I would expect the same logic that leads you to conclude that it’s legitimate to attribute a negative judgment to the class of women based on my (non-universal, but pervasive and emotionally significant) experiences with women
What exactly is the negative judgment that you think I think is legitimate?
So I would expect you to accept siduri’s judgment that soi-disant “nice guys” are misogynists with the same casualness that you accept the essay writer’s assertions about women.
Where did I say that I accept the essay writer’s assertions about women? I already stated that I think his views of women are misguided and oversimplified. The question is not whether I agree with the author, but whether his views of women’s preferences are so beyond the pale as to be misogynistic. I think the “nice guy,” Fecke, and perhaps siduri are all committing various sorts of errors, such as the availability heuristic, ignoring base rates, or the typical mind fallacy. I also acknowledge the potential of the availability heuristic on my part, when evaluating the qualities of “nice guys,” which is why I pulled up a bunch of evidence in my last reply showing other people different from me independently coming to some of the same conclusions about “nice guys” and women’s preferences.
The difference is that the “nice guy” is on trial for sexism, while the other two are not, which is why I’m trying to give him a fair trial.
Fair enough; perhaps I’ve misunderstood your position.
It certainly seemed that you were claiming that the essay-writer’s (1) assertions were legitimate, and that siduri and others were inappropriately censuring them, but reading through the whole exchange up to this point I feel like it’s become entirely muddled.
So I suggest we Taboo “misogynistic” and “sexist” here and unpack a bit.
You agree that the essay writer’s position is incorrect, but you nevertheless feel he’s being inappropriately accused of (“on trial for”) something, I’m not exactly sure what, that you feel entitles him to your public defense. Yes?
So, can you clarify what you feel he’s being accused of, and why he’s entitled to more support than he’s otherwise getting, without using those words?
(1) Edit: it occurs to me that there are two essay writers here, so this is ambiguous: I mean the self-identified man who wrote the initial essay that the quoted essay is quoting. That’s probably obvious, but I figured I’d clarify.
What exactly is the negative judgment that you think I think is legitimate?
Where did I say that I accept the essay writer’s assertions about women? I already stated that I think his views of women are misguided and oversimplified. The question is not whether I agree with the author, but whether his views of women’s preferences are so beyond the pale as to be misogynistic. I think the “nice guy,” Fecke, and perhaps siduri are all committing various sorts of errors, such as the availability heuristic, ignoring base rates, or the typical mind fallacy. I also acknowledge the potential of the availability heuristic on my part, when evaluating the qualities of “nice guys,” which is why I pulled up a bunch of evidence in my last reply showing other people different from me independently coming to some of the same conclusions about “nice guys” and women’s preferences.
The difference is that the “nice guy” is on trial for sexism, while the other two are not, which is why I’m trying to give him a fair trial.
Fair enough; perhaps I’ve misunderstood your position.
It certainly seemed that you were claiming that the essay-writer’s (1) assertions were legitimate, and that siduri and others were inappropriately censuring them, but reading through the whole exchange up to this point I feel like it’s become entirely muddled.
So I suggest we Taboo “misogynistic” and “sexist” here and unpack a bit.
You agree that the essay writer’s position is incorrect, but you nevertheless feel he’s being inappropriately accused of (“on trial for”) something, I’m not exactly sure what, that you feel entitles him to your public defense. Yes?
So, can you clarify what you feel he’s being accused of, and why he’s entitled to more support than he’s otherwise getting, without using those words?
(1) Edit: it occurs to me that there are two essay writers here, so this is ambiguous: I mean the self-identified man who wrote the initial essay that the quoted essay is quoting. That’s probably obvious, but I figured I’d clarify.