Process, Ethics, and Justice: An Inauspicious Note Regarding the Politics of Rape Culture

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Dec 17, 2017.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    What was bizarre about asking for clarification, to ensure that both parties were on the same page? Lol, your righteous indignation is hilariously off target.

    If it's misogynistic to demand the law be fair and just, well, then we have a serious problem.

    Notable that you've not put forth any useful suggestion as to how to fix the problem. Why is that?

    Also worth recognizing your immediate desire to attack someone else while utterly failing to address the argument that was actually made.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    My questions were never answered, and my posts never responded to honestly by you.
    By now? Why you guys can't post honestly and without slander in response to my posting here.
    I see no way for me to discuss anything else, or address my initial basis (political power) in a thread about politics, ethics, and justice, in a culture immersed in rape-abetting custom. All such issues are blocked
    No, you didn't. You changed the subject to her flaws of analysis otherwise and your objections to the specific "grading" she had assigned and so forth. The subject - that not all sexual harassment is equivalently serious, and that circumstances matter, and that reasonable people know this automatically (with what that implies politically) - you dodge. Every time.
    None of that happened in my posting.
    The entire point of my "ridiculous" situations (there were more than one) is that even you would find them absurd, for example. You then verified my contention - but pretended it didn't exist, and I was talking about something else. That was dishonest of you.
    Dishonest.
    1)You haven't seen me do that about anybody - your attempted claim there is false, the attempted slander is noted -
    2) and it wouldn't matter here if you had. Lumping all these guys is what I specifically don't do. You do that, not me. "Partisan" has nothing to do with that difference.
    I took offense to that because you directly labeled my posts (and my person) as partisan, placed me on one of your "sides", refused multiple corrections of that bs, and insisted on repeating and emphasizing these idiotic presumptions of yours despite their being not true of my posts - right in front of you. You were slandering, misrepresenting, and lying, about my posts, and me. I find that offensive.
    I quoted my subject of interest. It was mine - my subject of my post. You changed it, to dodge in your response. You do that a lot. That is dishonest, every time you do it.
    You have been corrected so often and in such detail that claiming to need yet more clarification about these same repeated matters is dishonest.
    It just means more shit like this:
    Dishonest.
    You cannot post honestly in response to me in this thread. It's impossible for you.

    So the question becomes - since no other questions can be handled in such an environment - why that is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Who are you talking about, Franken? Please do post again what these corroborators saw. I will believe when I see charges.

    Jesus, this is some circular projection here. You are literally announcing you are a zealot with no intention of giving us rational and honest discourse by claiming we aren't.

    I have repeatedly laid down my argument and all you people do is deny and slander and you dare not actually counter my argument, you dare not answer my questions, because you can't.

    So once again: what is your solution? All we got is the court of law, that is it, social media is a lynch mob in which anyone with social capital has the power to harm anyone else or be immune from harm, the republicans got social capital and they are immune, they are so immune with there "fake news" brigadiers a self admitted pussy grabber daughter fucking pig boar is president! So what do you people do: attack the democrats, because they are powerless, no one will protect them, stand up for them, just hand trump a second term why don't you?
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    #ouroboros | #startmakingsense

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To start, it might be helpful if you would start making sense.

    I mean—

    —you do realize that your entire premise this time around would seem to be whatever it takes—

    —to feel better about yourself for having said something angry.

    See, not so long ago you were on about due process for those who labored to escape it. Now it seems your entire premise is something nearly opposite, but the transition in #121↑ is nearly funny. No, really, in one section you're still bangin' on about due process, in the next your whole point is about wealth and power and retaliation.

    Furthermore—

    • In #134 ("my entire premise")↑, you respond to Parmalee↑, who in turn is responding to Bells↑, who is making a certain point about ElectricFetus↑ blaming victims trapped within systems that struggle against the due process you've been whining about↑.​

    —it's rather quite difficult how anything other than statements like the bits about wealth and power in #121, or what needs fixed in #134, actually works toward the ends those statements describe.

