Degrees of Misogyny

Maybe, but who cares? This was not what I was talking about.

If I would judge from what in the US propaganda counts as a "really oppressive society", I have enough experience about them. In most of them, police plays no big role, except from taking bribes for whatever, and do not even care about what you name horrible harassment among other people at all. The police itself does not need any such harassment, because they know they are the police, that means, they have the power, and the people know that too. What I have seen in many videos from the US about police behavior I have never seen anywhere else. Despite the fact that I have seen illegal behavior of police of different degrees, just because this is what they usually do in similar situations in this country - but it was anyway more civilized than what one usually sees in US police abuse videos.

For example, in an in comparison very oppressive society, Germany ("oppressive" if evaluated considering the density of various regulations and the rigor how these are enforced) the police is quite polite. Ok, not always, if you will be arrested by special forces in your home, you will be battered, but this is the exception of the rule. So, how the police and other gangs behave, depends a lot on the local culture.

LOL, it is already funny. I have asked Bell "quote him". Now you have decided to participate, and I think you already know that I don't accept such accusations without quotes.

So, please, if you think so, quote him, and with a link, so that I can check the quote as well as the context. You are known to be a person where this is necessary, scnr.

Maybe I have misunderstood something. There was explicit talk about a right not to be "harassed" (whatever this means). A right is something legal. If your rights are violated, you have at least the possibility to call the police. And if the law is so vague as it, by its very nature, has to be if it has to distinguish such vague things like a sexual harassment from a compliment, it is an unavoidable consequence that the police will be called on poor innocent men too. Ok, for the left there is no big issue with imprisoning innocents, so what. Not to imprisoning innocents is a classical liberal value, so has nothing to do with the modern left. I have to admit that I care about this value. I would guess, a Classical Liberalism Syndrome, not?

About a sufficiently innocent conversation of Bowser:

You see - even in your opinion even the same words may be fine in one environment and bad in another one.

In a situation where we have a rule of law, every person should be, in every circumstance, able to know, with sufficient certainty, some behavior is legal or not. It looks like "harassment", whatever this means, is incompatible with this criterion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very simple: It is useful for the society as a whole that it does not forbid any conversation between strangers. Because such conversations may have, sometimes, very useful results, as for the participants, as for the society as a whole.

Of course, one may not always like such a conversation with a stranger. Or, in particular, not with this particular stranger. So, the culture should give everybody a possibility to reject the conversation. And, in fact, this possibility exists.

Or not? Hm, your link gives an example of a conversation which, according to the author of the text, was violating this principle, because the conversation continued much longer than the author liked. But, sorry. The text of the conversation contained, in particular, a

in a context where "I couldn't care less" would have been the appropriate answer if one is not interested in a continuation of the conversation. Moreover, the author explicitly claimed "I hate to be rude".

Sorry, but here the author has a personal problem with saying "no" and blames society for his personal problem. If I hate to say "no", and I therefore answer "yes" if asked "do you want to s... me", sorry, this is my personal problem, not a social problem.

What is, instead, proposed? If one is "not sure whether or not she’s interested in talking to you, she’s probably not, but to make it very easy: Stop after two questions."

Sorry, but this rule heavily restricts the possibility to establish contacts in general. In fact, if one also takes into account the existing rules of conversation, which do explicitly not allow an "are you interested to have a nice evening with me at my home" as the second question, it would simply forbid one-night stands in general, at least for persons who follow cultural rules of conversation. Why? Because of her personal problem with saying no.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it is. You were talking about the material in the posts on this thread, and you were attempting to evaluate the nature of harassing contact by the content of the verbal expression.

He's already posted, right there on the forum, in front of you and referred to directly by you, just above your own posting. If you didn't read his posts, why did you object to the description of them?

The question is whether this right should be legally enforced, a legal right.

You mistake the nature of what laws would be involved: they would not make such fine distinctions, but instead draw more solid boundaries, and set the burden of proof according to reason.

As is true of all human actions, from sitting down in a chair to shooting someone in the face. So?

No, it doesn't. If it restricts you, take the lesson.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He doesn't need a right in a free country.
It is not assault to speak to a stranger in public.
If she makes it plain that she's not interested, and he persists, that's a different story.
But being out in public means, by definition, that one will interact (to at least some degree) with people.

It is not abusive, and it is not affliction; it is not every passing thought, and it is not demanding anything.

It may be considered polite to leave someone alone, but that is both subjective and circumstantial, and certainly not universal. It is no one's right to not be spoken to when they are in public (unless and until they express their desire to be left alone).

Public means public.

 

It is not always assault. It is sometimes assault.

It can be, and often (especially for women) is.

It is everyone's right to not be spoken to in certain ways, and under certain circumstances, in public. This is not mere politeness, but inherent in the right of everyone to equally and freely make use of the public ways.

