|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fuck the Amerixan injustice system
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You can't take the thinking processes of a recently-attacked victim of rape and use those as the foundation for a logical claim. Of course a rape victim is going to seek something, anything, in his/her control that could have/should have/would have prevented the attack. That isn't logic, that's human emotion. Cancer patients do the same. My sister has spent way too much time agonizing about what she might have done to "cause" her cancer, and yet she is Miss Totally-Healthy-Poster-Child and her cancer is a rare one specifically known for being as unlikely as getting hit by a meteor.
There is simply nothing she could have done to prevent it. In the case of rape victims, there is simply nothing they SHOULD have done to prevent it (100% of the time) and generally nothing they COULD have done, either. A rapist's gonna rape, and virtually all of them are extremely capable of finding victims they can overpower in places that ought to have been safe.
So why do victims think this way? Because of a well-known human quirk whereby we strongly prefer to think we are in control of what happens to us, even when the universe has just made it painfully obvious that we aren't. Most of us would rather do anything, even blame ourselves for an evil committed against us, than admit that we had no control over the situation then, would have no control over the situation if it happened again in the future, and therefore we are not safe.
This is also what lies behind a lot of victim-blaming. If we (general we) blame the victim for doing or not doing something, we implicitly reassure ourselves that we will never undergo the same horrific experience, since we would never (fill in the blank with ridiculous supposedly-blamable action).
It takes a hell of a lot of maturity to admit that we are not actually in control of our own safety, and never can be. Most people never reach that point, even when they haven't just been put through a horrifying experience.
And so we blame ourselves and others, and search for control...
Helpful, thanks. More directly states what I am trying to and understand and to express.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yes and it helps explain a range of similar behavior: eg trying to assess blame (either parents or Disney) re the gator attack on a small child last week. there are so many horrible things that can and do happen to innocent people. So we look for a pattern where there is none just to help ourselves cope with our fear
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I know a guy with lung cancer.
Everyone assumes he must have smoked.
Just saying, there's risk profile, and then there's the reality of individual events.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
My mother has lung cancer. They now have sorted the DNA of the various lung cancers, and were able to determine hers is the 'just happens' kind rather than the 'you smoked' variant.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
... though a nonsmoker can get the smoking variant simply by living or working with people smoking, and logically there's nothing to prevent a heavy smoker from developing the non-tobacco connected version. Or even both at once.
It's why the blame game is hardly ever right or wise.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I'm not American and that seems to be your criterion for permission to comment on this thread. Apparently if we're not American we can't understand things sufficiently.
Oh good grief. I wasn't trying to set up parameters for who has permission to post on this thread. I was trying to understand why there was an almost complete disconnect between what I read Twilight as saying and what others on the thread read her as saying. I was speculating that it may be because we are reacting to the different RL cultures we experience on a daily basis.
quote:
But, I'm also one of those you seem to think have been saying we shouldn't be giving advice about being careful. Just for the record, I've no objection at all to giving sensible advice.
In terms of this thread, my main argument is with Soror Magna for asking when we're going to teach men to stop raping (which we already do) as a response to any advice to women to take sensible precautions. I run into this IRL all the time and find it extremely frustrating, as it seems like their are a lot of people who are willing to sacrifice women's and girls' safety on the altar of ideology and how they think the world should be rather than how it actually is.
Obviously what counts as a sensible precaution is going to vary according to cultural context and expectations. There may be those in Muslim countries who view not wearing a burka as an excuse to rape; on the other hand there are those who live in nudist colonies who are very clear on the fact that being naked is not an invitation to be sexual or an excuse to rape.
quote:
My second concern, that others made more clearly, was that once you start issuing guidance on behaviour then those who fail to follow that advice get labelled as "asking for it". Victim blaming is not helpful, indeed quite the opposite. Young women going to a party should be able to wear what they want, they should be able to drink what they want, they should be able to walk home at the end of the night without anyone saying that they're asking to be assaulted.
I agree that victim blaming is never helpful, but how do you issue sensible advice to teens who may very well need it (because their parents for whatever reason are incapable of giving it to them) when some proportion of the population is going to fly into hysterics and read any advice as victim blaming?
