Jump to content
harry brown

WHY BLACK MEN CHEAT///

Recommended Posts

A man can't "mansplain" to another man.  Mansplaining involves a man regurgitating what a woman has already said, or a man cluelessly  attempting to clarify what a woman has figured out for herself. 

 

Maybe Mel can womansplain what Del means by "Wednesday, Thursday and Friday" means.  i would guess that it's slang for "everyday".  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it's the first time I've seen it worded that way......
I'm presuming  Del's "Wednesday Thursday Friday" stands for "W T F"  or "what the fuck".



Del

Would I be correct?
Or did you mean something else?


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique get outta here!  LOL!  Allow me to mansplain, the term is also used to describe men talking to each other in a way that only two men would understand uncut, raw, use of jargon and colloquialisms are fine too.

 

For example;

 

"Will one of y'all please mansplain "Wednesday Thursday Friday to me 'cause I did not get it?"

"WTF"

 

Question answered or "mansplained."

 

My aunt used to say Sugar Honey Iced Tea.  I guess that would be easy to figure out now.  If not, I'll mansplain it to you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Women coined the term "mansplain".  It's actually a put down, and is originally the exclusive domain of women, reacting to men who think they know everything. That's the reason for not simply saying "explain". Here's a definition:  to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Cynique, men have flipped the script on women who would insult us for simply opening our mouths. We have coopted the term for our purposes. 

 

It is not universally accepted as a word, how can you impose a such a firm definition? That is like trying to shove your definition of "nigga" down my throat. 

 

Need I mansplain further?

 

Del be careful next you be believing there are multiple races too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Troy to use the word mainsplain is like a white person using the n-word..  It's unacceptable and you further prove the point of the woman you're attempting to "mainsplain" ...So no men haven't flipped the script - they're only outting themselves.  

14 hours ago, Cynique said:

to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner:

 

@CyniqueI read the Best "mainsplainin  episode on twitter - Dude told a woman about what an Atlantic article "actually meant" and it turned out she was the author.  He suffered a 3rd degree twitter burn

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TroyYour co-opting and flipping the word "mansplain" completely diffuses it, takes away its impact and makes it redundant.  Why would mansplain be used in a general sense to replace the word "explain" without a reason?  

 

What are some of the other definitions of which you speak?  You skewed the definition of mansplain by saying the word is applied by women every time a man opens his mouth.  And this is not the case. It's only when he smugly states the obvious. That definition i supplied was from a dictionary, and the meaning of this word made up by women is universally accepted.  i don't think you speak for all men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that would be my goal Cynique.

 

Since you first used the word I looked it up.  There are many variations on the theme including the phase womansplain that you mentioned.  Mansplain is often used by a woman to preemptively reject something a man says. The man's intentions are irrelevant. The accuracy of what he says does not matter. It is a just a way for a woman to shut a guy down when they can't articulate why they disagree and hurl the sexist epithet "mansplain" in frustration..  

 

Sure there are probably a few women who use the world in the manner you've defined, but most don't. It is just a derogatory term whose meaning has already been smeared through misuse. I can understand why some women don't want it added to the dictionary and feel it is a silly term.

 

The word is not in all dictionaries.  The word is not "universally" accepted.  I do not, nor have I ever asserted ,that I speak for all men.

 

Troysplaination complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TroyYou certainly were not mansplaining in your response because you didn't recycle what i said but instead expressed your opinionated interpretation of what the word implies which, according to you, can involve hostility or hysteria.  But these types of confrontations can occur between 2 people of the same sex,  which is why what you contend is more about explaining than mansplaining.  And why didn't you include one of the definitions that supported your argument?  

 

"Mansplaining" is a rather recent addition to the popular vernacular and it originated with women. Men should come up with their own term to counteract mansplaining, instead of trying to tailor this word to fit their views. And who in the universe would reject the intrinsic meaning of a word made up by women, except people who are prone to mansplaining and co-opting,  - people also known as men. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique, do I have to mansplain "mansplain" to you? ;)

 

I gave you a definition of Mansplaining which you have either ignored or rejected.  My use is not unprecedented: 

 

Beside this is not really a word.  It is like arguing about the definition of "troysplain." The word does not appear in the word in the Merriam Webster dictionary.

 

The Atlantic defines it as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman"

 

In the vast majority of the "definitions" I've read, there is no requirement for mansplaining to be done by a man to a woman as you asserted.  Generally qualifier "often or "usually" is used.

