I've already told you what you need to do. Rules are designed in response to ideology. Rules are subject to interpretation. Rules maintain the status quo. Do you people not yet understand what the internet is, after all these years? You can make it up as you go along. There is no ultimate authority. This is the revolution. This is the application of ideas, as opposed to ideology. This is where you may speak. In opposition to the philosophy of the day, in opposition to Dr Phil, and in opposition to Oprah Goddamned Winfrey. If you do it right, you can achieve something here. This place has survived for years where others have met a ignominious demise, and the reason for that is that you've had those who present something outside the norm worth discussion. Now, I must say here that the moderation in this place, generally speaking, isn't terrible. Better than most. Do you not see, though, that as soon as you begin to enforce in favour of one ideology over another, that superiority begins to wane. You cannot use authority to enforce an opinion. The internet is perhaps the sole remaining place where justice might rule over law. Where the keyboard retains rule over the gun. And there, I suppose, is the age-old conflict. Justice, as opposed to law. Stop trying to do it the easy way.
How can you have justice without laws? Do you propose we simply moderate based on what "feels right"? I can promise you - that would end badly... because everyone has a different idea of "right" and "wrong". For example - little snarks as "I could use your lengthy posts to fertilize my garden" are, in my mind, indicative of an uneducated, tiny specimen trying to reach out and attack a much larger entity that it is unable to comprehend, lashing out at that which confuses, and by extension, annoys it.
Hang on a second.. How is what she presented outside the "norm"? Rape prevention advocacy is prevalent in society, and in fact, one would say that is the norm. So what exactly did she present that is not uttered by society in general any time a person is raped? Have you not been reading the many rape threads on this site recently to see just how that is the "norm"? We have run the whole gamut of rape prevention ideology from one poster declaring that women should just know if the man they are involved with could rape them because there are apparently always signs to another declaring that women should sleep with their phones on their persons, to another comparing women to car stereos and how you wouldn't leave your car unlocked to have it stolen as though that was somehow connected to a human being's right to exist without fear of rape and it just goes on and on. My personal favourite was the one who tried to argue that rape was really just a biological urge and homosexual rapes and raping children was brought down to what was tantamount to an inappropriate instinct to breed or procreate. What she posted is the norm. It was nothing new. It wasn't even out there. What she posted festers in humanity every single minute of every day. It is the same mentality that sees women attacked in the streets for not being dressed appropriately and it is the very attitude and belief system that she was asking for it. We all gasp in horror and with shocked indignation when we read about it. But it is nothing new. When rapes are reported or when a rape story ends up in the media, the overwhelming reaction will always focus on what she was doing that led to her being raped. Jill Meagher was a prime example of that. She was walking down a busy street, while talking on her phone in the early hours of the morning. Instead of focusing on her rapist who had raped and attacked women before and was on probation at the time he dragged her into an alley and raped and murdered her, society decided to focus on what she was wearing, what she was doing there at that time of the night, why she was alone, why she had gone to a bar with her work colleagues on a Friday evening. And that is not why it was closed down. Nor is it why the others she posted were closed down. The reason is very simple. She was unable and refused to actually back up her argument and apply it to what she wanted to discuss. Anyone can quote. I am reminded of Pride and Prejudice and Mr Darcy saying "any savage can dance". Just because she can copy and quote from external sources does not mean that it is the absolute refinement or present arguments that are new and fresh and outside the norm. If you want to truly experience the sociobiological theories of rape, just open up your paper to the crime section and read the rape cases presented there. That is if you really wish to discuss what is outside the norm and that is to look at a rape case and not wonder about the woman's actions and how she might have prevented it. Now that would be outside of the norm. And frankly, the writing was on the wall very early on in that thread when the administration and other moderators realised that it was yet another attempt by her to peddle her rape prevention ideology. In the end, the sociobiological theories of rape was brought down to the level of demanding women prevent being raped, despite repeated attempts by the staff to get her to actually explain and support her argument.
