of it. So while she pretends that it is the male perspective she doesn't like, it is evident that it's the contents themselves that she objects to. They're boring, but that can't be related to intellectual curiosity because she's a thinker. So it has to be the "male perspective". But didn't the same male perspective write the takedowns and dissections? Books, sex, relationships; those are "inclusive to women". What happens when you don't sign up for NATO-- that's masculine. But is it? Really? I agree that most of the articles in The Economist are boring and don't "relate" to my lifestyle as an alcoholic, but I force myself to go through them like social studies homework, and most of the women who do the same are doing it as the same. The articles aren't supposed to be interesting to me, they are supposed to be important and I force myself to be interested.

There you go, the complete story of rape as required life experience. Girl says no fifty times and nobody cares. It's not her place to deny.

slave Totally unrelated wtf. The guy above is making a persuasive argument as to the misplacement of the perception of sexism. This has no bearing on "rape" nor "saying no fifty times".

Master "The articles aren't supposed to be interesting to me, they are supposed to be important and I force myself to be interested."

slave Dude that's one person taking a stand against their own stupidity.

Master Exactly.

slave How does this translate into "nobody cares, it's not her place to deny" ?

Master Directly! No translation needed even, it is exactly the same thing.

slave No dude, there's an extremely important difference at work here. In the source material, someone is recognizing this FOR THEMSELVES and is doing something about it. In your conclusion, "the rest of the world" (implicit in "nobody") xyz.

Master In the source, the rest of the world doesn't care. In my example, idem. In the source, the subject recognises this for himself. In my example, she does the same for herself. Or to quote, "I am a little sleepy but fine. I had a very pleasant time with you yesterday. Kisses,"

That's what it is, all of it. For all the pretense, "getting students involved in their own training" is utter nonsense : in order to know what to learn you must already know what there is to learn. In order to know how to learn, you must know what ways to learn there are. These are supersets of the knowledge you don't have in the first place, and so it's plain impossible you'd have anything meaningful to say as to either what or how you should be learning. The most you can do, after having been educated raped, is picking the what and the how for other, later, virgins. Who in turn, irrespective of what they think they want and how they think they want it, will get whatever there's to get, exactly in the manner of getting it.

Do you know of a greater taboo than this banal observation ?

———