    Additionally, "wealth and power" is not the right term; it's about perceptions of power (cf., Hubbard↑). Bells↑ has noted this along the way, and this aspect↑ has confused you↑ before; that confusion, of course, is a matter of subordinating the narrative of sexual violence to political aesthetic, and something goes here about the question of what sexual violence you find acceptable for the needs of your political aesthetic. You're not really moving outside your circle↑.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Deutsch, Barry. "Trial". Ampersand. 19 January 2017. LeftyCartoons.com. 22 December 2017. http://bit.ly/2j73Tpq

    Hubbard, Shanita. "Russell Simmons, R. Kelly, and Why Black Women Can't Say #MeToo". The New York Times. 15 December 2017. NYTimes.com. 18 Deceember 2017. http://nyti.ms/2CXp8jK
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    God heaven's, you're still going on about it.

    My answer was then and remains now.. "Neither".

    You can discuss whatever you wish. But when you refuse to accept my answer to a question, when you jump in to my commenting to someone else to bring up god knows what else and then accuse me of not answering or being dishonest towards you, and you accuse me of slander for asking you what it is you actually wish to discuss now..

    I mean, pretty much everything is slander now, isn't it? Even asking you what it is you want to talk about is slander.

    Yes, I was actually addressing her grading and addressed that with an explanation of why what she was saying was bad.

    You seem to be on about something else entirely. And her comments were about sexual harassment. My response, was about sexual harassment and how it pertains to rape culture. Did you read the whole section of text that I quoted in my initial response to you about it? As in, the whole thing? Or did you read the first paragraph and then go 'nup, different subject!'?

    What Sommers described as "lesser annoyances".. Here is the part of that quote that addresses what she would classify as a "lesser annoyance":

    Just recently, a woman I know was left alone in her workplace with a man she'd never met before. Almost immediately he was standing too close to her, asking questions about her life, talking about things he'd seen on her Facebook page, whether she was a feminist.

    If you think this sounds innocuous, you're wrong. It wasn't. She was terrified.

    He might have just been a slightly socially awkward guy trying to make conversation. Or he could have been a stalker with violent tendencies. There's really no way to tell the difference between them until it's too late, so as soon as she was put in that position, she had to start calculating the arithmetic of violence.
    What is he really trying to do here? Do I smile and placate him, or will that add up to an invitation in his mind? Will it make me look weak? Will that encourage him or pacify him? If I go strong and demand he leaves, will that enrage him or deter him? What can I do that won't make him angry? What do I do if he does get angry? If I run will he chase me? Where do I go? How far is safety? What can I use to defend myself? Who can hear me if I scream? How will he react if I pick up my phone and text someone? What if I'm wrong and he tells everyone I'm freaky and paranoid? What if I'm right and he hurts me? If he tries to hurt me do I let him so he doesn't hurt me even more? How dare he make me feel like this, how angry will he get if he sees my anger?

    This particular woman in this particular situation managed to make an excuse to leave the room, run to the next building and find a (male) colleague who had no difficulty throwing him out, and no fear at all of leaving work alone later that night.

    Male friends of hers who knew the man told her afterwards that she had nothing to fear. "He's an idiot, but he's not a threat," they said with kindly reassuring smiles.

    How do they know this? From their vast experience of being a physically small woman alone in a room with a him? From their deep understanding of the way threatening men behave towards women when no other men are around?

    And here's where we get to the #NotAllMen fallacy. Because, of course, not all men are dangerous. But some men definitely are, and they look exactly like the men who aren't.

    So what are women to do in that situation? If we assume he's not a threat and we're wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic. If we assume he is a threat and we're wrong, the consequences could be that we got away from a creepy conversation and the man in question is left a bit confused by our sudden departure.

    I know which one I'd choose.

    The continuum of sexual violence, which starts with so called "jokes", escalates through cat calling, stalking, grabbing, assault, and finishes with rape and murder.

    Almost all women (nine out of 10 women in Australia) have experienced street harassment and many of them recognise it as an expression of power and entitlement.