I also seriously question the feminist dogma that there are huge numbers of people walking around saying that victims of crime (including rape) were 'asking for it.'
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why is it in a different category? It is a behavioural choice just like alcohol and staggering home drunk are.
Seriously?
You know, as long as you're not running afoul of any indecent exposure laws, there's no law against dressing any particular way and driving a car. There is a law against drinking and driving. Why the difference? Because what you are wearing or not wearing makes no difference to your ability to make sound judgments, evaluate situations, and take steps to remove yourself from a potentially dangerous situation, etc. Drinking alcohol, particularly to excess, does change your ability to do those things.
quote:
I suggest the different reaction is because commenting on clothing choices is far more often associated with "dressed like a slut, deserved it" and is more likely to carry judgemental overtones.
Is this really a thing? Because as much as I've been encouraged to dress relatively modestly (with what counts as 'modest' varying widely according to what social circle I'm moving in) I've honestly never in my life heard someone say that someone say that someone deserves to be sexually assaulted because of the way they were dressed (and I'm talking about RL here, not what some whacko in another country who wants to implement sharia law thinks). I know it's a point of feminist dogma that a lot of people do in fact think this (see Slutwalk), but if were that common in the US, you'd think I'd have run into it. Do I just travel in really bizarre social circles; is it really that common a thing for people to say in other social circles?
Lamb Chopped:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why is it in a different category? It is a behavioural choice just like alcohol and staggering home drunk are.
Seriously?
You know, as long as you're not running afoul of any indecent exposure laws, there's no law against dressing any particular way and driving a car. There is a law against drinking and driving.
How exactly did you convert "staggering home drunk" into driving? If someone said "staggering" to me, not only would I not think get a mental image of driving, I would explicitly think of being on foot.
You know, as long as you're not doing something you shouldn't like driving, there's no law against drinking. That would actually be a better second half of your analogy.
[ 18. June 2016, 04:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Thanks. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Sadly, there are those who seem to think dress choices play a role in rape, though like you, I've never heard anyone say it to my face--probably because they could see my hand itching to slap someone. But you'll run across it in the comments section in practically every news article about rape, and they can't all of them be hypocritical trolls, can they? Only 90% or so?
More to the point, dress is an issue often leapt upon by those who are doing their damndest to excuse the evil behavior of a son, father, brother, or client (and who are widely reported by the newspapers saying this shit, of course).
It's also an easy handle for anyone trying to draw a clear bright line of safety between themselves and "that person" who got raped, because of the superstitious conviction I mentioned before--that, if you only try hard enough, you can avoid ever having any horrible evil happen to you. And fashion is so easily observed, isn't it? So for the average idiot Y who is desperately looking for a "cause" of rape that will explain why X got raped without at the same time admitting it could happen to Y herself just as easily,--well, how easy is it to just say "it's that hat she was wearing, I would never be caught dead in a hat like that" (unspoken: so I must be safe, right?). If it isn't the hat, it's the dangly earrings, the skirt (showing her ankles, whoo hoo!), the fetching tattoo on the kneecap, the fact that she's bald and that's such a come-on, isn't it--really, a person desperately determined to find a difference between "me" and "her" will have a field day with dress. Because dress will always provide you with something. Even uniforms will, as you can always find SOME difference in the way the sleeves hang or whatever.
The last reason why dress is such a widespread though stupid issue when people are rape blaming is because there are still idiot parents and teachers who use the fear of rape as a way to try to scare their little darlings into dressing as they wish them to. And you have to admit, it's a pretty scary threat. Though complete and utter bullshit.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How exactly did you convert "staggering home drunk" into driving? If someone said "staggering" to me, not only would I not think get a mental image of driving, I would explicitly think of being on foot.
Dear lord. Is hell running a workshop series on how to miss the point?
Point being that how a person dresses does not affect their judgment, while alcohol consumption (particularly excessive alcohol consumption) is known to do so. They may both be behavioral choices, but they are in different categories.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How exactly did you convert "staggering home drunk" into driving? If someone said "staggering" to me, not only would I not think get a mental image of driving, I would explicitly think of being on foot.