 

@Cynique, why insist upon "proper use" of a word that has no official definition? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TroyMansplaining does have an official definition which does, indeed, appear in the Merriam Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/.../mansplaining-definition-history. As well as the dictionary of idioms:  /idioms.thefreedictionary.com/mansplaining The urban dictionary also defines it in street slang. So it's absurd of you to say that mansplaining is not really a word,  especially after you supply a definition of it, yourself, in order to bolster your argument.  

 

 I have valid reasons to stand by my argument that women/feminists originated this word, and men, as you previously stated, co-opted and tried to flip it because it was an unflattering put down of them. In spite of this admission by you, it doesn't seem to register with you, that the purity of this word was diluted by men. At its core,  mansplaining is about men being patronizing to women.  i insist on the proper usage of ''mansplaining" because of my love for language, and  mansplaining loses its impact when not true to its original definition.

 

As far as i am concerned, when men interact and discuss why they cheat, this is not an exercise in mansplaining but rather a "bull session"; a very apt term. And women certainly don't need to have men explain to them why men are "dogs". :P

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, being accessed of mansplaining is what drives men to cheat. ;)

 

I beg to differ with you on many points @Cynique;

  1. It is women, not men, who initially perverted the term by misuse it in the ways that I described earlier.
  2. Mansplain is not in the Merriam Webster dictionary. The link you provided is broken. 
  3. Here is a article describing Merriam Websters's stance on the "word."
  4. The "Urban Dictionary" is not a formal dictionary.
  5. Sure, mansplain can be considered an idiom, but that does not make it a real word; one that is found in a proper dictionary and is appropriate for formal communication.
  6. You may love language, but surely you must appreciate that the use of words like "mansplain" distorts language.  There are much better, and clearer, ways of expressing oneself. Naa'mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TroyIf you Google mansplaining,  Merriman-Webster comes up,  and supplies its definition of the word, and in its article on the subject, notes that the word is not going to go away, - which means it just might be inducted into the actual dictionary at a later date, as is often the case with pop culture words. And just because women misuse this word, doesn't justify it being misused.    i reject your notion that it is not a "real" word.  It conforms to the definition of a word, which includes describing it as a synonym for "term". BTW, Language covers a broad spectrum of communication and urban dictionaries are very legitimate because they are an acknowledgment of how slang contributes to language.

 

 Again, the word "mansplain"  was coined by militant Feminists and was intended solely for the use of women.  It has been bastardized by men who are offended by it, and by women who have inadvertently gone along with the mansplained perversion of it. :o

 

 

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so very deep.

 

Cynique the idea that we can't, while sitting in front of a computers, even agree on whether a word is in the dictionary is exasperating to the point of being "Pioneeric." 

 

I have the MW app on the cell phone app; mansplain is not coming up there either.  I showed you a reference from the MW website where they explain why the word is not in their dictionary.  Still you want to insist the work is there, with only your word and broken link to back you up.  I guess that is what they mean by alternate facts.  Will any amount of mansplaining get you to see reality?  @Del Cynique must be a fixed Sun sign like Taurus or Leo huh?

 

OK @Cynique I have a simple questions for you.  Would you want to see a journalist use the word in a new story?  For example;  

 

"The Minnesota congressman mansplained the new legislation to group of educators at the Association of American Educators conference on Thursday."

 

Yes or No?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Troy said:

I have a simple questions for you.  Would you want to see a journalist use the word in a new story?  For example;  

 

"The Minnesota congressman mansplained the new legislation to group of educators at the Association of American Educators conference on Thursday."

 

Yes or No?

 

@TroyYes, braced in quotation marks.  But a good journalist wouldn't compose that kind of a sentence; a good journalist would use the word  in a  context that would make its meaning clear, especially if what the congressman said was obvious to the educators if they were all women.  Google the phrase: "definition of mansplaining" and Merriman-Webster, will come up on the list of what is referred to as dictionaries supplying definitions for this word. If you click on to the Merriman-Webster headliner, it will take you to a site which is entitled "words we are watching" which features an interesting article about the etymology of the word. At least this is the case on my new desktop Dell computer!  (BTW, since "questions" is used in the singular, you shouldn't have pluralized it. But you should've pluralized "news".  You also should've used a colon(:), not a semi-colon(;). tsk-tsk Answer yes or no.  Would a good journalist make these oversights and errors?)

 

And I did not insist that word is in the dictionary. This is what i said:

7 hours ago, Cynique said:

 If you Google mansplaining,  Merriman-Webster comes up,  and supplies its definition of the word, and in its article on the subject, notes that the word is not going to go away, - which means it just might be inducted into the actual dictionary at a later date, as is often the case with pop culture words.