 

I read the post I'm answering, and a little bit context around, but, of course, not the whole 24 pages of the thread.

If I have missed some important context, give a quote, with link to the source.

Ah, I see, you have completely misunderstood the point of my post.

The first two quotes have been really quotes. The question was if the first quote was about harassing or not. To check this, I have tried if this makes sense to replace the "it" by "harrassing women". The resulting text did not sound plausible - but it was not a quote from Bowser. And I have not attributed it to Bowser. Instead, I have clearly said that such an interpretation of Bowser's text "I think it's just a natural reaction for men to recognize beautiful women. Most do it silently, for sure." is not plausible at all.

No. The text written by Bowser was "I think it's just a natural reaction for men to recognize beautiful women. Most do it silently, for sure". It was not "I think harassing women is just a natural reaction for men to recognize beautiful women. Most do it silently, for sure". The second line was my modification of the text, made with the purpose to illustrate that your interpretation makes no sense.

So, please distinguish between the (quite irrelevant, given the amount of off-topic typical in such discussions) topic of the discussion as a whole, and what Bowser in particular was talking about. If he, in particular, has made some claims about harassing, quote them, with a link.

Given that there was no censorship, there was a lot of harassment around. It was nonetheless a good place.

Learn to read. My point was a completely different one. Not to harass other people is a moral obligation, those who harass other people are despicable.

A "right" which one cannot effectively enforce is a propaganda lie. A "right" which can be effectively enforced only by destroying the state of law is a dangerous propaganda lie.

If the police is irrelevant, then the use of the word "right" makes no sense. Rights are things I can enforce using the legal system. Once you use the word "rights", you at least implicitly argue that women should have the possibility to call the police. What else would be the point of mentioning rights?

This is the usual way to extend the police state. Somebody wants to get a possibility to call the police if something happens which he does not like. What to do? Invent a right. A right always sounds nice, because everybody wants to have rights. And then the next step is the natural one, the police comes to enforce the new right.

 

Fine. It means, if you have something to object, it will be easy for you to quote him with a link.

A meaningless question. If I object to some claim, I quote the claim.

The problem is that for censorship laws there cannot be solid boundaries. In principle. In reality, such vague laws leads to arbitrariness.

The lesson would be that I would have to reject all established rules of civilized conversation, or to stop contacting strangers. As I have explained. It would not be a personal problem for me, because I do not contact strangers anyway. But it would be a quite stupid restriction for the society as a whole.

 

There is a free market way to institute voluntary censorship, that does not take away freedom of speech.

Deceptive speech starts at the highest levels, is often connected to the needs of money and power. This information then trickles down to the media and then the masses. For example, if the race baiting industries are called in at election time, to earn their pay from above, they may need to come up with deceptive narratives. If these are clever and supported by the media, this will trickle down and become the mantra of the masses. You don't solve the problem by addressing the lowest level of speech, since there is always new trickle down to beat the technicality of the law. Or like President Obama showed, the Justice department can be made to look in different ways, depending on how the violators vote.

The way you deal with this is by using free market forces. Information is like food for the mind and for the heart. What you hear, believe and think impacts how you see reality. Information is like food than can impact the health of the mind. The idea would be to go back and look at the past and present, fact and accuracy check information at the top of the food chain, who provide the masses with information. We then put a warning label, like the person is a food, that shows the good and bad ingredients.

Like with fast foods, merchants are still allowed to sell the Big Mack or large gulp drink, and people are still allowed to eat. However, we show calories, fats, gluten and lack of vitamins, so people are informed enough to shop around for the healthiest sources of information or at least learn enough to moderate. Freedom of speech is preserved.

For example, when Trump first started to run for president, many of the top media players and experts did not have a clue. The experts created the illusion of being all knowing and all seeing; meat and potatoes, but they were mostly rice cakes and bubble gum. This data would be added to their warning label, on an information web site. Free market forces will then act using this information.

The data base development; online or a cable station, would have the advantage of being able to go back 10-20 years and seeing what happened in past, and what each person predicted, before it happened, to see who is rice cake and who is steak. It will also show if anyone fails to provide obvious information; withholding data to deceptively shift the narrative. This is like saying my food contains real Maine Lobster, but is really a cheap imported fish. Once this information is compiled on a rating scale, people will migrate to the best tasting, healthy and reliable food information. Although some still like to be entertained and will want junk food, which is fine.

The free market will adjust how it prepares information food, to gain market share, with the daily trickle down helping the masses in all markets, to be move toward truthful and rational.

 

Agreed. And when it is assault, it should be treated as assault. Likewise, when it is not assault, it should not be treated as assault.

Since he didn't assault her (including verbally); this a red herring.

True. Fortunately for our hypothetical gentleman on the street, his greeting does not fall under that category of 'certain ways and certain circumstances'.

