It Matters

[Ae****]

2 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

...as demonstrated by your attempts to gaslight here.

Respectfully disagree with this. Don't see gas-lightinging here myself.
Which leads into another point - assumption of offence. Which links with the idea of men defending women feeling "creepy". Anyone who needs defending, deserves it, of course. But yeah, frankly, in my view the "creepy" version is alllllllll over this app.
I wouldn't say "creepy" cuz that word isn't gonna get many people listening but - yeah, when men puff up and beat their chests online and attack others in the name of defense over nothing whether its with witty polite language or all caps insults... well if its not creepy, it does make me feel like eye-rolling, and again, don't know what word to use but it gives me a feeling of desperation on their part.
Defend when it's appropriate yes, but otherwise, seems like people, male and female, are desperate for a reason to defend people 🤷🏻‍♂️
Why assume offence? It's such a tiresome way to be. There's an endless stream of reasons to complain about others when someone is always assuming bad intent.

[Ae****]

1 hour ago, Dragonflylover said:

I didn't read it that way. And Onekink is a man.

Ah OK sorry Onekink 😭

[Ae****]

41 minutes ago, Aranhis said:

Soooooo... is it also that if a man defends the position of disabled people, or elderly, or an ethnic minority, or any one of a multitude of other examples, is he also doing that presumably just to be seen to be on their side? Or would they only do that when sticking up for women - because there is clearly something to gain (🙄) and could never be any altruistic reason such as might be the case in the other examples?

Or would it be a more accurate analogy to say that following this logic able-bodied people only champion disabled causes to get on side with the disabled? That civil rights activists are only interest in the fight for what they can get out of it? That women only advocate for men so they can be seen to be "on their side"? Where would that fall on the creepy vibe scale?

When there's something to genuinely defend against, instead of assuming offence when there's ambiguous language. Otherwise its eggshells / constant bickering / knee-jerk self-riteous defending.

[ey****]

29 minutes ago, Aeonova said:

Respectfully disagree with this. Don't see gas-lightinging here myself.

This is due to your own cognitive bias.

30 minutes ago, Aeonova said:

Anyone who needs defending, deserves it, of course.

Who gets to decide who 'needs' and who 'deserves'?

31 minutes ago, Aeonova said:

Defend when it's appropriate yes, but otherwise, seems like people, male and female, are desperate for a reason to defend people 🤷🏻‍♂️

yet, for example, you're also here defending someone you, by admission, aren't sure of their intent.

32 minutes ago, Aeonova said:

Why assume offence? It's such a tiresome way to be.

But there's multiple threads where you have reacted negatively to jokes about how badly men sometimes come across

Whenever someone posts a "men, these things are turns offs" kinda post, you take offence.  You even started a counter thread on it.  So perhaps if this is a problem you might want to self-reflect.

[Ae****]

3 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

But there's multiple threads where you have reacted negatively to jokes about how badly men sometimes come across

Whenever someone posts a "men, these things are turns offs" kinda post, you take offence.  You even started a counter thread on it.  So perhaps if this is a problem you might want to self-reflect.

I can't address that, because it doesn't follow. The blunt answer is, the situations are different. Imho to compare them in the way you have requires oversimplification/conflation, not considering the context of the topics discussed and what's actually been said in the threads and posts, the points made and reasoning given. I'm gonna try to very politely say that there's been miscommunication somewhere, as i don't believe you've understood the content of what I've said in other threads, and why that's different from here, and leave it at that :)

[Deleted Member]

7 hours ago, Aranhis said:

Soooooo... is it also that if a man defends the position of disabled people, or elderly, or an ethnic minority, or any one of a multitude of other examples, is he also doing that presumably just to be seen to be on their side? Or would they only do that when sticking up for women - because there is clearly something to gain (🙄) and could never be any altruistic reason such as might be the case in the other examples?

Or would it be a more accurate analogy to say that following this logic able-bodied people only champion disabled causes to get on side with the disabled? That civil rights activists are only interest in the fight for what they can get out of it? That women only advocate for men so they can be seen to be "on their side"? Where would that fall on the creepy vibe scale?