Dear lord. Is hell running a workshop series on how to miss the point?
Point being that how a person dresses does not affect their judgment, while alcohol consumption (particularly excessive alcohol consumption) is known to do so. They may both be behavioral choices, but they are in different categories.
Sure, I accept that.
But if you think that was the point you were making with your previous post let me assure you were doing a poor job of it by throwing in something that had nothing to do with the "staggering home drunk" post you were allegedly replying to.
[ 18. June 2016, 05:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well of course there are lots of differences between getting drunk and choosing clothes.
We could list lots of category differences if we were on a circus thread - drinks are in the group of sometimes fizzy things, clothes very rarely are. Drinks don't last as long as clothing choices (except at some very exciting parties that I've only ever heard about).
So clearly I'm aware that there are some differences.
The question is whether any of these put it in a different moral category for purposes of victim blaming. Sure being drunk affects your judgement, but I don't see why that makes it a thing which might or might not be victim blaming whereas clothing choice comments always are.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sadly, there are those who seem to think dress choices play a role in rape, though like you, I've never heard anyone say it to my face
Likewise I've occasionally read it in comments sections but rarely heard it said directly - but often heard it implied. Back to dog-whistles.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Is this really a thing? Because as much as I've been encouraged to dress relatively modestly (with what counts as 'modest' varying widely according to what social circle I'm moving in) I've honestly never in my life heard someone say that someone say that someone deserves to be sexually assaulted because of the way they were dressed (and I'm talking about RL here, not what some whacko in another country who wants to implement sharia law thinks). I know it's a point of feminist dogma that a lot of people do in fact think this (see Slutwalk), but if were that common in the US, you'd think I'd have run into it. Do I just travel in really bizarre social circles; is it really that common a thing for people to say in other social circles?
I served on a jury for a rape trial many years ago where this was the entire defense: The victim, who had gone out for pizza with friends, was wearing a casual dress but no pantyhose. In L.A. in August (as I said in the jury room: I don't wear pantyhose to
church in triple-digit L.A. August, much less out for casual pizza dinner). The defense attorney explicitly argued that the way she was dressed meant she was consenting to intercourse (despite physical evidence that there was a struggle).
Now this was many years ago, I certainly hope that this sort of argument would not be presented in a court today. But it was presented then-- w/o objection by DA or judge-- in a court of law. And it was surprisingly, distressingly effective. One woman on the jury in particular found the argument very persuasive and had to be reminded of the physical evidence time & time again to convince her (and avoid a hung jury). After she finally agreed to vote "guilty" she said, "I just wish we could do something to punish her as well".
Cuz yeah, getting raped wasn't enough.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Now this was many years ago, I certainly hope that this sort of argument would not be presented in a court today. But it was presented then-- w/o objection by DA or judge-- in a court of law. And it was surprisingly, distressingly effective.
It is done differently now, more subtly, but it still remains. It remains in the courts and it remains in the minds of the public. And this is why what we say and how we say it is important.
And this is why I am trying like hell to keep my discourse civil when I would rather sharpen my fingernails and carve my words in reverse on people's faces so that they would read them every morning of every day when they look in the mirror.
Gods I wish that was hyperbole.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Now this was many years ago, I certainly hope that this sort of argument would not be presented in a court today. But it was presented then-- w/o objection by DA or judge-- in a court of law. And it was surprisingly, distressingly effective.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is done differently now, more subtly, but it still remains.
Exactly. The idea is so clearly in the public consciousness we only need dog whistles these days.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know that using SJW as an insult was devised by people who would see you, as a woman, have no rights? Those who would see people of colour as second-class citizens?
Bullshit.
Really? Then give me examples of people who use it and still support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc.
Me.
I am a feminist, and I'm about to vote for the Greens in my election because of their support of asylum seekers, marriage equality, and homeless people. I also, on occasion, use "SJW" as a term for a really over-the-top strain of behaviour that appears to me to be fundamentalism in reverse ("you must agree with liberal orthodoxy, with all these specifics, or else you will be shunned as a horrible human being").
