Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gnash »

opusthepenguin wrote: I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice.
That's exactly the same argument as if you claimed that saying "women are too emotional to be in key decision-making positions" doesn't tar all women, only those who are too emotional.

If you don't like X or X's actions, criticize X individually or X's actions specifically; don't complain that X is a typical member of some broad group, and that that's what makes X bad. The latter is guaranteed to be both objectively wrong and not well received.

brick
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by brick »

Magna wrote:On a PBS special on race last night, I heard a person of one race/ethnicity explaining what people of a different race/ethnicity feel and think. (I'm leaving out the races/ethnicities here, because I think it doesn't, or at least shouldn't matter.) I don't know if there's a particular name for that, but it's the kind of thing that commonly happens. It happens with gender, and with other types of groups as well.
The term "whitesplaining" has already been coined based on mansplaining for white people explaining racism and related issues to people of color. In the absence of details you have chosen to omit it is impossible to say if there is any previously coined term that is applicable.

ETA: Funny that this discussion is happening the day J! had a portmanteau category.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gnash »

Rex Kramer wrote:
Magna wrote:On a PBS special on race last night, I heard a person of one race/ethnicity explaining what people of a different race/ethnicity feel and think. (I'm leaving out the races/ethnicities here, because I think it doesn't, or at least shouldn't matter.) I don't know if there's a particular name for that, but it's the kind of thing that commonly happens. It happens with gender, and with other types of groups as well.
Your wording left room for question: Who was the explainer explaining to?

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong about an Explainer from Group A, explaining to another person from Group A, Explainer's understanding of how people from Group B feel and think, so long as Explainer has some rational basis for it. I lived in Japan for a few years, so when an American friend comments upon Japanese behavior he or she finds strange, I see no reason why I shouldn't share the understanding I gained from prolonged interaction with the culture. I would advise anyone in the position of listening to me, or to anyone else with a similar opinion about a Group B, to exercise good judgment in deciding how much of what I or anyone else says about Group B -- it may or may not be well informed, it may or may not be tainted by positive or negative bias, etc. But a blanket ban against sharing what we have learned seems, to me, counterproductive.

Of course, the situation is different if Explainer from Group A is trying to tell person from Group B about how people from Group B feel and think. Explainer would be presumptuous to assume that Explainer generally knows better than anyone from Group B.

On the third hand, sometimes people with a different perspective see things that in-Group people can't see so readily. de Tocqueville's writings on America are still considered insightful, and not the presumptuous braying of an ignorant Frenchy. Goodness knows that women constitute a large proportion of the people explaining to men that, no matter how open-minded they think they are, their thinking is not free from privileged condescension. If there were a blanket rule that people from Group A had nothing valuable to say to people from Group B about what people from Group B are thinking, it would be intellectual apartheid, and not to the benefit of anyone currently disempowered.

What we are really talking about here is not what people are capable of understanding about those from other groups, but what they are willing to understand. "I am human, and nothing of that which is human is alien to me."

Rex
If there were a list of 10 wisest posts on this message board and its predecessor, 11 of those would be Rex's.

brick
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by brick »

gnash wrote:
opusthepenguin wrote: I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice.
That's exactly the same argument as if you claimed that saying "women are too emotional to be in key decision-making positions" doesn't tar all women, only those who are too emotional.

If you don't like X or X's actions, criticize X individually or X's actions specifically; don't complain that X is a typical member of some broad group, and that that's what makes X bad. The latter is guaranteed to be both objectively wrong and not well received.

Your logic doesn't hold up. Your statement about women is a blanket statement and is directed at all women, regardless of their emotional response to issues. The very nature of the statement is that because some women may be "too emotional" that no women should be permitted to hold certain positions.

