Thunderf00t gets his own FtB blog...

[Prolescum]

It was posted up-thread, evilotakuneko.

Prolescum[/url]"]Conc0rdance's video is a whitewash. His comparison is weak, and his position limp. He paints himself as unbiased on the matter (he has no stake in the feminism debate) before a rather risible defense of Thunderf00t without once addressing why Thunderf00t received his marching orders. Clue: it had nothing to do with his views on the subject matter.

Hytegia, that video is a pile of Jesus' unsullied testicles.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

He's correct.

But, so is thunderf00t in this instance.

It shouldn't be up to the sponsoring party - it should be up to grown adults behaving like grown adults. I've met, in many situations, people who insist upon asking consent or hitting on to be considered sexual harassment.

I think that is wrong - mainly because protecting one's own arse should never be considered a violation of what they are guarding from.

What exactly are you saying here? You're not exactly clear, except that we know T-f00tie is dead wrong, and if you agree with him you're wrong as well. Or else, why do you have the job you do?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

What exactly are you saying here? You're not exactly clear, except that we know T-f00tie is dead wrong, and if you agree with him you're wrong as well. Or else, why do you have the job you do?

Because Sexual Harassment is a loose-fit glove with ambiguous interpretation that could mean anything.
In the Navy, it's pretty much set in stone, but there's still this problem where asking if a behavior is proper being considered sexual harassment. Body Language is consensual "Yes" but can be overridden by a verbal "No" unless it's a mutual agreement of a rather rough sex fantasy.

And out of the military, it's pretty much a broad term for anything - including workplace flirtation - that would result in banal activity and announced publicly instead of given notification that minor activities are offensive and they should be halted towards a person before further action is brought up.

If I was going to get masted for something I'd certainly hope it was for something worth it, and not for noting that someone's uniform fits just right or that their hair makes them look smexy as a sidebar comment. Or for making an inappropriate joke.
Come on, Joe. You know the military dance-and-jig about the softer and more humorous inappropriate behavior quite well. Anyone who wore the uniform does. :roll:

EDIT: As a side, more sexual harassment/assaults happened against males in 2010 than women.

But that's beside the point. The main axis of Sexual Harassment is consent. Consent can be verbal or non-verbal. Nobody that's not in a strict workplace setting should have to be briefed on basic behaviors - which is why clubs have that disclaimers for refusing service. It's just better and a million times more efficient.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Because Sexual Harassment is a loose-fit glove with ambiguous interpretation that could mean anything.

Only if your basic assumption is that women are devoid of common sense and out to screw men over by making ridiculous accusations. Otherwise, it DOESN'T mean "anything" and we know it from decades of application. BTW, the military is awash in rape and sexual assault, so maybe you should be interested in stricter rules, not in tearing down rules.


Also, I brought up the military because of your statement about "grown adults behaving like grown adults" and we know standard behavior for grown adults can be really fucking terrible, which is why there are always wars being fought, and there's never enough police to go around. Do you think disbanding the military and dissolving the treaties would make the world a safer place?

 

[evilotakuneko]

It was posted up-thread, evilotakuneko.

Prolescum[/url]"]Conc0rdance's video is a whitewash. His comparison is weak, and his position limp. He paints himself as unbiased on the matter (he has no stake in the feminism debate) before a rather risible defense of Thunderf00t without once addressing why Thunderf00t received his marching orders. Clue: it had nothing to do with his views on the subject matter.

Hytegia, that video is a pile of Jesus' unsullied testicles.

Must've missed that page entirely when I checked.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Tone trolling from my dear, dear friends aside, one of the main points is that many menhave a "better to ask forgiveness than permission" attitude, that they have an absolute right to impose themselves on women and the women then (maybe) have a right to say no. And then they can ask again, to make sure that "no" isn't "maybe later" and that "Maybe later" can't be converted into a "yes" after a few more drinks. Then a lot of men also have the attitude that if a woman who he imposes on says no in a way that doesn't leave him feeling good about himself, again after imposing himself on her without her consent, then that woman is a fucking bitch who deserves to be attacked verbally and potentially physically.

At every step, "picking up" or "hitting on" treats the woman as something other than a person with her own autonomous needs and desires. She's a goal, a potential conquest, a notch on your bedpost, a place to dump your seed. It is crafting a plan for another person without consulting with them first, and then presenting her the plan for her approval or dismissal, when she knows that there can be negative personal consequences if she says no.

That's why the harassment policies need to be in place. Not so that no one can talk to anyone else, not so that no sex happens, but so that people take a step back and slow down a little, and engage in two-way conversations that can lead to flirting instead of one-way hitting on. And so that women know that they can say "no" without being pressured to change their minds, and without being verbally attacked, and that the organizers of the event will have her back and take her word for it if there's an negative encounter, rather than going all hyper-skeptical and victim blaming.