You don't have to approve of the label. But it's not used solely by people who don't "support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc." Stop dismissing people you disagree with by stereotyping them.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know that using SJW as an insult was devised by people who would see you, as a woman, have no rights? Those who would see people of colour as second-class citizens?
Bullshit.
Really? Then give me examples of people who use it and still support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc.
Me.
I am a feminist, and I'm about to vote for the Greens in my election because of their support of asylum seekers, marriage equality, and homeless people. I also, on occasion, use "SJW" as a term for a really over-the-top strain of behaviour that appears to me to be fundamentalism in reverse ("you must agree with liberal orthodoxy, with all these specifics, or else you will be shunned as a horrible human being").
Fair enough. Three are people who do use the term without attacking the ideals. And I was incorrect as to its origin; it appears, like PC, to have begun as a lefty word and hijacked by (mainly) its opponents. But it is still a pejorative which attempts to limit positive interaction.
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Stop dismissing people you disagree with by stereotyping them.
I'm dismissing saysay's argument, not so much her. Were I dismissing her, I would be directing invective, rather than engaging her.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really? Then give me examples of people who use it and still support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc.
In terms of writers and bloggers - Scott Greenfield, Popehat, Robby Soave (and the other editors at Reason), Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Summers... I could go on but really there are too many. As St. Deird says, it's a handy label to affix to people displaying OTT behavior. Being in favor of social justice in broad terms doesn't make you a SJW and more than being Christian means you automatically support Westboro Baptist. As for it being a pejorative that attempts to limit positive interaction - perhaps we are not speaking of the same people. There is no positive interaction with an SJW. Just lies, insults, threats, and victimization.
quote:
As far as the study, show me a link that is not from a "men's rights" site, and we'll talk.
Psychology Today. Washington Exminer. Washington Examiner.
And those are just the things within the first five google results.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Being in favor of social justice in broad terms doesn't make you a SJW and more than being Christian means you automatically support Westboro Baptist. As for it being a pejorative that attempts to limit positive interaction - perhaps we are not speaking of the same people. There is no positive interaction with an SJW. Just lies, insults, threats, and victimization.
.
This sounds very similar to the "is there such a thing as 'dog-whistles'" discussion.
There certainly is no doubt that some social justice folks can be OTT. And I suppose every group of people will have some members who will lie, insult, threaten, and/or victimize others. So if you feel the need to have a term for those who do that within the context of social justice, sure, fair 'nuff. As with "dog-whistle" it sounds like something we can all recognize can happen, but identifying any particular interaction as an example of "SJW" will inherently be subjective and impossible to prove for much the same reasons as with dog-whistling.
iow, to parse the irregular verb: I am prophetic, you are strident, she is an SJW.
[ 19. June 2016, 22:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Scott Greenfield,
Who?
quote:
Popehat,
A website without a relevant focus? One step up from just saying the internet
quote:
Robby Soave
His stock and trade appears to be being offended by people who are offended.
quote:
Cathy Young,
Borderline mens-rights apologist
quote:
Christina Hoff Summers...
NOt without criticism of her own reasoning and methodology.
quote:
As St. Deird says, it's a handy label to affix to people displaying OTT behavior.
It is an ad hominum which attempts to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
quote:
And those are just the things within the first five google results.
Your first link questions the methodology of the study, which is a reasonable thing to do. However, the author refutes assumptions with his own assumptions, rather than with solid logic.
The second link reads more like a hit piece than a refutation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is an ad hominum which attempts to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
Which is precisely what I thought of your instantly dismissing the term as something that only horrible people use.
"Oh, you said SJW? Clearly, you are against everything I support and can be dismissed forthwith."
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fine, if I then failed to continue conversation and addressing points. But I have not.
And I said the term is used to end conversation, I have not accused either you or saysay of doing so.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
I'm sorry. Your original question didn't indicate the criteria one must meet before being allowed to use or comment on the use of 'SJW'. You wanted examples of people who use the term SJW without opposing equal rights for women and minorities. I provided some off the top of my head.
