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

[birch]

I mean, look at your claim that "it's directed at this faction of the Minnesota DFL as influenced by the DNC".. I'm not in Minnesota, but you have accused me of belong to "this" faction...? Just as you accused me of being unaware of what is in front of me in regards to Gillibrand, when I literally told you that all I was aware of her or had heard of her was her stance in regards to sexual violence and you again accused me of dishonesty, etc. I pointed out that I was not from New York, again explained that all I had heard of her in the media was about her stance on sexual violence and said that this was reported in the media after Trump's revolting tweet about her, you again accused me of dishonesty and something something about groups/factions, etc..

You've been doing this for weeks now.

lol

 

[iceaura]

Here, I'll be clear, to ensure you aren't confused. It was the moral and just thing for him to resign, and it also sends the message that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable from anyone, even politicians like Al Franken.

There was no confusion - the "message" was, for you, primary and overwhelmingly predominant. The topic, on the other hand, was the political effect of the coercion of his resignation based on the public accounts, especially the timing of the coercion but including the morality and justice of it, and so forth - all of which you dismissed as "political expediency", not nearly as important as the message you insist was sent, about what was "acceptable".

- insisting in almost complete ignorance, btw, and so mostly getting it wrong. No such message was sent. It's possible your supposed message of "acceptable" can still be salvaged out of this mess somehow, but there isn't much time and the media are not much amenable.

I'm more curious as to why you keep avoiding all questions,

The short answer is that you don't ask any. You type question marks, but they aren't actual questions - they are lies and slanders. And you know this, because I have explained a few examples to you in detail, in the past, when I obligingly presumed you had intended them to be questions.

I no longer presume that.

You keep talking about this "faction", you have accused me of being part of this faction, without actually explaining what this faction actually is.

Dishonest.

Just as you accused me of being unaware of what is in front of me in regards to Gillibrand, when I literally told you that all I was aware of her or had heard of her was her stance in regards to sexual violence and you again accused me of dishonesty, etc.

That's dishonest - right there. Each clause individually and the sense of the whole.

You cannot, literally can not, post honestly in response to my posts in this thread.

And the inability of this faction to engage in honest public discussion is a critical political circumstance in the upcoming elections, especially in Minnesota.

 

[iceaura]

What "issue" are you talking about, in my posting, on which Bells has merely a different "stand"?
you already know and like she has stated for umpteen times, politics is not the issue to her on the subject of sexual harassment or assault.

Then there is no issue in my posting on which Bells has a different stand.

And no reason for any response to my posting at all, much less a barrage of slanders and misrepresentations.

But I think you are missing central matters, and it's why you don't recognize the significance of Bells's lies and slanders. One of them is this: ends don't justify means, means don't justify ends. Another one is this: the message is what is received, not what is sent. A third: in politics, ignorance does not earn do-overs, or absolve error. A fourth: abandon reason and reality, power and money replace them.

 

[birch]

One of them is this: ends don't justify means, means don't justify ends.

that's the view on your and kittamaru's stance on the issue. but the argument has been that the ends justify the means. or you don't consider what franken did of much imporance, so which is it?

did i say you didn't have a point that republicans gaining further advantage is not an issue, therefore having longer-range consequences? no.

take another perspective on why you think gaining votes from doing what is right might be a stupid strategy. you don't think the public notices?

Another one is this: the message is what is received, not what is sent.

are you further insinuating those women cannot be believed or they misinterpreted sexual harassment? what context are you referring to?

A third: in politics, ignorance does not earn do-overs, or absolve error.

of course, but neither does ignoring or brushing an issue under the rug for the sake of politics always win you favors either, absolve error or earn do-overs but more do-overs. it can go either way.

i'm no political analyst but it would seem a wise move on the democratic party to take notice that sexual harassment issues are a hot-button topic on the scene at the moment (actually glaringly huge including hollywood) where many are coming out now to try and get this issue raised to another level of being taken seriously (raising social and ethical consciousness and doing something about it). especially since republicans are not, so there is one leverage right there. a perfect opportunity for democrats to distinguish themselves as the more ethical party.

it seems you are dismissing some things that should be obvious. you've forgotten that you need to consider the pulse of the society at the moment and what they are ready or not ready to address and the consequence of that is reputation and gaining votes. that's the central issue of politics, is it not?