    Some women may well have the strength and confidence to shake it off, think of it as nothing more than a problem in the men who do it, not a problem for the women who are the targets of it.

    But far too many women know the deeper reality of male violence. Millions of Australian women have been subjected to physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives. And all women who have been lucky enough to escape it themselves know women who haven't.

    So it is very much about sexual harassment and rape culture.

    I don't believe I did that. We seem to be discussing two very different things.
    Okay.
    Yep.
    So I was addressing something to EF, you quoted your subject of interest and discussed something else, by the looks of it, I responded in regards to what I had addressed with EF, and apparently I changed something or other, because you were addressing something else. Is that about right?
    I will be perfectly honest with you, I do not know what this latest gripe is truly about. I was addressing something EF posted. You responded, I responded still discussing what EF posted. Apparently this was wrong. Hence I am seeking further clarification.

    The fact that you are yet to give it tells me that you are on here to complain about something something, without telling me directly what this new something something is, while dragging your previous something something's to the fray to complain about it again and to demand I answer a question that I have answered dozens of times already.

    Well I made the statement, you told me it was dishonest.

    So I'll ask again, what are you on about now?
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Easy: any sexual violence that the victim won't bring to the police or civil court. If the victim does not bring it to police or court, then nothing can be done, it is that simple... still waiting for you to tell us what you think should be done?

    I have no problem saying the judicial system sucks and is painful and is often unfair and even injustice (shit the juice is lose) but what alternative are you asking for?
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Sooo simple and easy. It's amazing victims have not thought of it for themselves!

    Meanwhile, reality:

    In the spring of 2011, Susan D., a fresh-faced US government employee in her thirties, was raped by a man she met on an internet dating site. Deeply shocked, she could not sleep for two days. On the third day, she finally summoned the courage to go to the hospital for a forensic exam—a four-hour procedure involving a pelvic exam and extensive collection of evidence from her body.

    At Washington Hospital Center (WHC), where she went for the exam, Susan met a female detective from the Sexual Assault Unit (SAU) of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)—one of the 10 largest local police agencies in the United States and the primary law enforcement agency for the District of Columbia. The detective insisted that Susan talk to her before speaking to a rape crisis center advocate (as Susan had requested), and before having an exam. Shaking and shocked, Susan agreed.[5]

    For the next three hours, the detective questioned Susan, interrupting her frequently in a manner—as Susan saw it—to discourage her from reporting the assault and belittle her experience. For example, the detective interrupted Susan to say that what she had described was “not a crime,” to assert that she was herself raped twice, and to imply that Susan should consider how she would ruin her assailant’s life if she filed a report. The detective later told a nurse she thought Susan did not need a forensic exam, although the nurse did in fact administer one.

    Susan later waited in vain for police to process the crime scene and collect her clothes for evidence. After an investigator hired by her assailant made threatening calls, Susan tried three times to reach the detective assigned to her case but never heard back and was unable to transfer her case to another detective. After six weeks, the police closed Susan’s case without prosecution. In the following months, Susan was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which she believes was partly due to her contact with the MPD. “Reporting to the police was far more traumatizing than the rape itself,” she said.

    Here's another one:

    Two hospital staff members reported that in October 2010, a victim was brought to the hospital after a passerby spotted a trail of blood leading to a hotel room and called the police. When police arrived at the scene, they found a woman naked, bloody, and unconscious in a tub filled with ice in a hotel room bathroom. Five men were passed out in the room. The victim had lost significant amounts of blood, had a tear from her vagina to her rectum, and required emergency surgery and a blood transfusion. According to the staff members, an SAU detective told someone who works with sexual assault survivors, “Well, she could have fallen on rocks and may not have had panties on. Also what kind of girl is in a room with five guys?”

    And on and on it goes.

    The police and prosecutors, either deliberately tanked investigations, treated the victims like criminals for reporting being raped or sexually assaulted, dismissed them completely, others denied a rape kit had been done, despite being at the hospital when said rape kit was collected, others refused to gather evidence, some victims were questioned by police for hours and the victims were denied the right to even have legal counsel present.