 

Not only are you not accurately quoting what i said, but you are apparently refusing to utilize Google because of your personal prejudices against it. So we will just have to remain at an impasse.  i don't understand why this is such a sticking point with you. it's like it's an emotional thing with you because it's derogatory to poor "misunderstood" men - who mansplain.    :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to mansplain; what you keep describing as a definition from Merriam Webster is NOT a definition.  As you wrote it is described as a word "we are watching"  for potential inclusion in their dictionary.  Understand, or do I have to mansplain further?

 

@Cynique, if you actually read the entire text for understanding, rather than cherry picking it to support an erroneous position, you would have included the thesis statement from the article (the very first paragraph, emphasis mine):

 

We haven't seen adverbial use yet, but we're keeping our eyes open. The word's death knell has been sounded—it's so broadly applied that some say that any time a man opens his mouth he's accused of mansplaining—but mansplain is clearly not going to be dropping out of use any time soon.

 

Clearly, at least to anyone actually interested in understanding, it does not seem likely that they will be including the word in their dictionary any time soon. This is just reading comprehension.

 

Accusing me of refusing to use Google is a silly and disingenuous.  I'd already found, via Google, and read the article from Merriam Webster before you posted the broken link to it the first time.  It fact, I used it to support my argument.  Astonishingly, you tried to use the very same article to support an opposing position?!

 

Also, pointing out my typos is an unnecessary diversionary tactic. You obviously understood what I meant. I was going to ask more than one question but changed my mind and never changed questions to question... If something is unclear ask for clarity.  

 

Another weak tactic is ignoring the facts I've presented and accusing it of being "emotional thing" with me. You know me better than that.  Besides you are as fully engaged in this debate as I am, but I have not accused you of being "emotional."  I don't have to my position is much stronger.

 

Yes the term is derogatory, for the reason Merriam Webster described in the quote above. If you read the linked article, "death knell has been sounded," you'll find more reasons.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TroyTalk about cherry picking!  You only responded to the comments that you had a "retort" for. The other things i pointed out to you, you ignored.  And when you cast yourself as being an authority on "good journalism", then you invited the "diversionary" comment i made about your lack of proofreading. And to add insult to injury you proceed to mansplain - oops, i mean critique my "debate" tactics as if yours were any better. Sheeze!

 

First you said that mansplaining was not a word.  Now you say Merriam Webster didn't give a definition of what you have apparently reconsidered to be  a word, but you refer to M-W's definition of this word in trying to make your point.  What is your definition of a definition?? Just because a word doesn't appear in a dictionary doesn't mean that it has no definition. And what does the phrase "it's not going to be dropping out of sight any time soon" convey to you?  When will this word which, for some reason M-W is watching, disappear? In 5 years, 10? 20? And why will it disappear?  When people decide to acquiesce to Merriam Webster's decree that they should stop using it?  This was an article about a very fluid subject.  Not hard science which is what you are so devoted to. Finally, what did i say that contradicted this article?  I surmised there was a possibility that M-W might add this pop culture word to their dictionary at a later date.  They left the door slightly ajar in regard to their doing this.   

 

Since you completely ignored my reference to Oxford Dictionary, a reference book which is on a par with Merriman Webster, here is an excerpt from Huff Post: 

 

This week, Oxford Dictionaries announced some new additions to their online database. Listed alongside “clickbait,” “douchebaggery” and “side boob” is everyone’s favorite uncomfortable experience — “mansplaining.”The etymology of “mansplain” can be traced back to 2008, when Rebecca Solnit wrote an essay titled “Men Explain Things To Me.” The author touched on the idea that being talked down to and corrected — primarily by men — was a common occurrence in almost every woman’s life...

 

I really am not sure what is fueling your persistence in discussing this word.  i keep saying that mansplaining is a word Feminists came up with and it was meant for the exclusive use of women but its original usage has been neutered by those who took it upon themselves to now apply it to anyone who patronizingly explains a subject to another person. What about this is buggin' you??  Other than that you personally find the word mansplaining offensive.  What is it that you are disagreeing with me about??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing fueling this conversation was you rejecting my use of the word and me defending my position.  I see you won't even concede that the word is not in M-W.  Rather you've scoured the Earth and found a definition a British dictionary:

 

mansplain

VERB

[WITH OBJECT] informal 

(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.