 

[Bells]

There was no confusion - the "message" was, for you, primary and overwhelmingly predominant.

OOookkaayyyy...

The topic, on the other hand, was the political effect of the coercion of his resignation based on the public accounts, especially the timing of the coercion but including the morality and justice of it, and so forth

Is this you believing the victims?

You know, when you go on about "the timing" of the coercion? Or do you mean all the other Democratic senators? Are they in on this "faction" too?

To put it bluntly, you are blathering without making any sense.

Frankly, I think he should have resigned before all the Senators were placed in a position of having to ask him to resign when the count got to 8 women.

all of which you dismissed as "political expediency", not nearly as important as the message you insist was sent, about what was "acceptable".

"Depends on the politics" is and continues to be about political expediency. Your stance was solely for political expediency and I have never argued otherwise.

And again, his behaviour was not acceptable in any way, shape or form.

The short answer is that you don't ask any. You type question marks, but they aren't actual questions - they are lies and slanders. And you know this, because I have explained a few examples to you in detail, in the past, when I obligingly presumed you had intended them to be questions.

Your explanations was basically to accuse me of belonging to teams/ groups/factions in your home state without actually explaining what the hell you are actually on about in any detail. Just as your response to my asking you about Gillebrand, after telling you that the only thing I had heard of her was from what I had seen in the media here, for the most part, and you accused me of dishonesty, and accused me of not seeing what was in front of me...

I have asked you multiple questions, and you have dodged and avoided them. I ask you a question about your sudden reversal from your history of posting here, you accuse me of dishonesty. I question your "depends on the politics" response, you accuse me of slander and misrepresentation, despite my quoting your words back to you.

You accuse me of not seeing things, apparently in your mind or intent when you have failed to actually say or answer any questions like I am supposed to have some sort of special goggles on that can see all the way across the Pacific Ocean from Australia, to glean what the hell you're even on about.. You accuse me of dishonesty and slander.

I mean, I literally ask you questions, you declare they aren't questions because they are lies and slanders.

Not to mention that you seem to have lost all sense of space and time. You seem to think that I belong to a faction in Minnesota and have repeatedly accused me of this, when I live in Queensland in Australia.. Which unless geography has failed me entirely, is a fair way away from Minnesota (just over 14,000km). You went on this little bit of a rant about how this thread has been going on for months, it's been less than a month. You then said that you meant this subject and cited 'Clinton and Sanders and "misogyny"', when you have a history of arguing against misogyny in the past, but now, here you are, complete turn around.

Put simply, you're posting like you're off your nut.

Dishonest.

Heh!

This is laughable!

You literally accused me of belonging to a "faction", and I still don't know what you mean and have asked you about it, and each time, the response is "dishonest".

That's dishonest - right there. Each clause individually and the sense of the whole.

No it's not. I asked you to clarify what you were trying to say, after telling you that I had seen no evidence of what you were going on about her and asked you several questions about what "character" you had claimed was "visible", and again reiterated that the only thing I had heard about her was about her stance on sexual violence and you responded with "Of course. She makes the right mouth noises about sexual violence, and that sends the right messages in your bubble world.". So I asked you which bubble and whether you meant the "violent rape survivor bubble world"? I mean, that comment from you was obscene, when one considers you know my history in regards to sexual violence. And you again kind of went off your nut. And even went so far that it (what you were saying about Gillebrand) was right in front of me, "easily seen" (keep in mind, I am all the way over in Australia) and then accused me of not wanting to see it (this is despite my asking you what you meant and asking you to clarify what you were going on about her).. And on and on it goes.

And now you say that my pointing this out is dishonest?

Oookay then..

You cannot, literally can not, post honestly in response to my posts in this thread.

And you still keep dodging.