So, like, yea. There are a lot of men that will disingenuously defend things women say cuz they want the coochie. That's just an observable phenomenon. But, yea, the same thing does happen with various minorities, that's exactly what virtue signalling is. If you don't believe that there are reasons for people to be seen defending ideas they don't personally believe you're not living in reality. Also there are women that do defend shitty things men do, it's a very small minority even compared to the (hopfully) minority of men that defend women's shit takes and actions just to earn their graces, but it certainly happens.

[Deleted Member]

8 hours ago, Dragonflylover said:

I didn't read it that way. And Onekink is a man.

I feel like you should always have the base assumption that most people are referring to an applicable group within the wider whole, unless they spesfically state a generalisation. Because referring to a broad general group as one thing is pretty universally gonna be wrong.
But I just like giving people the benefit of the doubt that way I guess.

[Deleted Member]

9 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

...as demonstrated by your attempts to gaslight here.

I don't think you quite know what gaslighting means. Gaslighting is when you declare one thing to be the case insistently when it factually isn't, just overriding what the other person thinks. It is not every attempt to discredit a person's opinion, which is effectively what I was doing.

Also I will mention that I'm not disagreeing with you purely on the basis of my hypothetical reasoning to why you reached your wrong conclusion, there's many possible motivations for you being wrong, those are just the least convoluted ones that leap to mind.

[Deleted Member]

13 minutes ago, OneKinkToRuleThemAll said:

So, like, yea. There are a lot of men that will disingenuously defend things women say cuz they want the coochie. That's just an observable phenomenon. But, yea, the same thing does happen with various minorities, that's exactly what virtue signalling is. If you don't believe that there are reasons for people to be seen defending ideas they don't personally believe you're not living in reality. Also there are women that do defend shitty things men do, it's a very small minority even compared to the (hopfully) minority of men that defend women's shit takes and actions just to earn their graces, but it certainly happens.

Oh also, you extrapolated my point to a bunch of situations you think it wouldn't fit without actually addressing it. Obviously not everyone championing a cause that isn't their own is doing it for selfish reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that jumping on this post in the way people did is so patently absurd that either they have an ulterior motive or are very ideologically indoctrinated because if you're not coming into this biased there's no reason to read it the way some people have.

[Ar****]

5 hours ago, OneKinkToRuleThemAll said:

So, like, yea. There are a lot of men that will disingenuously defend things women say cuz they want the coochie. That's just an observable phenomenon. But, yea, the same thing does happen with various minorities, that's exactly what virtue signalling is. If you don't believe that there are reasons for people to be seen defending ideas they don't personally believe you're not living in reality. Also there are women that do defend shitty things men do, it's a very small minority even compared to the (hopfully) minority of men that defend women's shit takes and actions just to earn their graces, but it certainly happens.

That isn't what I asked. Of course virtue signalling exists and it would be ridiculous to suggest there are not men who play up to a "white knight" role because they think/hope/expect it will get them some action.

What I was using those analogies as examples for was to invite discussion on whether it was right to make a sweeping presumption about motivations. Those who do defend poor behaviour to try to earn graces? Cads, the lot of them. I can't be doing with duplicity.

[ey****]

It does feel like I'm reeling off a bingo card here

As links to youtube is allowed - one of my favourite comedians has a bit on virtue signalling (below) 

 

 

 

 

[Deleted Member]

7 hours ago, OneKinkToRuleThemAll said:

Oh also, you extrapolated my point to a bunch of situations you think it wouldn't fit without actually addressing it. Obviously not everyone championing a cause that isn't their own is doing it for selfish reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that jumping on this post in the way people did is so patently absurd that either they have an ulterior motive or are very ideologically indoctrinated because if you're not coming into this biased there's no reason to read it the way some people have.

I see you're 22 and been here 9 months and yet this is the only thread that you've contributed to. You've called people on this thread pathetic, arrogant and absurd. I haven't seen anyone insult you in return. This is a community and this is how you choose to introduce yourself? Hmm.

[ey****]

though to save anyone watching 4 minutes of video

'virtue signalling' is a largely meaningless phrase and is often used to again try to dismiss what someone is saying.  

By irony, pointing out someone is 'virtue signalling' is, also, 'virtue signalling'

Pointing out that someone pointing out 'virtue signalling' is also 'virtue signalling' is also 'virtue signalling' - and we disappear into a blackhole of a meaningless disposable phrase 

[ed****]

A Dom should be able to handle an attitude or bratty nature. It’s all part of asserting your dominance. Or if they’re always like that there must be a reason, not interested