The existence of the word "mansplaining" and the occasional use of it when appropriate is the exact opposite of that.

brick
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by brick »

Rex Kramer wrote:
Magna wrote:On a PBS special on race last night, I heard a person of one race/ethnicity explaining what people of a different race/ethnicity feel and think. (I'm leaving out the races/ethnicities here, because I think it doesn't, or at least shouldn't matter.) I don't know if there's a particular name for that, but it's the kind of thing that commonly happens. It happens with gender, and with other types of groups as well.
Your wording left room for question: Who was the explainer explaining to?

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong about an Explainer from Group A, explaining to another person from Group A, Explainer's understanding of how people from Group B feel and think, so long as Explainer has some rational basis for it. I lived in Japan for a few years, so when an American friend comments upon Japanese behavior he or she finds strange, I see no reason why I shouldn't share the understanding I gained from prolonged interaction with the culture. I would advise anyone in the position of listening to me, or to anyone else with a similar opinion about a Group B, to exercise good judgment in deciding how much of what I or anyone else says about Group B -- it may or may not be well informed, it may or may not be tainted by positive or negative bias, etc. But a blanket ban against sharing what we have learned seems, to me, counterproductive.

Of course, the situation is different if Explainer from Group A is trying to tell person from Group B about how people from Group B feel and think. Explainer would be presumptuous to assume that Explainer generally knows better than anyone from Group B.

On the third hand, sometimes people with a different perspective see things that in-Group people can't see so readily. de Tocqueville's writings on America are still considered insightful, and not the presumptuous braying of an ignorant Frenchy. Goodness knows that women constitute a large proportion of the people explaining to men that, no matter how open-minded they think they are, their thinking is not free from privileged condescension. If there were a blanket rule that people from Group A had nothing valuable to say to people from Group B about what people from Group B are thinking, it would be intellectual apartheid, and not to the benefit of anyone currently disempowered.

What we are really talking about here is not what people are capable of understanding about those from other groups, but what they are willing to understand. "I am human, and nothing of that which is human is alien to me."

Rex
Thank you. Very well said.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7354
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by opusthepenguin »

gnash wrote:
opusthepenguin wrote: I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice.
That's exactly the same argument as if you claimed that saying "women are too emotional to be in key decision-making positions" doesn't tar all women, only those who are too emotional.
No, gnash, it's not. It's exactly the same as saying the term "police brutality" does not tar all police, only those who engage in the practice. And the contrary argument is saying, why have the term "police brutality" when "brutality" covers the territory just fine?

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gnash »

brick wrote:
gnash wrote:
opusthepenguin wrote: I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice.
That's exactly the same argument as if you claimed that saying "women are too emotional to be in key decision-making positions" doesn't tar all women, only those who are too emotional.

If you don't like X or X's actions, criticize X individually or X's actions specifically; don't complain that X is a typical member of some broad group, and that that's what makes X bad. The latter is guaranteed to be both objectively wrong and not well received.

Your logic doesn't hold up. Your statement about women is a blanket statement and is directed at all women, regardless of their emotional response to issues. The very nature of the statement is that because some women may be "too emotional" that no women should be permitted to hold certain positions.

The existence of the word "mansplaining" and the occasional use of it when appropriate is the exact opposite of that.
You are wrong on both counts. The example statement about women makes a judgment about all women, and the term "mansplaining" implies that all men have certain characteristics. Sure, in either case, the speaker, when challenged, might follow up with "of course I don't think that... some of my best friends are women/men". Well, that's nice to know.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gnash »

opusthepenguin wrote:
gnash wrote:
opusthepenguin wrote: I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice.
That's exactly the same argument as if you claimed that saying "women are too emotional to be in key decision-making positions" doesn't tar all women, only those who are too emotional.
No, gnash, it's not. It's exactly the same as saying the term "police brutality" does not tar all police, only those who engage in the practice. And the contrary argument is saying, why have the term "police brutality" when "brutality" covers the territory just fine?
That's a ridiculous analogy, because the nature of the collective "police" is completely different from the nature of the collective "men" or "women". Also, in usage, "police brutality" is not normally understood to apply to the entire group, just like "white collar crime" is not understood as implicating all white collar workers.

gobobbygo
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:06 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gobobbygo »

BRD-98 wrote:I hoping this stays lighthearted enough — I don't want to be blamed for starting a flame war.