And the inability of this faction to engage in honest public discussion is a critical political circumstance in the upcoming elections, especially in Minnesota.

What faction?

 

[iceaura]

but the argument has been that the ends justify the means. or you don't consider what franken did of much imporance, so which is it

It's you picking up Bells's habit of asking non-questions.
Nothing I have posted indicates that what Franken did is unimportant, nothing I have posted indicates ends justify means. Neither one.

Another one is this: the message is what is received, not what is sent.
are you further insinuating those women cannot be believed or they misinterpreted sexual harassment? what context are you referring to?

Where in hell would anyone get the idea I was talking about "those women"? -( for the first time in this thread, that would be). That the context of myb posting would be anything except the explicit one specified in the exact post quoted and the preceding ten pages of thread posting and pretty much every damn post of mine in this thread and every related thread?
Pages of me posting about the incompetent "message sending" of the DNC, of Bells, of that entire faction; the importance of it, the effects of it, the hazards of it, the mess it created with Franken - and that's your post.
Seriously: what gives?

ake another perspective on why you think gaining votes from doing what is right might be a stupid strategy. you don't think the public notices?

I don't think the public is going to follow along with a sense of "what is right" derived from people who lie and slander, obviously, about things the public can see for itself. Only the core Republican voter can be had that way - liberal and lefty voters need reason and reality.

Another aspect of the public's perceptions - and this one is a special vulnerability of the DFL - is that they don't excuse liberals for doing what is stupid because they got talked into thinking it was the right thing to do. They don't trust liberals to be competent in the first place, they don't trust the way liberals talk, and a whiff of liberals talking themselves into screwup is like gunpowder to crows. Republicans can be screwups and win in Minnesota - not Democrats.

 

[iceaura]

And now you say that my pointing this out is dishonest?

Yes.
They're all still lies, slanders, and misrepresentations, just like the first time you posted them. And the second. And the third.

I mean, I literally ask you questions, you declare they aren't questions because they are lies and slanders.

And I am right about that. I actually bothered to explain, the first few rounds - now I just label, to counter repetition with minimal work.

See, my long past observation that you cannot post honest responses to me in these threads was not carelessly worded. You can't. You've been repeatedly typing this stuff for so long you've lost touch with the ground.

And that's maybe where the main interest lies in dealing with this faction in the DFL. The temptation to argue, persuade, etc, is always there when dealing with ostensible liberals - but there's less than ten months left here.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Lynching is illegal. But firing someone is not.

Harrasing someone to fire someone else is also illegal.

Bells,

Ignore me as you wish, but I think I have found the fundamental fallacy here: if there is a disparity in gender it must be sexism, nothing else can be the answer or else misogyny, thus it is unfalsifable. I noticed it at the golden globes when they Natalia Portmen was poking at how all the directors up for best director were all male, it is not that there are not female directors, there just are not a lot of them (13%), and of course the reason must be sexism, it can't possibly be that women on average do not want to be directors?

You deny any biological reason as junk science in the same vain as conservatives deny climate change, but when it comes to asking fundamentals like why are men taller or "are gays born or taught to be gay?" You go silent.

All this goes to the point of what is fair and just: people being treated equal under the law and allowing people to do and choose and become who they and not forced into a role. You seem to believe any cultural pressure is imprisoning women like fragile flowers, that any harassment or abuse is equal to rape and PTSD and is of course systemic and the major problem.

Meanwhile most people have other problems on their plates because they are not special snowflakes, they are not rich actors wearing black and virtue signally, and they think of other things as major problems.

 

[birch]

Harrasing someone to fire someone else is also illegal.

Bells,

Ignore me as you wish, but I think I have found the fundamental fallacy here: if there is a disparity in gender it must be sexism, nothing else can be the answer or else misogyny, thus it is unfalsifable. I noticed it at the golden globes when they Natalia Portmen was poking at how all the directors up for best director were all male, it is not that there are not female directors, there just are not a lot of them (13%), and of course the reason must be sexism, it can't possibly be that women on average do not want to be directors?

