just ignore and let this one die

About as tiresome as the "She wishes me a death from cancer approach because I said she has linebacker thighs."

Just sayin'.

Lovely drawing Lexxi.

At least there is a justifiable rationale for my being tiresome.

Pep (Rhonda's twisted mentality is completely unacceptable; Love merely promotes ennui.)

PS I had presumed that Lexxi merely put a photo through one of the more common filters.

Good morning, all.



And a big cup of coffee

Hmmmm. I confess, not being a cigar smoker, that I have no idea. I'd like to think not: surely this is like asking if Dom Pérignon comes in a "Rosé"?

Thanks And yes, it is ok


Colored pencil or something like that. Though there was more post processing than just that filter being used.

For one reason or another SL pictures seem to not work as well with that filter, but sometimes they turn out well enough to continue processing them instead of junking them.

Dearest Pep, while we all know that gratuitous and indefensible potshots at the female gender constitute an important part of your repertoire, I think we would all enjoy your postings much much more if you would simply cut out the sexist bullshit.

When you can demonstrate that "over-emotional" and "irrational" are, indeed, defining characteristics of all women (all of whom you smear whenever you indulge in this kind of nonsense), then, and only then, will you be justified in continuing to bore us with this rather mindless and repetitive part of your standard shtick.

Read the words. I have written that I leave "random" postings to those "females" (the quotes suggesting the inclusion of those who are not necessarily real females but may enjoy exhibiting characteristics which they feel mirror those of real females) who are over-emotional and irrational.

Pep (Rational and normally emotional females would, I am sure, not post in such a fashion; by your actions, you apparently do not fall into this category.)

An interesting but not entirely convincing gloss on your usage. If you, as you suggest, are actually critiquing the stereotypes applied to women by those whom you attack, you would do well to better contextualize your remarks so that this is clear. When next the terms "over emotional," "hysterical," "irrational," and "female" appear in conjunction within one of your posts, I look forward to reading the lucid and progressive discussion of culturally-imposed stereotypes that will no doubt accompany them.

Mo, everything about today's breakfast is full of win! yum!

Scylla, i offer *hugs* to you.

3Ring, I gratefully accept them, and offer *hugs* right back!

thank you.

now, for your viewing pleasure NSFW or kids or grammas
http://www.gamaniak.com/video-3019-rodney-carrington-show-them-to-me.html

"Gloss"? I couldn't be plainer. If you find it sexist, when it is explicitly not so, then I would suggest that you look inside yourself for the explanation - when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.I don't force people to behave as stereotypes . . .

Pep ( . . . but I can understand how the stereotypes are created.)

Do you find the behaviour of the males who oppose you radically different? Is it only the females who are "irrational" and "over emotional"? Your use of these terms is always gendered: that is arguably the very definition of "sexism."

As to the suggestion that I am finding sexism where none exists because I am looking for it, let me point out that I can't recall a single regular poster here - including a few men with whom I have had some fairly violent disagreements - whom I have thought guilty of this kind of crude sexism. Other than yourself, of course.


Awww, you were doing so well until you said this! (Well, ok, not really "doing well" at all, but I like to be encouraging )

Here you are, after all those protestations of innocence, implying that the stereotype is in fact merited (and hence not merely a "stereotype" at all). Tsk tsk. And a little irrational to boot . . .

Since you ask, yes.Since you ask, yes.Arguably it is being specifically descriptive of the behaviours I have found and the professed gender of those who have exhibited those behaviours; how else would I simply refer to the hysterical hordes?

Because they have taken great pains to be ridiculously politically correct, even in opposition to you.Because I have taken great pains to avoid being ridiculously politically correct in opposition to you.

The reason a stereotype becomes a stereotype is because it is merited. That some (not all) people behave like stereotypes reinforces and prolongs the existence of those stereotypes. If no-one did, then they would fade away. Every time I have charged anyone with over-emotion it has been obvious that I have accurately diagnosed their problem.

Pep (As I keep insisting, I am critical of others on an equal opportunity basis; it is just that the males don't whinge about sexism.)

ROFL!

Pep (All that money, preparation and care taken with the head and she wears it with an inappropriate cheap and nasty jacket.)

More apropos would be, "have you stopped being a complete twatwaffle in the forums yet, Pep?"

Or not?

Even were I to believe it true that the behaviours you target are expressed primarily by females, it would not follow that they are therefore naturally characteristic of that gender: this is just another variation on the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. You might just as well distinguish on the basis of hair colour or avatar height, unless you can demonstrate in some more valid manner that there IS a necessary association of "female" with "over emotional" and "irrational."


That is pure speculation on your part, and is in any case irrelevant to the point I was making. Whatever the reason that they do not exhibit crude sexism, your accusation implies that I should still be finding it there, because I am LOOKING to find it there. And yet, I don't. So, explain why not.


I don't think you are taking "great pains," period; I am slowly becoming convinced that this kind of crude sexism is just a natural part of your way of thinking.

In any case, "political correctness" is a meaningless smear, a pejorative catch-all employed by lazy thinkers to characterize anything of which they disapprove. If the avoidance of "political correctness" necessitates misogyny, then I might suggest to you that the term is rather too all-encompassing.


And how broadly would you like to apply this principle, Pep? Are racist stereotypes similarly "merited"? Would you care to defend one of those here on the forum? Or is it only the ones that you apply to women that "count" in this regard?

Even were it true (which is it not) that women were, on balance, more "emotional" or "irrational" than men, to apply (as you invariably do) that generalization to individuals is, as you well know, an illegitimate strategy. Let's try this as a syllogism:

Many women are irrational.
Scylla is a woman.
Therefore, Scylla is irrational.