Point missed, or at least if you were referring to what I said. Mansplaining, as BigDaddyMatty has said (and this comes from my own personal experience with politically correct classmates, as well), is more often than not used as a cudgel to shield women from criticism of their particular views, especially if it has to do with gender or social justice. From my understanding (and the OED's, which this year added it to their list along with "manspreading," interestingly), "mansplaining" involves a man explaining to (typically) a woman how to do something or how it works, therefore suggesting that it is patronizing and not nuanced enough because he is a man. THAT is the ad hominem. Some people take it even further, as zakharov unfortunately did, and attempt to invalidate an argument by calling "mansplaining," which is like some horrible beast of a double ad hominem.
You use the phrase "more often than not" without any evidence, and I think you're wrong about that. If you really think it's not a thing that men launch into explanations just assuming they know more about the topic at hand than the woman they're talking to, just because they're men, I don't think you're paying attention.

And I don't think it's an ad hominem attack, either. What Zakharov was saying to Vanya was not "your argument is invalid because you have [negative quality]," he was saying "you made an unsupported assertion of fact, and the manner in which you did so aligns nicely with this cultural phenomenon that we now have a name for." In other words, not "you're making a bad argument because you're a man," but rather "You're making a bad argument. The bad argument you're making, and the manner in which you're making it, fits quite well with what we now call 'mansplaining.'"
BRD-98 wrote:
zakharov wrote:If you, a man, are telling a woman how she does or should feel about something, that's one example of mansplaining. There are many, many other examples. It's particularly endemic in the world of sports, where female journalists and fans who have been watching for most of their lives get to deal with dullards condescendingly explaining what a strikeout is.
Does this too "lack nuance," opusthepenguin? :twisted:

In all seriousness, if a man telling a woman how she does or should feel about something is "mansplaining," then is a (TIME 100) woman telling a man how to properly express his masculinity "womansplaining?"

*backpedaling intensifies*
I think "womansplaining" would be an ill choice of words if she were. But she's not, at least according to the article you're linking to. She says she's "exploring representations of men and masculinity in games." We shouldn't be assuming that game designers are men, and I seriously hope that those who are, are not expressing their own masculinity through the male characters they put in the games.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7354
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by opusthepenguin »

gnash wrote:
opusthepenguin wrote:
gnash wrote:
opusthepenguin wrote: I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice.
That's exactly the same argument as if you claimed that saying "women are too emotional to be in key decision-making positions" doesn't tar all women, only those who are too emotional.
No, gnash, it's not. It's exactly the same as saying the term "police brutality" does not tar all police, only those who engage in the practice. And the contrary argument is saying, why have the term "police brutality" when "brutality" covers the territory just fine?
That's a ridiculous analogy, because the nature of the collective "police" is completely different from the nature of the collective "men" or "women". Also, in usage, "police brutality" is not normally understood to apply to the entire group, just like "white collar crime" is not understood as implicating all white collar workers.
And "mansplaining" is not understood as implicating all men. Now you're getting the hang of it.

User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Magna »

brick wrote:
Magna wrote:On a PBS special on race last night, I heard a person of one race/ethnicity explaining what people of a different race/ethnicity feel and think. (I'm leaving out the races/ethnicities here, because I think it doesn't, or at least shouldn't matter.) I don't know if there's a particular name for that, but it's the kind of thing that commonly happens. It happens with gender, and with other types of groups as well.
The term "whitesplaining" has already been coined based on mansplaining for white people explaining racism and related issues to people of color. In the absence of details you have chosen to omit it is impossible to say if there is any previously coined term that is applicable.

ETA: Funny that this discussion is happening the day J! had a portmanteau category.
The reason I omitted the details is that it's possible for any group to do this to any other group, and on a lot of topics. I don't know if "whitesplaining" would cover a situation where a white person condescendingly explains something on some other topic to a person of color, and it doesn't really fit a situation where a non-white person is doing the talking.