You deny any biological reason as junk science in the same vain as conservatives deny climate change, but when it comes to asking fundamentals like why are men taller or "are gays born or taught to be gay?" You go silent.

All this goes to the point of what is fair and just: people being treated equal under the law and allowing people to do and choose and become who they and not forced into a role. You seem to believe any cultural pressure is imprisoning women like fragile flowers, that any harassment or abuse is equal to rape and PTSD and is of course systemic and the major problem.

Meanwhile most people have other problems on their plates because they are not special snowflakes, they are not rich actors wearing black and virtue signally, and they think of other things as major problems.

at first i thought you might have had a point, but now i realize you are just a disgusting sexist prick. all that you posted is some whiny attempt at strawmen just to discredit and minimize the problem of sexual harassment. that's very, very low to insinuate victims of sexual harassment or assault as special snowflakes to mock and sneer. you asshole human being.

i would love to hear you tell your mother, wife, sister, daughter, or even son condescendingly that they are acting like special snowflakes if they have been sexually harassed and make an issue and most people have other problems on their plates (sexual harassment or assault is actually one of society's ill problems). it's a form of bullying and violation.

there was this case of this female police officer who was repeatedly being sexually harassed and taunted at her job and no one was taking her seriously. the males coming up to her and making totally obscene remarks and treating her with disdain and disrespect making her life a living hell on the job that she would go home crying every night. no one was taking her complaints seriously because of the good 'ol boy routine. her family and her son were the ones to help tell her story eventually to the press.

if people keep having attitudes like you, nothing would be changed or further improve, you asshole.

 

[billvon]

at first i thought you might have had a point, but now i realize you are just a disgusting sexist prick.

I came to a similar conclusion, although perhaps I wouldn't word it that way. He has the classic victim mentality; anything bad that happens supports his victimhood, and any suggestion that OTHER people are victims is to be questioned and disputed, because that makes him less able to don that mantle.

 

[iceaura]

it is not that there are not female directors, there just are not a lot of them (13%), and of course the reason must be sexism, it can't possibly be that women on average do not want to be directors?

You are begging the question. What people want to do is heavily influenced by sexism, among other social factors.

You deny any biological reason as junk science in the same vain as conservatives deny climate change,

Except the growing body scientific evidence from the research is on the other side - it is you who are denying the science, just like the climate change deniers.

but when it comes to asking fundamentals like why are men taller or "are gays born or taught to be gay?" You go silent.

How did you ever come by the notion that ephemeral and interculturally malleable societal features like office job circumstances are biologically established? You need a huge pile of solid evidence to begin to support such an unlikely and mechanism-deficient speculation.

 

[Kittamaru]

take another perspective on why you think gaining votes from doing what is right might be a stupid strategy. you don't think the public notices?

The concern is that hard line Republican voters have historically voted for their candidate regardless of qualification, moral fiber, or character. There is a base that will always vote Republican, regardless of what happens or the consequences.

In general, people who register Democrat or Independent are more apt to refuse to support a candidate (they don't "fall in line" with the party) they feel doesn't stand for them.

This dichotomy of vales favors the less than honest,whatever it takes to win party greatly.

 

[Bells]

Yes.
They're all still lies, slanders, and misrepresentations, just like the first time you posted them. And the second. And the third.

Asking you questions is "lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

Quoting you is "lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

Commenting on your arguments here is "lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

Seeing clarification for what you have said here is "lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

Telling you that I haven't heard much about a particular senator and seeking clarification is "lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

Discussing something unrelated to you or what you have said with another poster is "lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

Asking you about your posting history here, linking to said history and seeking clarification on your absolute turn around is "lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

Is there anything at all that would not classify as "lies, slanders and misrepresentations" at this point?

Or is "lies, slanders and misrepresentations" going to be your go to answer for infinity?

And I am right about that. I actually bothered to explain, the first few rounds - now I just label, to counter repetition with minimal work.

Right..

"Lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

See, my long past observation that you cannot post honest responses to me in these threads was not carelessly worded. You can't. You've been repeatedly typing this stuff for so long you've lost touch with the ground.