So you closed those threads in order to 'protect a woman from herself'? How very paternalistic. How very patriarchal. How very... misogynist. Just out of curiosity, were you also protecting Trooper when you saw fit to single her out and belittle her in your concluding post on one of the threads you locked? Do you often verbally abuse and silence the women you claim to be protecting?
You're welcome to check with the Administration on this, but it's not just women. Then again, you provide an excellent example of one of the pitfalls inherent to rules intended to protect people from their own bad behavior, i.e., they are subject to fallacious whining from dishonest people. When a pattern of misbehavior is set and determined, the staff has to decide just how much of it they're going to take. Of late, in issues pertaining to human rights in the context of women, the form established by the Administration is to simply close the threads because parsing out the differences in flame wars often means one side gets a stern talking to and the other gets a boot. You missed a bit earlier this year in which a member was sent permanently for sexual harassment, which in turn caused an uproar, but the problem with the uproar was how much of it seemed to depend on the argument that, "Well, sure, it was bad behavior, but he's not smart enough to understand how atrocious his behavior really is." You might note the following: • The thread had been closed once already, see #3241125/28↗. • James R reopened↗ the thread; it happens every once in a while that we with larger posting permissions don't see the little lock symbol, which is what happened here. The system didn't stop James from posting in a closed thrad, so it was reopened to "give it one more chance". • Two other↗ threads↗ were closed for similar reasons at the same time, started by CluelussHusbund, who represents himself as male. Please justify your use of the phrase "single her out" when referring to Trooper. As to the idiocy about "silencing" anyone, Trooper had three days to respond. Also, check the order of the closures; her thread was closed last of the three, and the reason it was closed last is because it was part of a general mopup that started with the street harassment thread being way too focused on the members taking part in the discussion (and, therefore, way off topic), and the women's rights thread, which ... does not appear to have ever been intended to be about women's rights, and that's putting it gently. You're displaying a common political behavior among social conservatives, Tali. It has a few basic variations, but at its core is a very common behavior of the human mind, the nearly involuntary projection of one's own perspective onto others. That is to say, closing Trooper's thread along with two of CluelussHusbund's might actually equal singling out Trooper because she's a woman in your mind, but you're going to need to explain how that works if that's the case. But I see the closure of the thread from a perspective that starts with the inevitable failure of threads discussing these issues for the sake of ego defense. From women's rights to urogenital stimulation? Yeah, we're off topic. From street harassment to ego defense; that one wasn't going anywhere useful and was only getting more contentious and personal in its focus. And the whole point of reopening the sociobiological thread was to get certain answers that were never forthcoming. Practically speaking, it won't be long before there is another one of these threads, and by the time one of them collapses to female urogenital stimulation, yes, it needs to be closed to protect people from themselves. Please deal with facts, Tali. To wit, I am very much interested in how you justify your claim that Trooper was singled out.
*engaged Tinfoil Hat Mode* perhaps Tali89 is, in fact, Trooper... why else would Tali be so riled up about something she was otherwise barely even a participant to...?
Well, now. A post written primarily to induce an emotional response and thereby directing attention away from the topic at hand. The very model of trolling. Where are your rules now? Should they close this thread? Ban you, confine you to the shadow under the shelter of which you post even now? Honesty, now. Would you prefer I never showed my hand here again? Would that be your Utopia, to have all of those who disagree, those who do not believe, consigned to the darkness and never speak again? They're out there, you know. Those who believe in Paradise. In response to your first comment, I can assure you that those "laws" are being applied as judiciously here as they are out there. Any good lawyer will tell you that the question of who the judge will be is not an irrelevant one, and forms as much a part of the defence or prosecution as the argument itself. The very shape of that argument is determined, to a large extent, by that knowledge. Be sure not to turn up in court in jeans and a t-shirt, hmmm? Someone said to me very recently "Reason is no match for the power of beauty". I'm inclined to believe that may be quite true. That which one might perceive as being Beauty, however, is entirely subjective. One must take care, always, to determine the truth behind the pretty face. Know that when I speak of beauty, I'm informing you that words are art, too. Try it on someone else, Kitti-cat. I'm afraid it won't work on me. I suppose you did get your response, though. Was it as you imagined it would be?