So who gets to have an opinion on this subject?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One step up from just saying the internet
And so what if I did say the internet or quoted the urban dictionary definition of SJW? I'm a descriptivist when it comes to language; I was taught that words don't mean, words mean what people mean when people use words. Who are you granting the authority to define the term 'SJW' to (since it's obviously not people in general)?
quote:
quote:
As St. Deird says, it's a handy label to affix to people displaying OTT behavior.
It is an ad hominum which attempts to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
Well, it doesn't look like we're going to agree on this, unless you can produce some strong evidence that the term SJW is (and is only) an ad hominem used by people attempting to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It is an ad hominum which attempts to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
Well, it doesn't look like we're going to agree on this, unless you can produce some strong evidence that the term SJW is (and is only) an ad hominem used by people attempting to end conversation rather than engage in discussion. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? There may or may not be people who's behavior qualifies them to be dismissed with a perforative "SJW". But your own description of SJW certainly doesn't sound like you're using it to engage discussion:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There is no positive interaction with an SJW. Just lies, insults, threats, and victimization.
[ 20. June 2016, 03:11: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
ack-- sorry, tried to fix the code but missed the edit window. : (
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm sorry. Your original question didn't indicate the criteria one must meet before being allowed to use or comment on the use of 'SJW'. You wanted examples of people who use the term SJW without opposing equal rights for women and minorities. I provided some off the top of my head.
You provided a list which is marginal, at best.
quote:
So who gets to have an opinion on this subject?
I didn't list a criteria of who is allowed to use the term.
Anyone can use any term, but no one should expect to be derisive without challenge.
quote:
And so what if I did say the internet or quoted the urban dictionary definition of SJW? I'm a descriptivist when it comes to language; I was taught that words don't mean, words mean what people mean when people use words. Who are you granting the authority to define the term 'SJW' to (since it's obviously not people in general)?
So far we have St. Deird. And several dubious persons. So your rebuttal is hardly obvious.
quote:
Well, it doesn't look like we're going to agree on this, unless you can produce some strong evidence that the term SJW is (and is only) an ad hominem used by people attempting to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
SJW is a perfect example of an Ad Hominem: Abusive argument no matter who uses it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
That post. I'm sorry, I can't even...
If an SJW ever actually made an argument instead of simply hurling nasty insults at people, they might find people who are willing to engage with their arguments. That they don't actually make arguments is one of the defining features of an SJW.
So in that sense cliffdweller is sort-of right that my previous statement was somewhat disingenuous. Except IME 'SJW' isn't a term that's used to shut down discussion because no conversation was happening in the first place.
Now, would you care to provide any evidence for your claims? Because if you're going to continue to argue by assertion, we might as well drop the subject.
[ 20. June 2016, 04:14: Message edited by: saysay ]
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm sorry, I can't even...
This has been apparent for some time, though I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
My bad.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
I suggest the different reaction is because commenting on clothing choices is far more often associated with "dressed like a slut, deserved it" and is more likely to carry judgemental overtones.
Is this really a thing? Because as much as I've been encouraged to dress relatively modestly (with what counts as 'modest' varying widely according to what social circle I'm moving in) I've honestly never in my life heard someone say that someone say that someone deserves to be sexually assaulted because of the way they were dressed (and I'm talking about RL here, not what some whacko in another country who wants to implement sharia law thinks). I know it's a point of feminist dogma that a lot of people do in fact think this (see Slutwalk), but if were that common in the US, you'd think I'd have run into it. Do I just travel in really bizarre social circles; is it really that common a thing for people to say in other social circles?
It seems common enough that Brock Turner's (remember Brock Turner?) defense team made a point of asking his victim "What were you wearing?" They seemed to think the answer would potentially relieve their client of some culpability for his actions. Given his sentence, maybe they were right.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Judge Persky has become radioactive:
quote:
After this and the recent turn of events, we lack confidence that Judge Persky can fairly participate in this upcoming hearing in which a male nurse sexually assaulted an anesthetized female patient. This is a rare and carefully considered step for our Office. In the future, we will evaluate each case on its own merits and decide if we should use our legal right to ask for another judge in order to protect public safety and pursue justice.