 

Here too, there is no requirement that the the target of the manspliation has to be a woman.  While that is "typical" it is not a requirement. I will continue to use the word in the fashion that I have been (mansplaining to a man), for it is correct usuage. 

 

Look the use of an informal word or a very malleable. Indeed the use of the English in information conversation is.  Remember when "gay" meant "happy?"  Today no man would not describe themselves as "gay" unless they were homosexual, no matter how happy they were.

 

Maybe I'd describe myself as mansplaining to a guy I wanted to disparage because one only typically mansplains to a woman.  Or maybe, one would request a mansplaication to highlight the idiocy of the request or the expected definition.

 

Sorry Cynique the word has evolved just as quickly as it was coined.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TroyWell, you continue to see what you want to see in my posts.  Here is a direct quote in regard to your accusation about me not conceding the word isn't in  Merriam Webster   "...I surmised there was a possibility that M-W might add this pop culture word to their dictionary at a later date.  They left the door slightly ajar in regard to their doing this."  And i never said it was in Merriam Webster.  i said that Merriam Webster's "definition" comes up when you google mansplaining.  Because, as you are so quick to point out, the link to the article was broken, i didn't get to read it until i clicked onto another link. Or was i nearly as adamant as you were in insisting that mansplaining wasn't a word. 


 And characterizing my quote taken from Huff Post, the Internet's most popular blog as being something i had to scour around to find, is a rather ignorant observation on your part.  ("This week, Oxford Dictionaries announced some new additions to their online database. Listed alongside “clickbait,” “douchebaggery” and “side boob” is everyone’s favorite uncomfortable experience — “mansplaining.”The etymology of “mansplain” can be traced back to 2008, when Rebecca Solnit wrote an essay titled “Men Explain Things To Me.” The author touched on the idea that being talked down to and corrected — primarily by men — was a common occurrence in almost every woman’s life... ) The fact that you attempt to belittle Oxford Dictionary's says more about you than it.  This prestigious, world famous dictionary has been around since 1857 and is considered "the last word on the English language". Its definition is the one which comes up when you  google  mansplaining. Instead  of you conceding that there are 2 schools of thought about this word, you prefer to shackle yourself to Merriam Webster, clutching  it like a security blanket while regarding what was almost an op-ed piece, as the gospel according to Merriam Webster, - albeit an ambiguous one.  

 

Furthermore, i don't really care how you choose to use the word mansplaining.  It ain't that serious, and where did you get the idea that i thought it was? i was amused by your frothing-at-the-mouth rants about how men flipped the word and women abuse it.  Or am i particularly upset about how it has become "bi-sexual". it's not like i'm tearing my hair out about something i can't control. To a cynic like me,  it is, what it is.  Its message about presumptuousness remains in tact.  And so it goes.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK @Cynique, it has been 5 days of back and forth mansplaining, manslain and we have gotten no where.  Did you forget that it was you you started this?  I wrote;

 

"Well one of y'all please mansplain "Wednesday Thursday Friday to me 'cause I did not get it."

 

and you replied;

 

"A man can't "mansplain" to another man.  Mansplaining involves a man regurgitating what a woman has already said, or a man cluelessly  attempting to clarify what a woman has figured out for herself."

 

Your reaction to my statement and your ongoing defense of it, is why I thought you took this seriously.  If you did not care, why didn't you just let my statement slide?

 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks (since you love the British and their dictionaries so much ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Well as far as  i'm concerned, you overreacted to my supplying a definition of mansplaining, immediately going on the the attack.Why did my parsing this word offend you so much?  instead of resenting my correcting you, why didn't you  just let my definition just roll of your back since you had not intention of accepting it.  You ought to  be used to me correcting people by now.  After i  supplied the definition for purposes of clarity, i don't think  i did a whole lot of protesting. There was nothing else to protest.  I knew there was no way you were going to change your mind. i just like to argue. You're who went all off on tangents trying to obliterate the word and i offered my rebuttals. Or have i denied that i started this. So what if i did? What's your point?

 

The Oxford Dictionary is utilized by the whole English-speaking world and is found on the shelves of all American schools and libraries.  Why do you think its recognition of  mansplaining as a word was such a big deal to the Huff Post?   And just because i cited Oxford as a reference doesn't mean  that i dismiss Merriam Webster.  Unlike you, I respect them both.  Speak for yourself when you say nothing was accomplished.  I learned a few things -  even if you didn't.  ^_^

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mel

But I think @Pioneer1 just taught us something!


I've BEEN teaching......
Yall just ain't been paying attention.....lol.