This might be lengthy. I wonder if I have the patience. Perhaps a few more drinks, yes? Yeesssss....... I'll begin with Jill Meagher. Your description of that case wasn't what I saw at all. Was there reference to the fact that she out on a dark street at night, alone, unaware of her surroundings? Yes. There was. Was there mention that the rapist and eventual murderer was out on bail for a similar crime? Yes, there was. Which point gained the most media coverage? I rather thought it was the rapists' history. I saw articles following up afterward lamenting our poor judicial procedures, that this guy was out on the street at all. I didn't see a single one attacking Jill Meagher for being out alone late at night. Nor did I see any description of what she was wearing, other than to notice it (now, in hindsight) watching that security video. Was there something addressing her attire during the court case? I didn't read any transcript. If there was, I did not notice it. So when you say " the overwhelming reaction will always focus on what she was doing that led to her being raped" I'm going to use such a statement to fertilise my garden, again. Why don't you spend a few hours on that and try to back that up? I'm not saying I'm in need of fertiliser, due to the fact that every time I log on here I'm certainly bound to find plenty, but nonetheless.... I can always plant a new garden. Perhaps you saw something different. Perhaps that might have been influenced by your own particular views on the topic. A description of circumstances, Bells, is not necessarily an attack on the victim. Regardless of your own propensity to see it as such. You need to understand that. So does Tiassa. Of course rape prevention strategy is the norm. There is a reason for that. I myself might deplore the "motorist culture" pervading our streets; that it should be the responsibility of the motorist to be aware of his surroundings and take care to allow pedestrians right of way. To drive at 10km per hour at all times so that even if you do hit someone, you do not kill them. Or ride a bicycle to work instead. In light of that, should I take the idealistic stance and not teach my children to look both ways before they cross the road? I'll be damned if I'll do that. Because I understand that my ideals are not the reality that faces every pedestrian, every day. You look both ways. You be aware. And you argue about "motorist culture" somewhere else. Someday, we might arrive at a place where all children know they can run out in a busy street and not be afraid of being hit by a passing car. In the meantime, I'll teach them where the danger lies and how they might prevent it. That, Bells, is reality. You can sit there and present case after case of some kid who was killed even though he looked both ways before crossing the street, and it's still bullshit. Some kids might be killed, even though they do the right thing. You point those cases out, you do whatever it takes, until you no longer have to point them out. In the meantime, you do not stop teaching them how they might prevent it... until cars no longer exist at all. Reality. And if just one is saved because their parents taught them to look both ways, that's a win. A small one. One that won't solve the problem. But a win nonetheless. Which brings me to the main point. You and Tiassa don't really have an issue with rape prevention as a strategy. I think I understand that, I hope most do. What you've done here, is to decry and abuse someone who offers an opinion which differs in some aspects to your own. You don't have an issue with a pointless thread. There are hundreds of them, and as long as they remain mostly inoffensive to you personally, they remain until they die a natural death. This has been systematic. This is nothing more than the application of power. You can sit there on your keyboard and tell otherwise, but don't think for a moment I don't know. Don't bother defending yourself to me. I know your arguments, and I know you. That is why I'm here.
I'm terribly sorry to inform you of this... in case, of course, that you did not already know... but Tiassa will never understand that argument until he understands himself.
And, I suppose, one last thing before I move on. "We didn't stone her to death. We whipped her through the streets naked, yes, but we didn't stone her to death... this is a part of our culture, you must understand this." In response to Tiassa saying something about not banning Trooper. It does sound so terribly familiar, does it not?
