On the contrary - yes you do. My complaint is using poison M&Ms as a metaphor for human beings. If you’re not gonna present a poison M&M argument of your own, then there’s only The Argument left. Though at least we now agree that it is used to justify collective punishment.
Actually, you know what, since you can’t seem to find the exit, I’ll point you to it. Say:
“The M&M argument is a faulty and dehumanising generalisation, but it’s understandable that someone would feel unsafe after living a lifetime worrying about men hurting you.”
And I’ll say:
"The sentiment is not unreasonable. But generalizations are both suspect and arbitrary (see Sartre’s “Jewish furrier” story), and the wariness itself is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things. It’s not strange that a lifetime under threat leads to trauma, but allowing trauma to fester and calcify is the wrong choice.
Look, I’m willing to say thanks for bringing the bigoted usage of M&M metaphor to my attention. It is good to know common usages of things to avoid misunderstandings like this. Given that it was used to argue for collective punishment against oppressed and minority groups, that is obviously sick and unacceptable. So much so that while I never used it in the past, I will now be sure to never use it in the future either.
I don’t believe the metaphor is faulty in of itself, as you would obviously at least hesitate to consume food if it had a chance to be poisoned. And in the context it was used here, where it did not argue for collective punishment, but rather simply women wanting to not put themselves in situations that could render them defenseless, I think it fit quite well. If it didn’t have its association with discrimination, it would have aptly explained women’s point of view while acknowledging that the grand majority of men are not a threat.
Regardless, it was repeatedly made clear to you that no generalizations were being made. And you repeatedly insisted on making a linguistics argument even after people defined their terms and intent. You continued to ignore their clarifications and resort to implying your interlocutors were bigoted. Which makes it hard for me to believe you were arguing in good faith. Doubly so when you thought an appropriate exit would include you saying the argument “is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things.”.
If you genuinely wanted to fix things, you would have argued with enough charity to say “I understand that your intent was not to generalize nor attack a group of people, but the metaphor you used is charged with bigotry due to its common usage. To avoid misunderstandings, might I suggest using a different method of getting your points across?”. Or something to that affect.
But you didn’t, you doubled down on accusations of bigotry, flat out strawmanned arguments, and remained steadfast in a linguistics debate when everyone had already defined their terms. Even after I had conceded that the M&M metaphor could be creating a misunderstanding.
So let me offer you another exit. I’ll say:
Thanks for letting me know about the M&M argument. I prefer to have clarity in my statements, and loath bigotry of all forms. So being made aware of the dehumanizing and faulty manner it has been used in is greatly appreciated. I hope you understand that I mean no ill will in our discussion. But I do find that some people will often try to focus on one faux pas to derail a more important conversation about women’s rights and safety, and that is something of a pet peeve of mine. Regardless I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.
And you can say:
No worries, the M&M metaphor has been used in such awful ways that it fundamentally undermines any attempts at genuine conversations, and I was unable to see past it to your actual intent. I understand that you and Pyre weren’t being bigoted, and I’m sorry for trying to associate bigotry from past usage of the M&Ms metaphor on your actual intentions even after it was made clear that you were not using the metaphor in its common usage.
The point isn’t that you should eat the M&Ms, the point is that when a batch of food is suspected to be tainted, you throw it away. You don’t keep tainted food around, you order it recalled from the market and incinerate it because merely having it around is a hazard. It’s a matter of public safety. The problem of applying it to people should be obvious - this is why I mentioned “un-poisoning the M&Ms”. And yes, the argument is alienating for both sides, it alienates them from each other, and that is an obstacle. Unless, I guess, we go for the incinerator solution like we would with M&Ms.
I’m “making a linguistics argument” because I don’t think you understand the argument being made. An argument isn’t faulty because it’s used against oppressed and minority groups, it’s used against oppressed and minority groups because it’s faulty - it’s the faultiness that allows for bigotry. Your response is you’re not talking about oppressed and minority groups, so it’s not bigoted, so it’s not faulty. This is getting it precisely backwards. This isn’t a misunderstanding, I know what you - I mean, Pyre - set out to say. But what you actually said - and, frankly, the rest of this conversation - is telling me I was right to speak up. You think I’m “arguing linguistics” because you think the problem is the words themselves, because what you set out to say isn’t bigotry, because you’re not a bigot, you only have a problem with people who deserve it! Hell, your exit admits there is no other M&M metaphor, but it’s OK, because we both agree you didn’t mean it like that! That’s the important part here! Because this is a conversation about you!
You’re gonna think this is more linguistics, but if you read back, you’ll notice I never called you a bigot. I said the argument is a veil for bigotry. The reason for this is both because essentialism isn’t helpful, and because my problem isn’t with you - it’s with the argument.
Hell, your exit admits there is no other M&M metaphor
My exit admits that the metaphor has baggage from how it was used in the past, and as such it is only likely to cause misunderstandings. But i still think it’s usage here did a great job of explaining the situation women face. Context is important.