Maybe I'm wandering far afield, but here's a personal example. I belong to an ethnic group that you wouldn't necessarily guess just by looking at me. When I've told people this, they've sometimes corrected what I call myself, as if I don't realize what word to use. People of other ethnicities have also informed me of all other kinds of things they thought they knew better than I do. It's not just one race or ethnicity doing this, so there's no -splaining word that works.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gnash »

gobobbygo wrote: And I don't think it's an ad hominem attack, either. What Zakharov was saying to Vanya was not "your argument is invalid because you have [negative quality]," he was saying "you made an unsupported assertion of fact, and the manner in which you did so aligns nicely with this cultural phenomenon that we now have a name for." In other words, not "you're making a bad argument because you're a man," but rather "You're making a bad argument. The bad argument you're making, and the manner in which you're making it, fits quite well with what we now call 'mansplaining.'"
Wow, breaking news: people say stupid/ignorant/prejudiced things! It's so remarkable that we have to make up a sexist label for it!

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Dr. J »

It might be helpful to recall the origin of the term: https://www.guernicamag.com/daily/rebec ... ngs-to-me/

Solnit makes clear in her article that not all men are mansplainers and women can be condescending, too, but there are definitely a breed of mansplaining men (and I work in academia, so I've met them) who believe they are right on any subject due to their gender (and the place of privilege male gender holds as a norm for all human behavior). I literally had a male advisor belittle my academic research as "women's stuff" and "unserious" until he heard a male scholar speak about the same topic. Then, he turned to me and said, "so I guess there's something to this." He then proceeded to explain to me why it was important and useful research, as if he knew more about it than I did. Not all guys are like this, but this is Mansplaining. The term may not be to your liking, but the problem is real. (But wouldn't it be funny if some of you guys chimed in to explain it further to me... ;) )

BRD-98
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:33 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BRD-98 »

gobobbygo wrote: You use the phrase "more often than not" without any evidence, and I think you're wrong about that. If you really think it's not a thing that men launch into explanations just assuming they know more about the topic at hand than the woman they're talking to, just because they're men, I don't think you're paying attention.
I'm going to pretend I didn't read that as totally passive-aggressive and just say I was trying to be diplomatic by giving some people the benefit of the doubt. Let's put it this way: from my own personal experience, someone accusing someone else of "mansplaining" has, without fail, been an ad hominem attack designed to prohibit them from talking about an issue any further simply because they are a man and might possibly not have enough information. And in many cases, they do.
gobobbygo wrote:What Zakharov was saying to Vanya was not "your argument is invalid because you have [negative quality]," he was saying "you made an unsupported assertion of fact, and the manner in which you did so aligns nicely with this cultural phenomenon that we now have a name for."
Careful, your confirmation bias is showing! ;)
gnash wrote:
gobobbygo wrote: And I don't think it's an ad hominem attack, either. What Zakharov was saying to Vanya was not "your argument is invalid because you have [negative quality]," he was saying "you made an unsupported assertion of fact, and the manner in which you did so aligns nicely with this cultural phenomenon that we now have a name for." In other words, not "you're making a bad argument because you're a man," but rather "You're making a bad argument. The bad argument you're making, and the manner in which you're making it, fits quite well with what we now call 'mansplaining.'"
Wow, breaking news: people say stupid/ignorant/prejudiced things! It's so remarkable that we have to make up a sexist label for it!
Bingo.
Dr. J wrote:The term may not be to your liking, but the problem is real.
If "mansplaining" is a real problem, so is a hypothetical equivalent, "womansplaining." I usually don't enter my own anecdotes into debates like these, but since you did earlier in the post I quoted, I feel like it may be appropriate here. I'm a junior at a very progressive high school who has its own diversity council, "affinity groups," and feminism club. We're even trying to field Ahmed Mohamed, the faux clock kid, to attend the school. There is a showing of the film The Mask You Live In coming up and parents are encouraged to attend. I haven't seen the film, but from what I can tell, it is a bunch of "sociologists," mainly women, trying to redefine and reshape masculinity, as if they know where to begin. I was told several years ago that I likely had "ADHD" because I was displaying the rambunctious characteristics of a completely normal preteen male. I have been stigmatized as a "creep" and stalker because I hung out with girls an inordinate amount and talked with them a lot; the real reason because I was still in the closet and needed people to confide in. I have been called a "chauvinist" because I dared question the validity of "rape culture." I have been told I don't understand oppression because of my gender. Yet, out of all this, I still don't generalize and prescribe "-splaining" to a group of people within a gender, even though I have just as much ammunition as, say, you do, to do so.
(But wouldn't it be funny if some of you guys chimed in to explain it further to me... ;) )
This is precisely the problem. You are suggesting that I should be seen as hypocritical if I have a difference of opinion on what "mansplaining" is.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gnash »