 

 



Del

Pioneer I may have been wrong on both counts. In underestimating you and overestimating Mel Cynique and Troy


That's alright....
It wouldn't be the first time....lol.

If I let it bother me everytime you were wrong about me or my intentions.....I'd be on medication, lol.

 

 

 

 


Troy and Cynique
 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks (since you love the British and their dictionaries so much

Didn't I tell you they were inlove with White men....lol.

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/4804-questions-for-cynique-mel-and-anyone-else-who-can-answer-them/




Now, about this "mansplaining" business.....


According to Neely Fuller Jr., a word is BEST defined by those who coined or invented it.

This is to prevent what we see taking place right now, which is Black people bickering and squabbling over words that NEITHER of them invented and NEITHER know the true origin or definition of.....lol.

Just like they often do over religion and politics.

From what I understand, the word "mansplain" was coined by WHITE FEMINISTS.
So I think Black women should let THEM have the word and invent another for themselves to use....that is...if they really WANT to go the feminist route.

But Black women who call themselves feminist should abandon their feminist like ideologies because it's nothing but another tool by White racists to divide the Black community and keep it weak.

The same White women who'll jump up and down about how condescending men are and complain how they talk down to women.....are the same ones who voted for Trump and slept with Harvey Weinstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1I'm not a feminist.  You don't have to be one to agree with the definition of mansplaining because it's something all women encounter. And as i previously stated, there are Urban Dictionaries that supply a definition of mansplaining, using street slang to do this. And i do know the origin of the word manslpaining.  How many times do i have to tell it!  

 

 Del is who used, "Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday". So he knows as much as you do.  in fact you weren't even sure about what it meant. :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK let me try a different approach @Cynique:

 

The reality is that I dislike all words in the "mansplain" category.  When we artificially combin words like "Bromance," "Manbun," and "Manslain"  We become less clear. Besides words like this are inherently sexist.  If two men love each other it is just love. If a man wears a bun it is just a bun. The male gender qualifier diminishes the thing it is applied to as if it is only for women.  Does this make sense?  If a man carries a bag to hold things, it is not a "manbag." it is just a damn bag.

 

If a man explains something it is just an explanation.  If the mans does it in a condescending manner it is an explanation done condescendingly  It does not matter if the target is a woman or a man; condescension is gender neutral, for women can be condescending too.  We do not need words like mansplain, womansplain, Blacksplain, gaysplain, jewsplain, or any of these useless combinations.

 

Again, applying the gender qualifier is unnecessary at best and sexist at worst.  The later is virtually always the intent.  

 

So cynique you may disagree with the sexist nature of this type of language or may have been completely obvious to it.  But when a racist behaves in a racist manner they too can be caught off guard and surprised by the reaction.

 

 

Hey @Del that is very interesting--maybe you are right.  I think my reasoning above may explain why.  What do you think?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Why are you belaboring the point about mansplaining in its current usage???  Didn't i say that i accepted what i have no control over?  Didn't i imply that the essence of the word was preserved because  patronizing presumptuousness transcends gender?  And your opinionated deconstruction  and rejection the legitimacy of this word doesn't really register with me because i don't agree with you.  I tend to like colorful, creative words.

 

The ongoing battle  of the sexes spawned  mansplaining and it has found a place in the vernacular of pop culture.  Nobody is saying you have to accept the word.  But, by the same token, nobody has to defer to your disapproval of it just because it offends your sensibilities.  Language is the living instrument of human communication and if it's flawed, it is because humans are. Deal with it.

 

BTW, how often do you encounter women who toss the word  manspaining at you?  Is it a constant in your life? And can you bring yourself to consider that women who use this term are just as often right as they are wrong? If they're wrong you do have the option to get things off our chest by telling them this.

 

You can squelch Pioneer's obstinacy about race being  an authentic classification, and Del's postulation about climate change being suspect, but you cannot place yourself on the side of right when it comes to the controversial nature of the word "mansplaining". You want to bad-mouth Oxford Dictionary because it is based in England, as if the English language is not  spoken in America. And i don't think Merriam Webster really supports your personal distaste for the word.   Words are their business. To them, mansplaining  is simply a word they are watching with interest to see if it will eventually fall out of usage.  Unlike you, they are objective.     