    One victim, despite being kidnapped and raped and sodomised multiple times, and kept in a locked room that the fire department had to break down to get her out:

    In April 2011, Maya T., a 37-year-old woman visiting D.C. from Virginia, reported being abducted and locked in a small room with nothing but a bucket to use as a toilet for three days. During that time, two men raped and sodomized her. While in captivity, she found a cell phone and managed to call 911. The fire department had to break down a door, padlocked from the outside, to reach her. An ambulance took Maya to the hospital where two SAU detectives met her.

    Though she was feeling drugged and unwell, the detectives demanded a detailed timeline of what happened at the hospital. When she had difficulty responding, a detective told her she was “wasting their time” and “lying.” He asked her if she “knew what penalty a false report brought” and said that he “didn’t even want to file it.” [208] He said the suspects told different stories from hers and that “no one would believe” her.

    The other detective made a number of insulting remarks to Maya during the interview, commenting on her ability to speak Spanish and her body and implying that she wanted to return to the place where she was assaulted because her assailant was bringing her food. After the interview, the detectives did not open an investigation but instead filed a “miscellaneous” report or “office information.” [209]

    Maya tried to contact the detective to give a statement two days later, when she felt more stable, but he refused to hear it. He said that her case was a “miscellaneous report” and that she had “had consensual sex” with the men. He refused her effort to turn over physical evidence (the suspect’s cell phone, which she used to make the call). When she asked about her forensic exam, the detective said, “Rape kit? What rape kit?” [210]

    A review of the investigative file indicated that Maya’s impression that the police took the suspects at their word was correct. The initial report did not include much of Maya’s account of what happened but rather indicated she was kept in a locked room with her consent (the suspect indicated that they both locked the door from the inside and out because the landlord would charge extra rent if he saw her).

    The notes indicate Maya called the police when she “felt caged in.” It said Maya “could not keep her story straight” and that she “had been having consensual intercourse with this guy and that he had been feeding her” and that “she did not scream or holler.” (The report also noted, however, that she was found “yelling” from upstairs and informed officers on the scene that she had been forced to have sex against her will for the last three days). The detective closed the case as unfounded at the time of his interview with Maya. [211]

    The MPD investigated the case only after Maya hired an attorney to follow up and complain about how she was treated. Further investigation revealed information consistent with Maya’s account (the suspects confirmed she was left in a room with only a bucket as a toilet and had little or no food during her stay, only alcohol, and there was no inside doorknob for her to “lock herself in;” the 911 call transcript indicated she reported being kidnapped, raped, and possibly drugged). The case stalled when detectives refused to allow Maya to have her lawyer with her for a photo line-up “in order to keep the process pure.” [212] Senior prosecutors interviewed for this report knew of no policy or reason preventing a victim’s lawyer from being present for a photo line-up. [213]


    So when you demand that victims will only be taken seriously when they go to the police, or how did you put it? Be treated like "adults" if they go to the police, did you for once, factor in to what happens when victims do go to the police?

    I mean, we've been posting links and discussing it for a while now, so I need to ask, what kind of person keeps making those demands, despite knowing that these victims are victimised even more when they do report it?


    Oh geez, that's a tough one!

    Maybe, just maybe, stop victimising the victims even more and making demands of them so that they can fit this twisted ideal for people like you to take them seriously? That might be a bit of a start, don't you think?

    You are all harping on and on about due process. Not a single one of you has taken the time to recognise that the victim has none and your demands are solely to protect and defend the perpetrator.
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    aahh, and your solution is ... ?

    Yes, yes I did... are you a child? Do you still think life is nice and fair?

    A cynical realist who has asked for pages now for someone to provide a better solution.

    aahh, and that does what exactly? Follow the steps here: Ok so we have a victim, we have a suspect, the first thing you want to do is pat the victim on the head and say "I believe you" ok sure, that seems like simple courtesy, but then what? What is next?

    Protect and defend the accused from what? What do you want done to the accused?

    In the old days if the accused was a black man and a white women accused him of sexual assault, "we just don hung him from a tree", is that what you want?