That's all very interesting, although irrelevant to my observation about your deeming it necessary to protect women from themselves. The very notion that a man needs to protect a woman from her 'thought crime' is about as paternalistic and patriarchal as one can get. I've noticed a trend with left-wingers in that they are quite vocal about women's rights, *except* when said woman disagrees with them. At this point she becomes a pariah to be ridiculed, abused and shunned. If you had reviewed my previous post, you would notice that I made no mention of thread closures. So I find it quite interesting that you are justifying your locking of those threads, in spite of me never having called those closures into question. Feeling a tad defensive, are we? Or are you attempting to distract from the fact that you blatantly admitted to attempting to protect a woman from herself? I'm guessing it's a little from column A, and a little from column B. What I did take issue with is you singling Trooper out for ridicule in your concluding post on this thread you locked, essentially preventing her from responding to your allegations of her being an egotist who was engaging in dishonest behaviour. How on earth does that protect Trooper from herself?
Translation: "She didn't dance to the tune of the Pied Piper and follow our script, therefore we had to end the discussion on our terms by having the last word." When two people have a discussion, neither is under the obligation to answer each and every question, particularly if they deem it irrelevant. It is purely at the discretion of each individual as to what they say, and what they respond to, if they choose to respond at all. I know this may be a rather galling thought for some left-wingers, whom I know tend to have a penchant for controlling what people say, think and feel. After all, I doubt it's a coincidence that the governments best known for brainwashing its citzens were left-wing.
I think less drinks. No Marquis. What I deplore is the way in which people blame the victim for being raped. We see that aplenty here. Let me ask you something. Have you seen the list of rape prevention ideas out there? They range from your run of the mill don't wear certain clothes which no one has been able to explain how that works because grannies in their nighties are being raped in their homes to women in business suits, to women in jeans and any and all manner of dress, to walking down the middle of the street instead of on the side walk and not stopping at the scene of an accident or leaving the scene of an accident even if you are involved in said accident, because the other driver may be male and may rape you. More to the point, at which point can a woman not expect to be raped? I have seen people prattle on endlessly about how women's vaginas and their mouths and bodies are like cars, and how you lock your car to stop thieves from stealing your stereo. But no one, and I mean no one, has been able to come up with something that actually prevents rapes. And at no time has anyone ever been able to explain at what point a woman can expect to not be raped. The ridiculous irony of "rape prevention" is that we have men like you and women like Trooper and tali89 literally and openly blame rape victims for having been raped because they failed to act or behave a certain way. Yet, you all balk in horror and anger, complain about those evil "feminists", when it's pointed out that if women were to actually apply rape prevention, in the hope of preventing being raped, then women would view all men as being potential rapists. You can't have it both ways. You either want and expect women to prevent being raped and thus, see all men as being potential rapists. Or you don't and your idea of rape prevention is just a way to curtail how women live their lives. So which is it? Or do you believe that women are just so stupid that they need to be told to not speak to strangers, etc, like we tell our children to look both ways when they cross the road? Does your mother still tell you that? Or did she stop when you became mature enough to know better? Yet you think constantly reminding women of the mundane 'don't talk to strangers' constantly and prattling on and on about rape prevention and what she should do or behave like or live her life like if she doesn't want to be raped, is okay and because you describe it as rape prevention, it makes it all better? Really? You want to fly with that one? Absolutely hilarious. I mean, you want paternalistic? Try having some fuckwad tell you that if you really didn't want to be raped, you'd have guard dogs and would have slept with your phone in your hand and then stalk you because you weren't taking him seriously enough.. That has been systematic. See, this is why rape prevention ideology is simply nothing new, or something so out there that we must all drop what we are doing and stare in awe that someone was so clever to want to discuss it. She wasn't quoting anything we hadn't read or heard of before. I get it, you want to defend your little friend. That's fine. But don't be the blowhard and expect me to believe that you think what she was trying to discuss was so new and fresh and contrary to the norm. As for Jill Meagher, the writing was everywhere. Even while she was missing: On Monday, Neil Mitchell expressed the hope on 3AW that Meagher had been “off partying