In your implied usage of the M&M metaphor, 99 innocent M&Ms had their rights taken away or were prevented from immigrating or in some way were infringed upon. And this all for 1 hypothetical poisoned M&M. A tragedy for the 99 M&Ms to be sure.
Here is the thing about why it isn’t faulty in regards to Women being comfortable alone around men. As you said, you “throw the bag away”, which is what women have to do with their trust and feelings of safety around men. It very aptly describes how women really are forced to treat that situation. And it’s not bigoted in that context, just sad for everyone involved.
In Pyre usage, M&Ms represents women’s ability to be safe alone with men, and since 99% of rapists are men, and 91% of victims are women and 14.8% of women will be raped in their lifetime, for women there is absolutely a poisoned M&M in at least some bags, so women really do just have to “throw away the bags” to be safe. This isn’t fair to women. But the only negative impact on the 99 M&Ms is they feel a little awkward about the fear women might have of them, but all the same they get to keep all of their rights and even vote to take away rights from women. I mean, over 50% of M&Ms just voted for a known poisoned M&M who was instrumental at removing life saving health care for women. So frankly the metaphor tracks, it makes sense in the usage provided, and it’s not bigoted in Pyre’s version at all. So while there “Might not be a different M&M metaphor”, there are different contexts where it can be utilized, and in this one it fits perfectly without being bigoted.
you’ll notice I never called you a bigot.
I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.
Maybe you forgot about that? But it’s a pretty strong implication.
Regardless, here is my real problem. And frankly, I tried to be a bit nicer about this in my proposed exit, but oppressed groups have constantly heard “while I agree with your goals, I disagree with your methods”. But the oppressed have the right to choose how best to resist their oppressor. And as far as I’m concerned, your insistence on making this about a metaphor that works perfectly but was used to opress another group in a different situation is just a bullshit way of saying “do you need to be so rude when talking about sexual assault?”. It’s the rhetoric of oppressors, it’s not a good use of your energy, and it only helps embolden the “poisoned M&Ms”, i.e. rapist, and try and make it seem like men are the “real victims” here.
So please understand me when I say that I understood your point, if you read back I acknowledged it from the beginning, and tried to redirect the conversation back to its actual point. I accused you of pointless linguistics debates because that’s what you are having, the discussion around the M&M metaphor is irrelevant in relation to sexual assault, and trying to make it about that is very disrespectful to real victims.
Because this is a conversation about you!
And here’s the thing, this conversation isn’t about me, and it isn’t about M&M metaphors, it’s about sexual assault victims.
…Really, you’re just gonna throw this out there, with no reflection on it? Like, not even a pause? Not even a minute to go “wow, that’s really high, like, suspiciously high, like, Glorious-Leader-Wins-Election high!”?
You know what, I’ll rephrase my argument: The M&M argument is to be rejected out of hand, because any standard set for it’s acceptance will inevitably be met by sufficiently determined bigot, and a sufficiently gullible audience.
Feel free to pick which of these two you are, I genuinely don’t care at this point.
On the contrary - yes you do. My complaint is using poison M&Ms as a metaphor for human beings. If you’re not gonna present a poison M&M argument of your own, then there’s only The Argument left. Though at least we now agree that it is used to justify collective punishment.
Actually, you know what, since you can’t seem to find the exit, I’ll point you to it. Say:
And I’ll say:
Look, I’m willing to say thanks for bringing the bigoted usage of M&M metaphor to my attention. It is good to know common usages of things to avoid misunderstandings like this. Given that it was used to argue for collective punishment against oppressed and minority groups, that is obviously sick and unacceptable. So much so that while I never used it in the past, I will now be sure to never use it in the future either.
I don’t believe the metaphor is faulty in of itself, as you would obviously at least hesitate to consume food if it had a chance to be poisoned. And in the context it was used here, where it did not argue for collective punishment, but rather simply women wanting to not put themselves in situations that could render them defenseless, I think it fit quite well. If it didn’t have its association with discrimination, it would have aptly explained women’s point of view while acknowledging that the grand majority of men are not a threat.
Regardless, it was repeatedly made clear to you that no generalizations were being made. And you repeatedly insisted on making a linguistics argument even after people defined their terms and intent. You continued to ignore their clarifications and resort to implying your interlocutors were bigoted. Which makes it hard for me to believe you were arguing in good faith. Doubly so when you thought an appropriate exit would include you saying the argument “is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things.”.
If you genuinely wanted to fix things, you would have argued with enough charity to say “I understand that your intent was not to generalize nor attack a group of people, but the metaphor you used is charged with bigotry due to its common usage. To avoid misunderstandings, might I suggest using a different method of getting your points across?”. Or something to that affect.