(Emphasis on sickening irony mine)
Yes, it's completely reasonable to believe that Judge Persky doesn't take assaults on unconscious people very seriously. In addition, at least 20 potential jurors have refused to serve in his court.
And the cherry on top is that Turner will probably be out in 3 months, not 6
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Egeria
Shipmate
# 4517
|
Posted
Maybe Brock Turner's parents and Judge Persky really think that he's just a nice, innocent guy who made one mistake and isn't a danger to society--but his teammates apparently knew better. His male teammates had talked to him about curbing the drink, the parties, etc., and his female teammates thought he was a creep (inappropriate personal remarks) and didn't want to be around him.
--------------------
"Sound bodies lined / with a sound mind / do here pursue with might / grace, honor, praise, delight."--Rabelais
Posts: 314 | From: Berkeley, CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
When he gets out, his parents might want to consider a) getting him into rehab and therapy (if he's to have any chance of turning around--or, as they might see it, for the public relations optics); b) getting him a bodyguard, given the way people rightfully feel about him; and/or c) getting him a "sober companion" (like Joan in "Elementary"), or simply a keeper.
Is he legally bound to stay away from Ms. Doe, who he assaulted? If not, get a restraining order in place before he gets out.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If only there were a place that he could stay that would inform him his actions were wrong, keep an eye on him and keep him way from her.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Yup.
With any luck, his case will be reviewed before he gets out, given the negative attention the judge is getting.
[ 21. June 2016, 06:48: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Amongst the many articles I've read about Brock Turner I think I read somewhere that he was appealing the sentence. Can anyone confirm this ( or was it just something I misread? or speculation? or one of my fantasies?).
Would he be running the risk of an increased sentence? I remember this happening to someone in NZ, but countries vary.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Amongst the many articles I've read about Brock Turner I think I read somewhere that he was appealing the sentence. Can anyone confirm this ( or was it just something I misread? or speculation? or one of my fantasies?).
Would he be running the risk of an increased sentence? I remember this happening to someone in NZ, but countries vary.
Huia
His lawyers said he was appealing at the sentencing and I don't know whether it was for sentence or conviction, but, I suspect it may have been a necessity to state that then to keep the option open. I don't know what the timeline is for actually filing the necessary paperwork. I suspect the bit they would like removed at a minimum is having to be a registered sex offender. They may change their minds about appealing especially just on the sentence given the increased notoriety of the case and might look for clemency at some later point.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... I agree that victim blaming is never helpful, but how do you issue sensible advice to teens who may very well need it (because their parents for whatever reason are incapable of giving it to them) when some proportion of the population is going to fly into hysterics and read any advice as victim blaming?...
By giving sensible advice to both boys AND girls. For every parental conversation about "girls should be careful about how much they drink", there should be a corresponding "son, never force yourself upon a girl" conversation. That is really all I'm asking for. Really. Talk to both boys AND girls. It's not too much to ask for, is it?
(And I hope this doesn't come as a disappointment, but SJW doesn't really sting - my grandmother was a pinko commie and my aunt was a bleeding-heart liberal.)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The PSE curriculum I teach and am now persuading others to teach has units on:
- drugs education which includes discussions on:
- the damage alcohol does, both socially and physically, and we would talk about things like unwanted sexual contact, beer goggles, dangers might walk into when drunk - we had stories of friends getting killed on stag weekends or falling into rivers and nearly dying, unreliability at work, losing jobs and homes,
- the law on alcohol consumption,
- recommended drinking levels and
- the dangers of binge drinking,
(it also includes tobacco and drug abuse, both legal and illegal) andsex and relationships, which includes discussions on consent (age of consent, what it means) and the repercussions of sex (STIs, pregnancy). This is a mainstream qualification for 14-16 year olds. We are mostly teaching boys, very few girls in this environment.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
While I agree that such education is very important, learning involves integrating information from many different sources over time. Unfortunately, some sources (like the result in this case) don't always reinforce what we are trying to teach.
