t-E

Thank you. This contains some very interesting parts.

In my great foresight i already basically wrote up the long one before deciding to go with the above, so i'll just finish that now.

what is your preferred language?

That would be English.

In case that wasn't what you meant to learn: i was raised with German as my first and only language. At eleven years old, i began learning English at a German secondary school. A few years later (uncertain how many exactly) i began to actually learn English, outside school, mostly using literature and internet content. And yes that's primarily written language. Speaking ... (read more)

Nice catch there.

Took me until after i'd read it the second or third time, but once it's recognised, it seems fairly intuitive to me that it might have been intended.

Your own reaction seems like a good example of a much more productive reaction, but it does have some rather limiting contextual requirements.

I'm not sure i understand which reaction you mean. And my best (only?) guess on the contextual requirements is the context of this conversation on this platform (or: community), but i'm even less certain here, so i would like to ask you to please make both points more explicit.

attempting to establish a correlation between [...] and the ability to have or frequency of having [orgasms]

Sorry, there was some sort of malfunction that made me not appreciate the worth of that study in an overt way any longer after reading this part.

If you don't mind saying, what is your preferred language?

I don't, but first you have to choose whether you want:

1. the mathematician's answer only,

2. the short answer, or

3. the long answer.

(Lower-numbered answers are presumably included.)

I find it highly plausible that an ideologies own arguments could be interpreted as satire if there were impostor-suspicion (which the test would cause).

I was aware (though i didn't think it through to that it might be interpreted as satire). But the ideological Turing test has been described as a conversation with six candidates, so in this thought experiment the five other feminists would also be suspected, not just the one we're testing. (The readers i understand to initially have no reason to particularly suspect any of the six more than any other.)... (read more)

allowed me to notice that it seems highly likely that nearly all female feminists I've encountered in person with common knowledge of such were mostly of the kind that had one or few strong very bad near-type personal experiences with men, or many small but memorable such near-type experiences.

Depending on how bad you consider "very bad" and how memorable you consider "memorable" as to make this "kind" be applicable to a woman, it might be the case that a significant part of all women (regardless whether feminist) are of this kind. There might even be studies or what backing such claims up, though right now i'm not inclined to search for any.

In rough vulgarization, Near mode is immediate observation and sensation, Far mode is abstract knowledge of something.

Thanks.

Saying something like that is exactly the kind of behavior I'd expect to cause the kind of reactions / treatment / behavior I've described in earlier posts.

It's good to know that you know that. Your wording here might mildly suggest that you disagree with such reactions to that behaviour on some level, but i might just be imagining that. And either way it's not of much relevance.

Thank you. For now i'll work with your explanation for this context specifically.

Thank you for this.

• The term "patriarchy" is commonly used by feminists other than radical ones.

• The term "pervasive" is commonly used by me (i'm also not a radical feminist), not only in reference to (traditional) sexism. And more on topic, i think i read it now and then from many non-radical feminists as well.

• I had to look up a translation for "pernicious" in a dictionary. This indicates that before i rarely if ever read it at all, even in some content i read that's authored by self-described radical feminists. Interesti

(during the eridu radical-feminist debacle)

I don't know that 'debacle' and there seems to be a lot of content that could be part of it (you meant something in the comments of this same article apparently). If you think it is very relevant, i'd be grateful for one or several specific links to start from.

allowed me to notice that it seems highly likely that nearly all female feminists I've encountered in person with common knowledge of such were mostly of the kind that had one or few strong very bad near-type personal experiences with men, or many small

This seems like a fairly good description of that concept, and how it is related to radical feminism. Not that i know: while i'm somewhat interested in radical feminism, i can't honestly claim to be a radical feminist. (I do claim to have some radical views and some feminist views... but that combination doesn't necessarily result in the radical feminism.)

I don't know about your comparison. I believe that (i don't understand radical feminism well enough) or (i don't understand the local topic well enough) or (your comparison doesn't fit well). And i can't think of more useful criticism now.

(Sorry for the reply being so long rather than more concise, i'm aware my texts almost routinely get out of hand.)

What I mean is that I can't even participate in any such conversation, regardless of circumstances - only feminist women are even allowed to participate and speak of this [...]

I am not opposed to principles like these if they are applied in such contexts that it appears "sensible". And in most social settings (you didn't mention any specific kinds apart from "where it becomes established [...]" and i don't want to specul... (read more)

Regardless that i'm not extensively answering your entire comment, i still wanted to point out just a little peculiarity:

I can't reasonably discuss that point with a feminist woman, because she's a woman and I'm a man, so I am a priori wrong and attempting to subjugate her by broaching that subject.

I think this seems to imply that for "reasonable discussion" to occur, you must be the one to broach the subject. Is this correct; did you mean to imply that? (I could imagine that either way.)

If you're willing to do me a favour, please list at least a few buzzwords or (basic) concepts which you would spontaneously ascribe to radical feminism but not or less so to other feminisms. (This implies not looking up anything about it before sending the comment.)

Anyone else can feel free to do so as well, of course, though in that case i suggest you also shouldn't read any answers to this request before fulfilling it.

If we simplify away some major disagreements between different feminisms, then i think that per definition an actual feminist's statements on feminism would pass an "ideological Turing test" that tests for feminism, excepting false negatives. (This is not exactly the test's purpose of course.)

Are you also interested in what i would suggest "submitting" to the test in this case specifically?

First, you didn't clearly answer my question, but i assume that you now imply that you indeed did imply that you think it would pass.

Second, it wasn't stated in my previous comment, but i was and am aware of the power plus prejudice definitions. You seem to assume here that i was not.

Third, and most importantly, i still believe that it would not pass, as i noted in my parens remark. This is because i think that none of "[institutional] power" or "prejudice" [against a group] can adequately be described as "historical disadvantage&q... (read more)

Is this implying that you do think "unfair treatment of a person based on their sex, but it only counts if their sex has been historically disadvantaged" would pass an ideological Turing test? (For the record, i don't think it would.)