But you didn’t, you doubled down on accusations of bigotry, flat out strawmanned arguments, and remained steadfast in a linguistics debate when everyone had already defined their terms. Even after I had conceded that the M&M metaphor could be creating a misunderstanding.
So let me offer you another exit. I’ll say:
And you can say:
The point isn’t that you should eat the M&Ms, the point is that when a batch of food is suspected to be tainted, you throw it away. You don’t keep tainted food around, you order it recalled from the market and incinerate it because merely having it around is a hazard. It’s a matter of public safety. The problem of applying it to people should be obvious - this is why I mentioned “un-poisoning the M&Ms”. And yes, the argument is alienating for both sides, it alienates them from each other, and that is an obstacle. Unless, I guess, we go for the incinerator solution like we would with M&Ms.
I’m “making a linguistics argument” because I don’t think you understand the argument being made. An argument isn’t faulty because it’s used against oppressed and minority groups, it’s used against oppressed and minority groups because it’s faulty - it’s the faultiness that allows for bigotry. Your response is you’re not talking about oppressed and minority groups, so it’s not bigoted, so it’s not faulty. This is getting it precisely backwards. This isn’t a misunderstanding, I know what you - I mean, Pyre - set out to say. But what you actually said - and, frankly, the rest of this conversation - is telling me I was right to speak up. You think I’m “arguing linguistics” because you think the problem is the words themselves, because what you set out to say isn’t bigotry, because you’re not a bigot, you only have a problem with people who deserve it! Hell, your exit admits there is no other M&M metaphor, but it’s OK, because we both agree you didn’t mean it like that! That’s the important part here! Because this is a conversation about you!
You’re gonna think this is more linguistics, but if you read back, you’ll notice I never called you a bigot. I said the argument is a veil for bigotry. The reason for this is both because essentialism isn’t helpful, and because my problem isn’t with you - it’s with the argument.
My exit admits that the metaphor has baggage from how it was used in the past, and as such it is only likely to cause misunderstandings. But i still think it’s usage here did a great job of explaining the situation women face. Context is important.
In your implied usage of the M&M metaphor, 99 innocent M&Ms had their rights taken away or were prevented from immigrating or in some way were infringed upon. And this all for 1 hypothetical poisoned M&M. A tragedy for the 99 M&Ms to be sure.
Here is the thing about why it isn’t faulty in regards to Women being comfortable alone around men. As you said, you “throw the bag away”, which is what women have to do with their trust and feelings of safety around men. It very aptly describes how women really are forced to treat that situation. And it’s not bigoted in that context, just sad for everyone involved.
In Pyre usage, M&Ms represents women’s ability to be safe alone with men, and since 99% of rapists are men, and 91% of victims are women and 14.8% of women will be raped in their lifetime, for women there is absolutely a poisoned M&M in at least some bags, so women really do just have to “throw away the bags” to be safe. This isn’t fair to women. But the only negative impact on the 99 M&Ms is they feel a little awkward about the fear women might have of them, but all the same they get to keep all of their rights and even vote to take away rights from women. I mean, over 50% of M&Ms just voted for a known poisoned M&M who was instrumental at removing life saving health care for women. So frankly the metaphor tracks, it makes sense in the usage provided, and it’s not bigoted in Pyre’s version at all. So while there “Might not be a different M&M metaphor”, there are different contexts where it can be utilized, and in this one it fits perfectly without being bigoted.
Maybe you forgot about that? But it’s a pretty strong implication.
Regardless, here is my real problem. And frankly, I tried to be a bit nicer about this in my proposed exit, but oppressed groups have constantly heard “while I agree with your goals, I disagree with your methods”. But the oppressed have the right to choose how best to resist their oppressor. And as far as I’m concerned, your insistence on making this about a metaphor that works perfectly but was used to opress another group in a different situation is just a bullshit way of saying “do you need to be so rude when talking about sexual assault?”. It’s the rhetoric of oppressors, it’s not a good use of your energy, and it only helps embolden the “poisoned M&Ms”, i.e. rapist, and try and make it seem like men are the “real victims” here.
So please understand me when I say that I understood your point, if you read back I acknowledged it from the beginning, and tried to redirect the conversation back to its actual point. I accused you of pointless linguistics debates because that’s what you are having, the discussion around the M&M metaphor is irrelevant in relation to sexual assault, and trying to make it about that is very disrespectful to real victims.
And here’s the thing, this conversation isn’t about me, and it isn’t about M&M metaphors, it’s about sexual assault victims.
…?
…!?!
…Really, you’re just gonna throw this out there, with no reflection on it? Like, not even a pause? Not even a minute to go “wow, that’s really high, like, suspiciously high, like, Glorious-Leader-Wins-Election high!”?
You know what, I’ll rephrase my argument: The M&M argument is to be rejected out of hand, because any standard set for it’s acceptance will inevitably be met by sufficiently determined bigot, and a sufficiently gullible audience.
Feel free to pick which of these two you are, I genuinely don’t care at this point.