    Oh if a person is white and rich and has political power, then it is ok? punching up eeh? Well the only punching up I want is for the rich to pay way more taxes, because that has practical benefit for all, lynching a rich man does not, it does nothing.

    How about this: someday in the future they just upload date from the brain of the victim, compare with the date from the brain of the accused, determine guilt in milliseconds and then deliver a tailored cybernetic program to the accused brain, rendering them "fixed", the victims brain is cleaned of damage as well. Heck further in the future there won't even be sex or sex drive or a sense of fear or sense of violation... problem fixed completely, but we don't live then.

    So again, what do your propose be done now?
     
  12. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Fascinating discussion. I never knew there were such major differences in opinion among people who all seem to be fairly progressive, (at least to me).
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    1) Training for all police officers in regards to dealing with sexual assault victims and crimes. And yearly refresher courses. - Which would cover believing the victim, not passing judgement on the behaviour of the victim leading up to, during and after the sexual assault (such as questions about what they were wearing, why they were drinking, etc).
    2) Rape counselors be present and in the room with the rape victim as they are making their report, to ensure their welfare is protected and to ensure the police officers and prosecutors handling the case do not, well, fuck up.
    3) All rape kits be treated as actual evidence and processed in a timely manner.
    4) Victims stop being charged for the rape kits.
    5) Police and prosecutors stop harassing victims. Police officers stop giving out the contact details of victims to the accused.
    6) Police monitor social media to ensure the victim is not further victimised by the accused and those connected with the accused.
    7) Police follow up on these cases, instead of just tanking them.
    8) Prosecutors actually prosecute rape cases, instead of dropping charges because they don't like the victim or they think it's too hard, and because they want to protect the accused.
    9) Police and prosecutors actually act for the victim, instead of against the victim.

    That's just for starters when it comes to the criminal justice system.

    Then clearly you do not care about what victims go through.

    And solutions were provided. You just refuse to accept that rape is even a problem that warrants any attention.

    I mean, you refer to victims as children, because apparently it's only adults to report it to the police. You come out with utter rubbish like this:

    Despite various solutions being presented.

    Most importantly I guess we just had expectations that you would respond as a human being, with some form of empathy. But, you are a misogynist. We should not expect too much from you.

    This has been addressed already.

    Because this is what I said?

    Well, it's nice to see that you value money above women.

    Yes, but that would require your precious tax dollars going towards such research.

    And we can't have that, can we?

    On a more realistic level, society can just start recognising women as human beings with fundamental human rights. Much cheaper. Think of how much money you would save.

    Well I have a few proposals, but they aren't fit for printing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    ridiculous example considering not all women read trash romance novels. romance novels may appeal to a certain subset of the female population.

    i've read a couple and thought they were really stupid and did not think any of the characters were attractive as they were described one-dimensionally.
     
  15. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    the justice system has it's ridiculous flaws. for one, i think it's unfair (even ridiculous) when a teenager or someone who is barely passed their teens is considered a sex offender in a consensual relationship. say, for instance an eighteen year old with a 16 year old and branded a rapist, pedophile and sex offender equal to real sex offendors like much older men inappropriately targeting much younger women, especially children and teens to overpower and take advantage of which is sick.

    that said, i don't understand what point you are really trying to make because false accusations is a crime in itself. what would your local community think of you if you were accused of any crime, which happens? they probably would not think as highly of you as before so it's not just with sexual assault. besides that, people have all types of opinions of others based on another's opinions, slander, or gossip, right or wrong, fair or unfair, regardless; that's because of the world we live and that's how many people are. a lot of people endure that unfairly, not just with criminal accusations and people can be just as harsh and prejudicial.

    it is terrible that there are bad people who make false accusations against others, especially criminally, which can be a harrowing and unfair experience for the innocent but what can you do except make the penalties real for such type of crimes to deter it. as for public opinion, gossip, misinformation, judgement etc, you can't change that unfortunately.

    so what is your point? that people should not make accusations just because there are those who make false accusations? then that's insane.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    My point is fairly simple - nothing else will matter until we fix our justice system to actually be a system of justice for everyone. No more kid gloves for the rich and powerful. No more extraordinarily harsh sentences for non violent drug offenses and/or those who can't afford a great attorney.