Gotcha. Women are helpless creatures who can't stand up for themselves and men are savage brutes who will stop at nothing to get their way. Always nice to see Joe exposing the misanthropic roots of liberal ideology. :lol:

Some in this thread are having a hard time understanding how someone showing sexual interest in a (usually female) person can feel devaluing and degrading. The answer is that there's multiple different ways that all have to do with years of socialization where women were taught different things than we males were; gnug pointed out one, I'll point out a couple more.

Women are taught from a young age to be "pure" (all that "sex negative" as people say); and while some may have intellectually chosen to reject that, it's much harder to change internalized emotions (e.g., I still don't like guys touching me due to growing up in a homophobic culture).

So? People are not responsible for other people's idiotic delusions. Fuck your delicate sensibilities - if you have emotional baggage that prevents you from participating in adult society, it's not everyone else's responsibility to walk on eggshells around you. It's your responsibility to toughen the hell up and deal.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Only if your basic assumption is that women are devoid of common sense and out to screw men over by making ridiculous accusations. Otherwise, it DOESN'T mean "anything" and we know it from decades of application. BTW, the military is awash in rape and sexual assault, so maybe you should be interested in stricter rules, not in tearing down rules.


Also, I brought up the military because of your statement about "grown adults behaving like grown adults" and we know standard behavior for grown adults can be really fucking terrible, which is why there are always wars being fought, and there's never enough police to go around. Do you think disbanding the military and dissolving the treaties would make the world a safer place?

It is. But loose-coin terminology can have a single lie word-against-word ruin careers and lives.
And I didn't say that anything should be dismantled. I'm saying that boarderline behavior should be addressed at the lowest possible level and that rational reasoning be done before someone submits a complaint.

I saw someone get strung up on Sexual Harassment for hitting on an officer in a bar that he didn't know was an officer. Once she found out the guy was an enlisted, she cried rape to save face due to the technicality of her having drank that night. He, of course, had to file rape the opposite direction because he had been drinking the night before as well.

The officer got a reduction in rank and half pay x2. He got booted out of his program as soon as charges had been filed, and he was given administrative separation at the end.
And this all could have been avoided if they sat down, had a chat, and resolved that the behavior was an accident and that it would be in mutual benefit to avoid any and all confrontation in the workplace. FFS they could have mutually requested mast and spoken with the captain about it to see if it could have been resolved without major confrontation.

I cannot and will not give out details nor sources for this information, since policy prevents the publication of specifics of case results of names and ranks without consent of the Department of the Navy for release.

But, the point is that in that pool group of people is also a pool of those who are possible liars, and the number could be explicitly high due to the fact that if an unrestricted report is placed that things will most likely work out against the accused.
When Sexual Harassment involves jokes and offenses that are normal in any other situation, then the number will be naturally high.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I cannot and will not give out details nor sources for this information, since policy prevents the publication of specifics of case results of names and ranks without consent of the Department of the Navy for release.

So, one anecdote with details you can't share. Were you the investigating officer on that case?

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

So? People are not responsible for other people's idiotic delusions. Fuck your delicate sensibilities - if you have emotional baggage that prevents you from participating in adult society, it's not everyone else's responsibility to walk on eggshells around you. It's your responsibility to toughen the hell up and deal.

What if the person is not asking anybody to walk on eggshells when they are around a specific individual. What if that person simply doesn't want to be a part of the ongoing shenanigans or wants to take a very limited role in the shenanigans because of other reasons.

People that push specific buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons (i.e. because it is fun) tend to lack the EQ required to understand the concept of empathy. They could also be considered very manipulative individuals. Other criteria is most likely used to determine the level of manipulation and if the manipulation is actually productive or counter productive.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What if the person is not asking anybody to walk on eggshells when they are around a specific individual. What if that person simply doesn't want to be a part of the ongoing shenanigans or wants to take a very limited role in the shenanigans because of other reasons.

People that push specific buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons (i.e. because it is fun) tend to lack the EQ required to understand the concept of empathy. They could also be considered very manipulative individuals. Other criteria is most likely used to determine the level of manipulation and if the manipulation is actually productive or counter productive.

Some people lack empathy, and basic human decency, and if they are not active bigots themselves they are certainly bigotry enablers and happy to benefit from bigotry. They can't stand the notion of treating other people like human beings, rather than pawns if they are useful or as nothing at all if they aren't. They are, by their own words and deeds, unfit for membership in any society worth having.

 

[Dustnite]

This Jerry Springer episode never ends... I can't...stop....watching this stuff.

PZ responds to Tf00t:



I'm having a hard time taking these two seriously...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm having a hard time taking these two seriously...

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both. :facepalm:

 

[Laurens]

I've got an idea, we should start an Everybody Pay Absolutely No Attention to Thunderf00t day... Commencing now, and continuing indefinitely (until he starts acting his age, or they ban the internet)...

 

[Dustnite]

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both. :facepalm:

I just don't understand what the argument is about from both sides.

This argument was initially just about an policy on sexual harassment and even in this thread it exploded into an argument not too different from what we have seen from this episodic sitcom online. Massive miscommunication between peers and really no point being made.

