And of course anyone who gives [the reason] will be the designated patsy and thereby validate the feelings of moral superiority the coalition has been endowing itself with.
is there a way you can summarize this reason?
As I already stated in the original post—no!
Besides, you don’t need to read the book to know the reason. It’s the obvious reason. I simply referred to that book because it explains the entire social dynamic around it.
Your comments on this thread seem to be evidence that there is no such “obvious” reason, and that you are in fact pretending that such an “obvious” reason exists, as some sort of status play, or perhaps for didactic reasons. Do you agree that this is the reasonable conclusion that readers of this thread should reach? If not, why not?
Honestly, I’m curious too—I can think of several candidate reasons, but nothing blindingly obvious.
If you’re concerned about looking like a patsy, or about possible retributive behavior from being un-PC or perhaps excessively PC, there’s nothing stopping you from spinning up a throwaway account and using that. I’d say sockpuppetry is acceptable in that case.
It’s not even obvious to me that only one of several reasons is right (i.e., I suspect there are several different reasons each of which explain a sizeable fraction, but not the near-totality, of cases of catcalling).
As I already stated in the original post—no!
Besides, you don’t need to read the book to know the reason. It’s the obvious reason. I simply referred to that book because it explains the entire social dynamic around it.
It is not “obvious” to me. I am a man, and I’ve never had the desire to catcall; from my perspective, catcalling is something cartoon characters do.
Your comments on this thread seem to be evidence that there is no such “obvious” reason, and that you are in fact pretending that such an “obvious” reason exists, as some sort of status play, or perhaps for didactic reasons. Do you agree that this is the reasonable conclusion that readers of this thread should reach? If not, why not?
It is also possible that he’s operating here under an illusion of transparency.
Honestly, I’m curious too—I can think of several candidate reasons, but nothing blindingly obvious.
If you’re concerned about looking like a patsy, or about possible retributive behavior from being un-PC or perhaps excessively PC, there’s nothing stopping you from spinning up a throwaway account and using that. I’d say sockpuppetry is acceptable in that case.
It’s not even obvious to me that only one of several reasons is right (i.e., I suspect there are several different reasons each of which explain a sizeable fraction, but not the near-totality, of cases of catcalling).