    Once the laws we have are justly and equitably applied, then we can work on whatever gaps are left.

    Until then, though, we will continue to have those who are virtually immune to consequences by virtue of their power. Imagine a world where the Weinsteins and Turners and such weren't able to intimidate those they attack thru threats of retaliation. Wouldn't that be a world worth pursuing?
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    But that hasn't really been the point you had been making. By constantly bringing up false accusation and whatnot, you have basically been trying to diminish what victims experience.

    And you have done this repeatedly.

    The majority of people who sexually harass, sexually assault and rape are not "rich and powerful". And why this sudden obsession with the rich and powerful?

    Why are you focusing on them so much?

    Great.

    No, really, that's great.

    But what does this have to do with rape culture and the politics of rape culture in particular?

    And what does that mean, exactly?

    Can you please elaborate? What gaps are you talking about?

    So what do you propose be done? How do you propose this be done?

    For example, all of your ranting and raving these last few weeks, has been because some rich and powerful men were accused of sexual harassment. Remember your constant prattle about "due process"? It is astonishing just how you are now arguing the complete opposite to what you were arguing, when only a few posts ago, you were complaining about false accusations, despite having been told that these are rare and your constant referencing to it was perpetuating a dangerous myth against victims.

    So who is immune to the consequences? The men you were complaining about regarding their supposed lack of due process? The victims? Or someone else entirely?

    And imagine a world where men like Weinstein and co, did not sexually harass, assault or rape women, because they recognised that women were human beings and not mere sex objects.

    That depends. Are you going to keep spreading the myth of false allegations?

    I mean, who do you intend to really protect with your 'down with power and money' speech here? Who or what are the gaps that you think should be dealt with later?

    Or is this another cart analogy and that flick needs to be switched?
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Not all men watch porn, what is your point? I'm (and he is) talking about averages, norms, the norm is driven by evolution. The average women is pickier about mates then men because evolution selected her to be picky and utilize her limited opportunities to reproduce well, men were only selected to search for fertility and fuck it. Women care more about their bodies and the protection of their bodies because of the evolutionary consequences of having a womb, men don't as much because men can't get impregnated, and because a man that did not risk his life, repeatedly, did not get the attention and love of women.

    All this is why there is a huge difference in how much men care about sexual assault on them, verse how much women care. Thankfully in our modern society we have equality under the law.

    Yeah, yeah, your intentionally not talking about what the do with the accused, so what do you want done with the accused? Yeah all that you posted I have no contention with, never had, what do you want done with the accused?

    Yeah and? Look do all the cuddling you want, I don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with granting special rights to people over other people, so aah what do you want done with the accused?

    Political attention, no. Next up the "war on chrismas" and how the Christians are sooo oppressed for believing, should be given attention.

    I prefer victims as adults, if they don't go to police then nothing can be done to the accused, you remember that right? what do you want done with the accused?

    Yeah I care about bigger issues then the fee-fees of men or women. Look I don't care about the feelings of other men, so why should I care about the feelings of women? I care about tangible things, like do they have healthcare, food, water, education, who they vote for, rights, I care about rights.

    Oh well could you state it again, I seemed to miss it.

    No you seem to intentional avoid the issue completely: what do you want done with the accused?

    I value rights above money, or women, everyone has rights, if not our society collapses. so aaah what do you want done with the accused?