Dr. J wrote:It might be helpful to recall the origin of the term: https://www.guernicamag.com/daily/rebec ... ngs-to-me/

Solnit makes clear in her article that not all men are mansplainers and women can be condescending, too...
She also used the term "mansplaining" in that essay exactly zero times.

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gnash »

gobobbygo wrote: If you really think it's not a thing that men launch into explanations just assuming they know more about the topic at hand than the woman they're talking to, just because they're men, I don't think you're paying attention.
Think about the possibility of a "correlation is causation" fallacy here. The tendency to have an inflated ego and to dismiss what other people say increases with one's wealth and power. There are more men in positions of wealth and power. So, by mere arithmetic, there will be more cases where men behave towards women in the manner described above then those in which women behave that way towards men. That does not make such behavior a male characteristic. I've certainly witnessed such behavior in all gender combinations. And even if it statistically was a gender-based tendency, it would still be inappropriate as an argument applied to an individual. (E.g., men are clearly more prone to physical violence than women, but it would be inappropriately sexist of a woman to say "I won't debate you because you are male and will thus react violently".)

BRD-98
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:33 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BRD-98 »

gnash wrote:
gobobbygo wrote: If you really think it's not a thing that men launch into explanations just assuming they know more about the topic at hand than the woman they're talking to, just because they're men, I don't think you're paying attention.
Think about the possibility of a "correlation is causation" fallacy here. The tendency to have an inflated ego and to dismiss what other people say increases with one's wealth and power. There are more men in positions of wealth and power. So, by mere arithmetic, there will be more cases where men behave towards women in the manner described above then those in which women behave that way towards men. That does not make such behavior a male characteristic. I've certainly witnessed such behavior in all gender combinations. And even if it statistically was a gender-based tendency, it would still be inappropriate as an argument applied to an individual. (E.g., men are clearly more prone to physical violence than women, but it would be inappropriately sexist of a woman to say "I won't debate you because you are male and will thus react violently".)
These are excellent points. :)

sarisson
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 833
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 8:39 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by sarisson »

How did we get to the etymology of "mansplaining" from the initial post about the banning of a creep from this website? If left unchecked, this will turn into Reretaken Down + the infamous Anti-Chu discussions.
Anyway, I completely agree with gnash.
Hoping for a third lap

BRD-98
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:33 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BRD-98 »

sarisson wrote:How did we get to the etymology of "mansplaining" from the initial post about the banning of a creep from this website?
Here.

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Rex Kramer »

BRD-98 wrote:If "mansplaining" is a real problem, so is a hypothetical equivalent, "womansplaining."
Yeah, and white lives matter, too!

It is soooo easy to get caught up in pointless discussions about technical procedural fairness in order to distract people from real systemic unfairness. Drawing a false equivalence between the ingrained cultural dismissal of women's power, perceptions, and prerogatives and that time an overenthusiastic feminist did not understand the real you is part of a very old tradition.

Rex

Post Reply