I know, I know.. "Lies, slanders and misrepresentations".

Meanwhile you are still dodging.

Why?

And that's maybe where the main interest lies in dealing with this faction in the DFL. The temptation to argue, persuade, etc, is always there when dealing with ostensible liberals - but there's less than ten months left here.

Again with the faction.. What is "this faction"? You have accused me of being in or with "this faction", without actually clarifying who and what it is.

I know, I know, here, I'll even cut you off here:

"Lies, slanders and misrepresentations".​

But it would be really helpful if you actually tried to answer the question regarding "this faction", why you think I am somehow involved or part of it, and why you have never, ever had an issue with my zero tolerance stance in regards to sexual violence, sexual harassment and rape culture until now?

Bells,

Ignore me as you wish, but I think I have found the fundamental fallacy here: if there is a disparity in gender it must be sexism, nothing else can be the answer or else misogyny, thus it is unfalsifable. I noticed it at the golden globes when they Natalia Portmen was poking at how all the directors up for best director were all male, it is not that there are not female directors, there just are not a lot of them (13%), and of course the reason must be sexism, it can't possibly be that women on average do not want to be directors?

You deny any biological reason as junk science in the same vain as conservatives deny climate change, but when it comes to asking fundamentals like why are men taller or "are gays born or taught to be gay?" You go silent.

All this goes to the point of what is fair and just: people being treated equal under the law and allowing people to do and choose and become who they and not forced into a role. You seem to believe any cultural pressure is imprisoning women like fragile flowers, that any harassment or abuse is equal to rape and PTSD and is of course systemic and the major problem.

Meanwhile most people have other problems on their plates because they are not special snowflakes, they are not rich actors wearing black and virtue signally, and they think of other things as major problems.

I'm not ignoring you.

It's more a matter of recognising that there is something deeply, deeply inherently wrong with you.

And basically, it's a recognition that I should no longer give you a platform to spout your sexist and misogynistic bullshit over and over again, nor should I give you a platform to keep ignoring everything that has been linked to and for you, or a platform to show your ignoring science, your embrace of rape culture, your victim blaming and shaming, your general repulsive nature and behaviour..

Put simply, giving you this platform, or recognising your arguments and responding to them as though they are somehow valid, is damaging. Not to you, but to any other victim who happens to glance at this website.

The concern is that hard line Republican voters have historically voted for their candidate regardless of qualification, moral fiber, or character. There is a base that will always vote Republican, regardless of what happens or the consequences.

And?

Embracing their revolting style is not winning strategy.

 

[billvon]

Embracing their revolting style is not winning strategy.

That may well be true. And the decision that democrats may have to face is to adopt a strategy that will win elections (as odious as that is) or reject it, and lose with honor.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I'm not ignoring you.

It's more a matter of recognising that there is something deeply, deeply inherently wrong with you.

yes yes slander, got it.

And basically, it's a recognition that I should no longer give you a platform to spout your sexist and misogynistic bullshit over and over again

What is sexist and misogynistic about it? I asked some time ago that it is equal to saying women are shorter on average then men, how is that sexist and misogynistic? It is 1) fact, 2) does not change the value of a person and 3) means nothing about individuals.

nor should I give you a platform to keep ignoring everything that has been linked to and for you, or a platform to show your ignoring science, your embrace of rape culture, your victim blaming and shaming, your general repulsive nature and behaviour..

What science am I ignoring? How am I embracing rape culture? These are questions I have asked repeatedly and you present no answer other than circular logic. How am I victim blaming and shaming? And yes I am repulsive, thank you very much.

Put simply, giving you this platform, or recognising your arguments and responding to them as though they are somehow valid, is damaging. Not to you, but to any other victim who happens to glance at this website.

is that a threat?

 

[ElectricFetus]

You are begging the question. What people want to do is heavily influenced by sexism, among other social factors.

Assumption, worse to solve it would require authoritarian control of culture, which is difficult and produces extensive backlash, like the rise of the alt-right and the election of trump, this backlash if frankly worse then the problem.