    As long as republicans are in charge, no, I would love my precious tax dollars going toward such research, but that is like step 42, right now step 1 is overcoming republican rule, and we can't do that with people like you destroying us via a lynch mobs

    They already do. Do you think men get treated any better reporting being raped or sexual assaulted?
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    The issues is between economic justice progressives and social justice progressives.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Dishonest.
    And if you could post honestly, when you responded you would not lie, slander, and misrepresent what that was.
    But you can't.
    Dishonest.
    You cannot post honestly in response to me in this thread.
    Dishonest.
    I read none of it. It was irrelevant - you dodging and reframing again, banging on about some objection you have to the writings of someone named "Sommers" instead of acknowledging the subject of my post.
    Nope.
    You changed the subject of my post, thereby dodging it. You presented your response to that change as if it were a response to my post. That was dishonest. The various innuendos and pejoratives you attached to me by way of that reframing and misrepresentation were slanders. You've been doing that a lot. You've been doing almost nothing else, when responding to my posts.
    Really. Here's my shocked face - #.
    By now you're believing your own bs - that's what happens to people who post like you've been posting in response to me.
    And this revision of history, this corruption of memory and event, is dangerous right now. It's solidly fixed in an influential faction of the Minnesota DFL, for example, which creates a political vulnerability on the eve of what has been made (by DFL fecklessness) into a critical, watershed, and insecure election in the State. A dangerous, almost emergency situation. The GOP will not overlook it.
    When reason is abandoned, power and money wins.
    No shit, Sherlock. There's my posting, and there's your representation of it, for starters - very different, indeed.
    But there's nothing to be done about that. Moving on, the question becomes: why?
    - -
    And I'll answer again - third time now? fourth? too lazy to count - Your inability to post honestly in response to my posts in this thread. Your inability to post without slandering, lying, misrepresenting, reframing, and otherwise avoiding the subjects of my posts, and the issues I attempted to address.

    Not just because my original interests and issues here are hopeless of consideration for the time being,
    and not just because the matter is directly and intricately bound into the ethics of justice and process in the current American culture of abuse tolerance,

    but also because this retreat into rhetorical bullshit, this revision of history and corruption of reason in this matter, is not some quirk of this forum or this thread or a couple of posters here - it's a serious factor in a critical election in my State.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  21. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    stupid. the ones who don't take risks do just as well or no differently. my stepfather was secretly an extreme coward (narcissist who never risked himself in any situation) with a very patriarchal strong facade and he had no problem finding mates and married twice.

    he made sure everyone else was hung out to dry in his care before he was, even his wife, and not a good provider either. there are a lot of men like this too and they have no problem getting 'women'. shocking to you. are those women from another planet and not counted in this 'average'? lmao

    however, i've never been married even once and definitely don't want to.

    from life experience, there is zero validity to this, especially when it comes to 'average' population which would be average people. they don't have high standards and don't expect much either in the way of character or intelligence or even much of looks. you are referring to 'average' right? do you realize how stupid average actually is? if you mean stupid risk-taking and impulsivity such as drug use, abuse, cheating, drunk-driving etc, then yes, average women have no problem with that as well or don't consider such traits warrant ending a relationship. it also doesn't stop them from beginning one either.

    pay attention to this part: why? because they are also 'average' women to average men. they don't want better because they don't appreciate or understand better.

    in other words, all in all, they have no real problem finding mates (many) or hookups, period.

    can't see the apples for the trees.

    and the truth is many women are like this with men as well.

    ironicly, i could argue against your premise that it's women who are picky. i've seen a meme in society where women are even more desperate and less picky than males; they are also willing to put up with things men often won't and especially for long. this seems to be the average considering average women put up with abuse, cheating etc from males more than men will and even average women don't even care if they are educated or have a good career, some will even take care of a man.

    there are tons of loser men who have relationships and women stay with them. so what imaginary average are you referring to? concocted by someone who doesn't notice real life?

    you are conflating two issues but don't realize it. pickiness has nothing to do with it, it's just that males are more apt to sexually harass than women are because they are more forceful. men also don't like to be sexually harassed by women they are not attracted to either.

    intelligent women recognize sexual harassment for what it is and that is weakness disguised, otherwise they wouldn't need to force themselves and instead have qualities that would be accepted by their target. but then again, being rejected doesn't always mean one is inferior or superior, it's just indicates incompatibility.