It is not someone's right to not be spoken to, in public.

 

Precisely. We are a social species and that requires communication.

To take an extreme example, do I need to get a notarised permission to say to someone - quite forcefully - "Look out, there's a truck!" In a more mundane situation should I feel offended if someone stops to ask me for directions, or declares "Isn't it a lovely day", or - while gazing down at the Thames from Hammersmith bridge - says "I love to look at the flow of the water. Do you ever pause to reflect on it?"

In each instance I have the option to ignore them completely, tell them to ****-off, give a polite yet non-committal reply, or seek to extend the conversation further. In none of these instances have my rights, or those of the person addressing me been violated. They may suffer disappointment at some of the responses, but that's life.

On the other hand if the conversation initiator says "How big is your dick?", or "Those tits are massive!", then the recipient of the question/remark is entitled to feel offended. If it happens down a dark alleyway at 2.00 am they are entitled to feel threatened.

Context and content are everything.

 

Oh yes, this appears to be the tendency these days.

 

But it does, quite often.

Hence the problem.

Nonsense. It's not only not usual, it's probably nonexistent. Never in history has a police state been extended by granting politically less powerful or subjugated people the individual right to call the police when they are being individually harassed, with the expectation the police will defend them.

 

As if this would be the point. The point of extending the police state is simply extending the power of the police to arrest people, for whatever pretense.

 

It was your point. This one: "This is the usual way to extend the police state. Somebody wants to get a possibility to call the police if something happens which he does not like."

That's your idea of how police states come to be.

I agree it was laughable.

It is also politically threatening, as in any protection racket setup: convince people their only choice is between police state and open vulnerability to continual thuggery on the street, people may very well eventually (after experiencing the street) choose police state - take away the option of sound and principled governance, enough people may choose tyranny to make it happen. You won't get your anarchy. People don't want to live in fear all the time - not even women.

Both untrue and irrelevant. It is obviously possible to make laws governing public behavior clear and enforceable, in principle. It is also possible to curb the street harassment of women without "censorship laws".

If the only way you can see to avoid harassing and threatening women on the street is to stop contacting strangers, then you had better do just that.

 

Deplore and Denounce

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

"It is useful for the society as a whole that it does not forbid any conversation between strangers. Because such conversations may have, sometimes, very useful results, as for the participants, as for the society as a whole."

―Schmelzer, #462↑​

Raw Story↱ reports:

A prominent feminist writer and columnist said she is being forced to abandon social media after receiving rape and death threats against her 5-year-old daughter.

On Twitter, popular writer Jessica Valenti wrote: "This morning I woke up to a rape and death threat directed at my 5 year old daughter. That this is part of my work life is unacceptable."

Valenti, author of 2007's Full Frontal Feminism and co-author of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape in 2008, becomes the latest in an increasingly long line of women who have been harassed and threatened online by anonymous stalkers from SNL cast member Leslie Jones to Gamergate targets Anita Sarkeesian, Briana Wu and Zoe Quinn.​

Schmelzer, I do deplore and denounce your advocacy of rape and murder threats against children.

The only useful result for society is the reminder of why such "conversations" are exactly unacceptable in civilized society.

Your advocacy is sickness.
____________________

Notes:

Boggioni, Tom. "Prominent feminist writer drops off social media after rape threat against her 5-year-old daughter". Raw Story. 27 July 2016. RawStory.com. 28 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2ahNEMI

 

I like this overview of the Valenti departure: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2...es-jessica-valenti-driven-offline-by-threats/

 

So what? Do I have mentioned in this considerations irrelevant characterizations of these "someones", like, say, their particular race, nation, sexual orientation, religious belief, political ideas, culture, or their legal situation long ago, or so? These are irrelevant details which can be changed. What matters is the extension of the power of the state.

There is no option of "sound and principled governance", except in propaganda fantasies for the sheeple. The governance we see around is unsound and violates all reasonable principles of civilized behavior.

I will get my anarchy after a reasonable anarchistic reputational system is created and accepted by the people. But this is a question which is off-topic, it was not the aim to discuss how an anarchistic society may be created.

You think naming some claim "obviously" is an argument?

Again: Of course, it is possible to govern public behavior. But if this governing includes governing of speech, it cannot be, by construction, precise enough to meet the elementary criteria of a state of law. This is a classical argument, http://ilja-schmelzer.de/agora/Zinoviev.php

And if the only way to stop crime is to imprison everybody, than you had better do just that. Except that the crime rate in jail is much larger, but who cares.

 

The quote is certainly not an advocacy of rape and murder threats against children.

If you would have written this in a German forum, and if I would not be an anarchist who would never use a state court for myself out of principle, you would face now a process because of defamation.

But, given that I'm used to defamations, threats, and similar attacks, and will never use a state agency to restrict free speech, feel free to continue your defamations.