When I was on an all-male forestry crew in Alaska we were discussing an incident were someone had been "mooned" by two women, and one of the guys claimed that was sufficient provocation that he could force them to have sex without it being considered rape. That might have been the common perception of the friends he hung out with back home, but he was flabbergasted and speechless when the rest of use disagreed with him in the very strongest terms. It wasn't that he hadn't been told that rape was a bad thing, but he had been in an environment that supported the view that forced sex really wasn't "rape" if the "woman was asking for it."
That's an important aspect of this fight - generating enough public outcry to try to try to counter the effect of the verdict on men's perceptions of what is acceptable behavior.
Did it actually change his mind? Probably not, but his face showed signs of cognitive dissonance for the better part of a week. But then, he came from one of those wild and uncivilized states on the fringe of the country where rude and/or unacceptable behavior is commonplace... New Jersey.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
That's an important aspect of this fight - generating enough public outcry to try to try to counter the effect of the verdict on men's perceptions of what is acceptable behavior.
yes. Education goes beyond the claasroom. I wonder if your Alaskan crewmate would consider a male "asking for sex" if mooning him? Or would accept being raped if he himself mooned another male? Or, if he mooned a female, would he accept a foreign object rammed up his rectum as being OK, because he was "asking for it"?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Meanwhile, changing the subject but not the outrage, this verdict just came in.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
One of the things that bothered me deeply during that rape trial years ago involving the high school girl who was assaulted while intoxicated was when I brought it up to my then- teenaged nephews. Judging how they began to respond at first, the boys seemed t be expecting me to launch into a mournful lament about those poor maligned boys who were just copping a feel like any boy would. They looked shocked when I began expressing anger and despair at how an incapacitated girl was abused.
So yeah, there is an imbalance in how we teach boys about rape and how we teach girls about rape. Girls get the safety lectures, the key- carrying tips, the self- defence workshops. Boys get told, " If a girl tells you "No," you STOP. No excuses." And the boys nod soberly.
But while we are teaching that, groupthink is teaching them stuff like:
The purpose of a date is to get as close to sex as possible, and you will be evaluated as such. ( First base, second base...)
The purpose of parties is to " pull/ hook up" whatever, after which see above.
If you don't take opportunities for sex when they arise, something must be wrong with you.
The only important factor in consent is a verbal " No, " so paying attention to your partners moods, demeanor,enthusiasm level, etc is optional.
Teaching then to respect the word " no" is so, so inadequate in dealing with the above.
The crewman story reminded me of a documentary I saw years ago about the train that runs from South America to Mexico, and the unaccompanied who ride it to get closer to the
US border. First of all, several preteen girls were interviewed, grimly stating that they all took birth control before making the trip, because they were pretty much told to prepare themselves to be jumped. That was bad enough, but almost worse was the twelve year old boy who giggled as he told the off camera interviewer about witnessing a woman being gang raped in a cattle car. He dropped his voice to an excited whisper, and a grin began to spread on his face, but his face drastically changed when the interviewer fell silent, and he answered further questions in a sober and horrified tone. I am guessing the look on the interviewers face is what changed the boy's.
And that is what I have concluded is the real frontline-- that place where boys gather together to bond under predetermined "what makes a man" tropes. Every woman in the world could share her rape story, and as long as groups of boys/ men work under the assumption that theirs is the final word on what constitutes rape, not much will change.As the crewman story and the young rape witness demonstrates, the right people challenging rape culture at the right time can have a benevolently catastrophic effect.
As for the boy himself-- the five or six other boys he traveled with went on to have relatively functional, if difficult, lives. He went on to develop a crippling heroin addiction. Since he was the one kid in the group trapped in a car with a bunch of rapists, I sense their may be a connection.
[ 23. June 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, changing the subject but not the outrage, this verdict just came in.
I made a new thread so this doesn't get lost.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But while we are teaching that, groupthink is teaching them stuff like:
The purpose of a date is to get as close to sex as possible, and you will be evaluated as such. ( First base, second base...)
The purpose of parties is to " pull/ hook up" whatever, after which see above.
If you don't take opportunities for sex when they arise, something must be wrong with you.