Except the growing body scientific evidence from the research is on the other side - it is you who are denying the science, just like the climate change deniers.

So your saying there is no scientific evidence for biological causes to sexed behavior too? I freely admit there is cultural and social influence in our behavior, I just don't deny that there is not also biological influences as well.

So lets take the case of females born with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, do you deny the evidence that they tend to play with toy trucks more then dolls compared to normal (control) girls, and tend to befriends boys more then normal girls, tend towards to the homosexual end of the Kinsey scale? Do have a social cause for their behavior? Please cite it.

How did you ever come by the notion that ephemeral and interculturally malleable societal features like office job circumstances are biologically established? You need a huge pile of solid evidence to begin to support such an unlikely and mechanism-deficient speculation.

How did you come upon the evidence that it is not? I never said it was fully, only that biology can play a part and this a 50:50 gender ratio in every career, once any social pressure is removed may be impossible, and thus non-50:50 ratio can't be used as a metric to determine how much sexism is present. We must be allowed to entertain the possibility of this openly, discuss it and test for it, but instead any questioning of the 'sexism is behind everything' ideology is blasphemous "misogyny" and "rape culture".

 

[ElectricFetus]

at first i thought you might have had a point, but now i realize you are just a disgusting sexist prick. all that you posted is some whiny attempt at strawmen just to discredit and minimize the problem of sexual harassment. that's very, very low to insinuate victims of sexual harassment or assault as special snowflakes to mock and sneer. you asshole human being.

i would love to hear you tell your mother, wife, sister, daughter, or even son condescendingly that they are acting like special snowflakes if they have been sexually harassed and make an issue and most people have other problems on their plates (sexual harassment or assault is actually one of society's ill problems). it's a form of bullying and violation.

blah, blah, once again if you have been harassed and want something done about it, go to the police, that is something I would say to my mother or sister, but not wife or daughter because I will never have one of those.

Look I'm sure you have no problem about conservatives called snowflakes.

there was this case of this female police officer who was repeatedly being sexually harassed and taunted at her job and no one was taking her seriously. the males coming up to her and making totally obscene remarks and treating her with disdain and disrespect making her life a living hell on the job that she would go home crying every night. no one was taking her complaints seriously because of the good 'ol boy routine. her family and her son were the ones to help tell her story eventually to the press.

Why didn't she take her story to a lawyer? What the fuck is the press going to do?

if people keep having attitudes like you, nothing would be changed or further improve, you asshole.

What is the press going to do? Yes I'm an asshole, gladly if It means I uphold rule of law.

 

[Kittamaru]

That may well be true. And the decision that democrats may have to face is to adopt a strategy that will win elections (as odious as that is) or reject it, and lose with honor.

Exactly - win the battle, loose the war, or win the war by whatever means necessary and hope to clean up in the aftermath. Neither option is good... but we know for certain that the GOP wont' do a damn thing to clean things up.

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't...

 

[Bells]

That may well be true. And the decision that democrats may have to face is to adopt a strategy that will win elections (as odious as that is) or reject it, and lose with honor.

And you can still lose by embracing it, as many Democrats and left leaning independents would simply not vote for the Democrats if they adopt a Republican strategy to simply "win". It's all well and good to make election promises and the Democrats could throw down and issue a list of promises to try to regain those voters, but they would have to be willing to do a policy shift (such as environmental policy shift or a shift on women's rights to choose, as a prime example) to do so, which would make them look weak and desperate. Sure, it might regain some voters, but you could potentially end up losing more voters in the process.

There's something to be said for adopting policies to just win elections.. It is very transparent and it is rarely successful for the long term.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Abut they would have to be willing to do a policy shift (such as environmental policy shift or a shift on women's rights to choose

But why would we need to shift on those policies? Was Bernie Sanders shifting on those policies? There are liberal polices that if we focused on we could win with, we need shift nothing to the right: we need to shift left! In fact by ditching the 'baby step' corporatist moderates like Hillary we could win large chunks of voter that presently either swing, vote independent or not at all.