    one should be sensible enough to take no for an answer and move onto someone more compatible, instead of just randomly and moronicly throwing themselves at anyone and wondering why they aren't getting anywhere. it's stupidity and insanity to continue on a course of action where it will get you either into trouble or nowhere. sexual harassment does not win over the other and never works. the only trifling aspect is perhaps the depraved thrill of having irritated. hurt or degraded someone at their expense. people who sexually harass or assault are lowlives.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2017
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Soooo.. The majority of that is about how dishonest I am. And you can't exactly answer what you are going on about as it pertains to the subject of sexual harassment and rape culture.. Perhaps you can take your complaint to the appropriate forum or to the administration? Because I am about to have my whole family descend on my house in the coming hours for the several days, and I honestly cannot be bothered doing this over and over again across 3 threads now, just because you want to complain about something something.

    As for my "banging on" about Sommers, I was addressing her article with EF. You quoted my response in regards to that and I am somehow or other supposed to divine that you were talking about something else. And I mean that literally. When you quoted my response, I had astonishingly assumed that you were addressing what I had said to EF about what he linked. I know, I know, I should have tried to imagine that you had meant something else and that you weren't addressing what I was discussing with EF. It is so silly of me to have thought your quoting what I was talking about and to not have possibly imagined that you were addressing something else entirely....

    If you are unhappy that I have dared to attach your demands that we treat Al Franken differently when it comes to sexual harassment, perhaps you should have thought twice before you started 'banging on' about how angry you and those around you were that he was treated as he was. Perhaps you should have thought twice before you set such a low standard for the sake of politics, because you do not trust the DNC to front a strong candidate for that seat. Perhaps you should have refrained from the snide comments about his victims, based on partisan politics.

    But that's just me. Obviously you disagree. Obviously you have forgotten some of the things you uttered in those threads, that fence sitting of 'oh, he did something bad, but to lump him in with the others.. blah blah blah'. He is a serial abuser of women, with a torrid history of misogyny under the guise of "comedy". At some point, society needs to decide what it is willing to excuse for politics. You said that he should have been allowed to remain in place until past the 2018 elections, which sends what message to victims of sexual harassment? Oh wait, that's right. "Depends on the politics", wasn't it? Wasn't it you who uttered those words? So you have made your bed in regards to what you are willing to excuse. That will stay with you. When people respond to such questions with "depends on the politics", then really, you do not get to complain when I take your words at face value. Oh look, just to make you happy, and as a Christmas present, I even left out the "it". Just for you.

    Look iceaura, my answer to that question will remain "neither" for infinity. Your "banging on" about my dishonesty about that answer, well, you can go blue in the face about it and it will still remain "neither". And if you think that's dishonest, then yeah, to quote Kitta.. *Shrug*.

    So, Merry Christmas iceaura. I hope you and yours remain healthy and happy for the holiday season.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Dishonest.
    It's no longer a complaint - it's a topic.
    You have posted sufficient material already. No more contributions from you are at all indicated.
    Dishonest.
    (No such "demands" exist, no expressions of my own anger on that topic, etc.)
    Dishonest.
    (No such comments exist. All the "partisan politics" stuff is you dodging and slandering - no relevance to my posts)
    Nope. Yours either.
    My opinion, based on the public accounts and knowledge of the political situation - yep. Just an assessment - other people may come to other assessments, based on reason and the like. Or maybe - as in your case - not so based.

    And that message? You don't control it. That's where dealing from a bubble of slander and bs cripples. The reality of the situation will dominate the message, and the GOP will take care of any framing necessary to highlight the aspects that favor them. To the extent that your incessant slandering and dishonesty dislocates you from that reality, you will not even be able to anticipate the message - you, and more importantly (to me) the DFL faction aligned with your posting here, will get blindsided.

    Again.

    That will cost. Example: "We" (anyone who celebrated the final settlement of Jensen vs Eveleth Taconite as an advance) already lost the Eighth Circuit for the duration. When David Stras takes his seat - and with Franken gone Klobuchar immediately rolled over, as has been her custom - the influence on the "process", and thereby the ethics and justice, surrounding sexual harassment of women in the workplace and public life, will be incremental only: but not zero.
     

Share This Page