The only important factor in consent is a verbal " No, " so paying attention to your partners moods, demeanor,enthusiasm level, etc is optional.
Teaching then to respect the word " no" is so, so inadequate in dealing with the above.
This.
In the rape trial I mentioned above, the most telling piece of evidence by far was the defendant's own testimony. I'm pretty sure the victim was being truthful-- but even if she wasn't and the defendant was completely, 100% honest, his version of the events, which included at one point the victim pulling a knife on him to get him off of her-- could not even remotely be considered consensual. And yet he gave his testimony as if expecting that would turn the whole thing around and we'd see his side-- when in fact it did the complete opposite.
Clearly the groupthink had not served him well.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Brava, Kelly.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Judge Persky strikes again:
quote:
... Ramirez was arrested at his home in Santa Clara County in November 2014 after his roommate called 911 to say that he had sexually assaulted her, according to police reports.
Ramirez gave the woman a “love letter” and later entered her bedroom and fingered her for about five to 10 minutes against her will, according to a police report, and stopped only when she started crying.
When police arrived, he admitted to the assault. “Ramirez knew what he did was wrong and he wanted to say sorry,” one officer wrote.
... According to records of the plea deal that Persky oversaw, Ramirez agreed to plead guilty to a felony of sexual penetration by force. Under the terms of the deal, he will spend three years in state prison, the minimum punishment for the offense. ... Ramirez, like Turner, has no criminal record of convictions for serious or violent felonies, according to court records.
Because Ramirez ultimately pleaded guilty to a felony offense that does not have an option for probation or a lighter sentence, Persky was limited in the sentence he could approve for the specific conviction. ...
Bullshit. The limits didn't apply to a privileged drunk white boy who still doesn't think he did anything wrong. In the article, it says that:
quote:
... Judge Persky handled the hearings and negotiations in the Ramirez case, according to Santa Clara county prosecutors. ... Specifically, Persky could have approved or helped negotiate a bargain in which Ramirez only pleaded guilty to the lesser of two charges he was facing – assault with intent to commit rape. If the more serious charge was dropped – as was the case with Turner, who had two rape charges dropped – Ramirez could have potentially avoided prison.
White privilege doesn't mean Judge Persky sits in his chambers rubbing his hands together with glee at the thought of sending more brown people to jail. It means that when Judge Persky looks at Turner, he sees a brilliant, talented college boy who made a drunken mistake, and will figure out a way to give him a break so his whole future isn't destroyed, poor baby. When he looks at Ramirez, he sees a criminal who assaulted his roommate and deserves to go to jail, and it's not Persky's problem if he can't get employment or housing because of his record.
Stanford trial judge overseeing much harsher sentence for similar assault case
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Under the terms of the deal, he will spend three years in state prison, the minimum punishment for the offense.
This is what should happen. Ramirez was sentenced appropriately. This is also what should have happened to Turner. But he got the white college boy pass.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Part of the discrepancy was that there are apparently differing penalties in California for sexual penetration by force [of a conscious person] from sexual penetration of someone who is unconscious or intoxicated. The former has a 3 year mandatory minimum, the latter does not. Some lawmakers are trying to change the law so the latter has the same mandatory minimum. Also Turner's rape charges were dropped because the prosecutor didn't think they could prove it (and probably couldn't) not because of a plea bargain. BTW it is generally the prosecutor and the defendant who negotiate a plea bargain; the judge's options are limited especially if there is a mandatory minimum.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Bullshit.
quote:
But critics say that Persky, a former Stanford athlete himself, bent over backwards to make an exception in the Turner case, and that if he wanted to give Ramirez the same favorable treatment, the judge could have utilized his discretion and recommended a less harsh prosecution.
Specifically, Persky could have approved or helped negotiate a bargain in which Ramirez only pleaded guilty to the lesser of two charges he was facing – assault with intent to commit rape. If the more serious charge was dropped – as was the case with Turner, who had two rape charges dropped – Ramirez could have potentially avoided prison.
He was right not to be lenient to Ramirez, he was wrong to be lenient to Turner.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