Doesn't really work, does it?


Perhaps the males don't "whinge" about sexism because you aren't employing sexist generalizations about them? Why should they complain about it, when it is not a characteristic part of the arsenal that you employ against THEM?

Today's sale notices:

1) Simone's b-day sales continue. Today is Green day so pretty much everything that is Green is L$75 at Style Starts Here and 50% off at Simone

2) Category Five is having a sale on two racks of dresses -- only 10L$ each:

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Harlow/75/188/33




.

Scylla, trying to make logical arguments with an irrational, illogical liar is a no win situation. I applaud your willingness to believe, but in the face of insurmountable evidence, he will merely substitute his lies and continue in his rut.

I just popped in-world at lunch and received this notecard as part of the After Burn project:

So we ask the time old question.

"How many Lindens does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

It takes one Linden to bring up the subject of lightbulbs at a team meeting. It takes three Lindens at the meeting to agree with the first Linden that they do indeed like lightbulbs and maybe the residents would like lightbulbs. It takes another Linden to organize a team of three more Lindens to research lightbulbs. The team of three Lindens return their results that lightbulbs were supposed to be implimented when the platform was first released, and that code exists for lightbulb support. It takes another Linden to write a blog entry that manages to insult a fourth of their residents saying they are going to be making changes in regards to lightbulbs. It takes another Linden to follow the comments and collects that residents knew about lightbulbs and had been asking for them for years, Prok thinks lightbulbs are a part of cummunism. Anne Otoole thinks that lightbulbs will let people who infringe on copyright see the light, and should have been implemented three years ago. It takes another Linden to look over the JIRA and find that there are 183 issues related to lightbulbs on the JIRA, some with vote counts exceeding 200. Half of those JIRAs contain comments that beg LL not to implement lightbulbs because they have created a product lightbulb. It takes one Linden on the legal team to find out that they cannot use the term "lightbulb" as it would cost them money so they must be referred to as "standardized self-contained light emitting electrical devices". It takes another Linden to discover that a third party client has implemented lightbulbs before theirs, but that people are having compatability problems with them so an internal petition against lightbulbs is formed. It takes another Linden to explain that lightbulbs do not exist in the first place, and another to explain to the first two that lightbulbs would be a benificial part of every residents second life. It takes one Linden to make the decision to hire an outside contractor with no experience to implement lightbulbs because nobody has proper experience with lightbulbs. It takes another Linden to take the resulting 50 prim lightbulb and show it off to residents that they have a shiny new lightbulb, only to be told it could be done with a single sculpt. The project is implemented anyways. It takes a team of three Lindens to compile the new lightbulb and perform quality assurance to make sure it works for the three different computers in the company. It then takes a team of two Lindens to run pilot rolls of the new lightbulb code, and it performs perfectly. It takes one Linden to be informed that midway through final rollout of the lightbulb to the whole grid, that the lightbulb contains security exploit that allows all residents to see how ugly they are, and another Linden to authorize an immediate rollback of the lightbulb code. It takes another Linden to deem the project not worth the effort and place it on the backburner, where it will stay for another two years until the process repeats.

Anyway, I'm curious when people will stop feeding a particular, sarcastic forum troll so that not *every* thread on the forum is him/her and his/her detractors going at it? I'm sure the person in question is having great fun riling everyone up, and has essentially ground the forum to a halt because everyone feels it is so gosh-darned important that they 'counter him/her at every turn -- but enough already. We get it.

It's not just this one person who is doing in this forum, but all who take the bait and respond (and, by extension, myself for posting this very post).

If you don't like that person, IGNORE. If not for you, then for everyone else.

Think of a forum as a gathering, perhaps a dinner party. No one likes a boor at a party, and no one certainly likes a brawl at one. This is a brawl in every room right now. Stop it already.

That's all.

The population I have examined is not large; nevertheless, all of the over-emotional and irrational behaviours were exhibited by a group professing to be "females". Therefore I describe them as 'over-emotional, irrational "females" '. If only men exhibited boring and ungrammatical behaviour I would refer to them as the 'boring, ungrammatical "males" '


It is not speculation but observation. You are overtly looking to find any example of sexism that you can, which discourages your opposition from using any language which might be construed as sexist, even if it was not. I am not hamstrung by such weakness.


I am very careful to express myself in a rational and non-sexist way, using gender terms when I am being descriptive, not pejorative. If you had any examples I am sure you would have paraded them by now.

Political correctness is the creeping menace that dilutes original thought and depresses the honest expression of opinion. It has nothing to do with misanthropy, much less misogyny, but is as all-encompassing as those authorities desperate for re-election permit it to be.


Yes.Yes, if necessary, but I don't think it is..No, but they are the subject under discussion, because you are so sensitive about criticism of characteristics exhibited by a number of your supposed gender (including yourself) in these forums.

It is; their hormonal fluctuations are demonstrably responsible.Which is why I don't.Let's instead try this:

Brann, Blyss, Love, Elora, Jig, Scylla (among others) have conclusively demonstrated irrational over-emotion reactions to my posts in these forums
All those avatars profess to be female
Therefore, they are all irrational, over-emotional "females".


Since I don't employ sexist generalisations about females, why should I employ sexist generalisations about males? And of course the males do not appear to be as over-emotionally irrational as some of the "females" so they don't attempt to play the sexist card.

Pep (Read my posts; I am not sexist; I disturb the sensitive; if you happen to be "female" and sensitive then you perceive it as sexist. Your problem, not mine.)