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sarah Beecham Powell

Don't know why Black men are singled out but my book, Run Sallie Run, address what to do if you suspect ANY man is not being upfront on the dating scene.  This book is for the mature dating woman and provides some insight into situations which may help to validate your thinking.  It is a humorously written book that uses music lyrics and song titles to spark conversation and thought.  Run Sallie Run, Run Like Hell Is On Your Heels.  Peek inside at Amazon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well @Cynique, I've said my peace on the word.  I'm not sure if you understand my point since your entire reaction was spent picking apart and rejecting what I wrote. I'm surprised you did not go after my grammar again...Nuff said.

 

Hi Sarah, do you have a website?  Why don't you post a link to it, and save anyone who is interested a step.  Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy Now you're playing the victim. SMH. I  wasn't exactly in the dark about your sentiments.  There was never any doubt that you didn't agree with where i was coming from, or that you despised the word mansplaining and all it brought to mind.    So you proceed to reiterate your sentiments in the guise of a "different approach", and have now accused me of not knowing what you're talking about  just because i don't share your opinion; typical male reaction.  I'm sorry, but i don't care about "sexism". I think "bromance" is a really cool  merger. "Fuck" is my favorite curse word, "nigga" my favorite sobriquet to express the love/hate relationship i have with my people.   So shoot me.    How many times do i have to say that i'm a cynical ol bitch? :o  And just to prove it - you should've written "I said my piece on the word; not peace."  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not playing the victim. I do not feel victimized nor did I ever imply such a thing.  I simply expressed my feelings on the issue. 

 

I'm not sure where you are getting the "playing the victim" sentiment from. I can only presume it is your imagination, a reflection of what is in your head.  Are you trying to victimize me?  You must know by now I've been harassed by people, on this forum, who are far more vile than you might imagine, some of this stuff has even made it onto the board, some I've even shared because i thought it was comical. Playing the victim is not my role, or nature.  I'm surprised you would try to pull that one on me ;)

 

My grammer is impeccable, but you already know this.  It is also the reason why I generally refrain from using words like f*uck, bromance, or mansplain.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TroyOh, Puleeze. I'm not trying to pull anything.   Or am i trying to harass you. I just respond to what you put out there. i thought the conversation was over; I had my say on the use of mansplaining being beyond my control and i accepted this and was done. But you decided to reopen the subject and mansplain what you had already expressed during the course of the discussion, then further decided that i didn't know what you were talking about and was therefore at fault for giving my reasons for not sharing your opinion, -  all of this before patting yourself on the back, convinced that your rigidity is a virtue when it comes to the use of certain unique words you don't approve of.  Good for you.

 

To me, your stance  is akin to the accusations you make against Pioneer and his obstinancy about race.  The only difference is that your personal rejection of certain morphed words occurs in a situation where there is another accepted point of view, something which seems to frustrate you. 

 

You, of course,  have a perfect right to balk at being labeled a victim, and i accept your denial. It's also your prerogative to disagree with my philosophy about words. So be it.

 

Suddenly everyone is at each other's throats on this board that is currently mired in the mode of a dysfunctional family.  This excerpt from  an old poem comes to my mind because it appropriately applies to everyone.

 

 Oh, would some Power give us the gift
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique my debate with Pioneer is different in that there is actually a right and wrong answer.  The mansplain issue is much more subjective. I have not problem with you disagreement.  But again when you couch my disagreement as playing victim that is just so far from the truth that it is silly.

 

My debate with Del regarding climate change is more more in line with that of Pioneer--in that I believe the answer is pretty clear.

 

As far as the most recent issue about the origins of the universe hey anything is possible :o

 

I'm glad you did not take my, "My grammer is impeccable." bait.  Was it that obvious ;)

 

@Del is there something in the stars that might suggest why everyone is at each others throats at this time, and why you and @Pioneer1 are now enjoying a bromance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Cynique said:

You, of course,  have a perfect right to balk at being labeled a victim, and i accept your denial.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy that's funny.

it's been going on for a bit. Its interesting not to be involved for a change. 

You and Pioneer are more fixed. Cynique is less fixed but will considereal other views. Mel us pretty open until the ither conversant stops either thinking or listening. 

But it is entertaining. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2017 at 9:27 AM, Troy said:

 

 

My debate with Del regarding climate change is more more in line with that of Pioneer--in that I believe the answer is pretty clear.

 

 

@Troy you belive the scientist are right. The underlying data says it is a fiction. 

You believe because you can't analyse the data. You don't even realise they haven't posted the source data. You don't realise they arent using actual temperatures. You don't realise they are adjusting the temperature then using a percentage and using 1980 as the base.  I don't have a problem of you being ignorant of those facts. But you haven't checked one of those statements. So I can't take you serious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×