somewhere, [because] judging from her Facebook page she likes a good party”. That it’s become de rigueur for journalists to rummage around private Facebook pages in order to bolster stories is problematic enough - that Mitchell found it necessary to comment on what kind of lifestyle Meagher may or may not have enjoyed in a speculative story about her possible abduction simply beggars belief. It gets worse. Yesterday, Andrew Rule spent approximately a thousand words in the Herald Sun painting a picture of a beautiful, naive young woman who simply should have known better than to walk down dark, forboding Hope Street when another route would have served her better and proved safer. Rule uses the following lines (among others) to ostentatiously furrow his brow and waggle his finger at Meagher for neglecting to notice her vagina and take proper care of her safety: “Police believe the stretch of Hope St from Sydney Rd west across the railway line is Jill's usual route home to their apartment. “We all have our favourite routes, from habit rather than logic. But for a stranger looking around in daylight, there seems no obvious reason why a young woman would choose to walk this way home late at night ... There are better spots for a young woman to be walking alone after a night out drinking with workmates, ending in Sydney Rd after starting in the city." Except that no one, especially not Rule, has any idea which route Meagher took that night or if she was even on Hope Street. This moralising rubbish was predicated on the mere speculation that she may have been walking somewhere that Rule, in his infinite grown-up male wisdom, thinks is unsafe. You just chose not to look or see it, because this is what happens when women are attacked. Her actions fall under the microscope. Not her attacker's. Why would you notice something that is the norm and expected? It was nothing unusual, was it? That is why you think my seeing it (along with many others who also saw it) is because of my point of view. You did not see it because that type of reaction is normal for you. What wasn't the norm and what was unexpected and stood out was the sheer volume of people who spoke up and against those who blamed her for having been walking down that street. Marches were organised to demand that women have a right to walk down the street. Did you miss those? Did you miss the thousands who turned up to the "Reclaim the Night" marches? As I said, what Trooper posted was nothing new. Rape prevention is not so original that we must gasp with pure joy at its philosophical nature. Women have been putting up with that level of bullshit since Eve was blamed for corrupting Adam.
I'm sorry, what? What Government brainwashes its citizens? Please keep your woo woo to the woo woo forums.
Indeed, your response was exactly what I had anticipated, which pretty much proved my point, though I wager my point was lost entirely on you. I had, perhaps foolishly, expected more... ah well, c'est la vie.
Not at all - perhaps, more accurately, I should say I had hoped for more, but did not anticipate that hope being fulfilled.
Would you please start attending facts? What I take issue with is dishonesty. Attend the facts. You'll have to establish that as some sort of fact. Your descriptions of events at Sciforums is unreliable, as the labor required to evade facts is evident in your arguments. The alternative is to throw flags. The standing precedent is to simply close the thread. Should I have singled Trooper out in order to apply a different standard? Meanwhile, you are welcome to do a statistical analysis of thread closures and present the results. You have plenty of samples, and you'll find that in many cases we leave notes regarding why a thread was shut. You need to be able to establish your claims factually, Tali, and perhaps somewhere in there you could explain to me why Trooper needs a special standard separate from other people just because she is a woman, because it really does seem that you're upset that she was treated according to the standard procedure and not given special consideration for the allegation of her double-X. Do you understand what the phrase actually means to "single [a person] out"? You don't have to like this "protecting people from themselves" approach; it's a strange one that not all of us agree with, but at the same time it's the standard established by the Administration. It is not singling a person out treat them as we do everyone else. Then again, why does she need this extraordinary protection you imply? Why should she not be treated like everyone else? And why do you refuse to acknowledge facts?
So now you are denying that you locked the threads in order to 'protect Trooper from herself', despite explicitly stating that this was your intention in a previous post. You're essentially making a statement, and then contradicting it in the next breath, and acting as though both statements are congruent. That's some pretty Orwellian doublethink you've got going on there. You locked down a thread, and denigrated Trooper (and only Trooper) in your concluding post. I know in your Orwellian doublethink world you don't consider that 'singling a person out', but any reasonable person would think otherwise. So even if a woman doesn't want you 'protecting her from herself', you're going to do it anyway? Patriarchal. Chauvinistic. Disgraceful.