Just treat people with respect and don't treat woman like pieces of meat. Done.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I cannot and will not give out details nor sources for this information, since policy prevents the publication of specifics of case results of names and ranks without consent of the Department of the Navy for release.

So, one anecdote with details you can't share. Were you the investigating officer on that case?

No, but I was at the bar.

I can tell a story without releasing personal details of those involved.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

So? People are not responsible for other people's idiotic delusions. Fuck your delicate sensibilities - if you have emotional baggage that prevents you from participating in adult society, it's not everyone else's responsibility to walk on eggshells around you. It's your responsibility to toughen the hell up and deal.

What if the person is not asking anybody to walk on eggshells when they are around a specific individual. What if that person simply doesn't want to be a part of the ongoing shenanigans or wants to take a very limited role in the shenanigans because of other reasons.

People that push specific buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons (i.e. because it is fun) tend to lack the EQ required to understand the concept of empathy. They could also be considered very manipulative individuals. Other criteria is most likely used to determine the level of manipulation and if the manipulation is actually productive or counter productive.

Bullies? Yeah, screw those jerks. Not defending them.

The way I think of it, there's two sides of offense. There's the giving of offense, and the taking of offense. The giving of offense requires a deliberate and malicious action which is intended to cause offense. The taking of offense occurs when a person is upset by another's action. What skepchick is doing here is taking offense where none was given. Ignoring the transparent "it's a joke" apology, the couple was clearly interested in something other then hurting her feelings. I have no sympathy when people take offense where none was given, because it quickly devolves into pretending to be upset by everything in order to manipulate others. The couple's action still shows a tremendous lack of class and social awareness, but I wouldn't call it offensive.

Of course, anyone who takes offense at what other people are as opposed to what they do (ie "white male cisgender privilege!!!") can just go ahead and eat shit, and I mean all the offense I can manage with that.

 

[televator]

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both. :facepalm:

I just don't understand what the argument is about from both sides.

This argument was initially just about an policy on sexual harassment and even in this thread it exploded into an argument not too different from what we have seen from this episodic sitcom online. Massive miscommunication between peers and really no point being made.

Just treat people with respect and don't treat woman like pieces of meat. Done.

So you carelessly ignore the substance from both sides, as though they were both equal, even though it was TF who instigated the miscommunications; PZ is also directly addressing criticism to this while clearing up some confusion behind it; apologizing for some oversights in admitting TF into the FtB in the first place; and you effectively agree with PZ on that central point.

Oh yeah...split right down the middle. Let's laugh at them both and feel so much better about ourselves.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No, but I was at the bar.

I can tell a story without releasing personal details of those involved.

So they had sex at the bar in front of everyone, and then she lied about it being rape later?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I just don't understand what the argument is about from both sides.

This argument was initially just about an policy on sexual harassment and even in this thread it exploded into an argument not too different from what we have seen from this episodic sitcom online. Massive miscommunication between peers and really no point being made.

Just treat people with respect and don't treat woman like pieces of meat. Done.

There's a point being made. You made it in your last sentence. The REST of the issue is that in real life we have to have enforceable rules to get people to behave the way you want them to, rules that everyone knows before-hand because knowing there are rules and consequences keeps all but the most determined individuals from breaking them. Some people resist having rules, either because they want to break them or because they are immature and foolish and resist rules on some twisted "principle" that is unworkable in real life.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Saw PZ's video and here's why I cannot take either side seriously.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me he is trying hard to narrow down the definition of "freethought" to the point where it becomes just another dogma.

4 points:

Reason and Science

Fair enough, now you tell me what is "rational" about overreacting to this statement:

"Don't take this the wrong way but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"

Look, I'm not gonna be dismissive like last time, I understand that makes you feel uncomfortable, but it's really no different than someone being uncomfortable around airplanes and having a fear of flying. It's irrational when you take it at face value, and while men should probably "not do that", you need to do your part and overcome this knee-jerk sensitivity. That is if you want to be "rational".

Equality (personal autonomy, the right of the individual to live their lives on their own terms)

You forgot to mention, the right of the individual to live their lives on their own terms, AS LONG as it's not detrimental to society.

I mean you tell me, PZ, what is "rational" about allowing people to have as many children as they want? And trust me, pretty soon we may need to enforce restrictions on that because the population number worldwide is getting out of hand. Really, it needs to stop at some point regardless of what individuals have in mind.

How about extreme situations where it's necessary to temporarily enforce an authoritarian marshal law, for example to prevent the breakdown of society during a war?

Real freethought needs to leave room for discussion of these ideas, otherwise it becomes a dogma.

Universality (humans are part of a universal community; that race, sex and beliefs should not compromise one's status in the world)

Oh fuck off, PZ, you're already deep in setting up a dogma. This isn't set in stone either. Who says reason cannot lead you to a different conclusion other than universality? This isn't an exact science like say math, biology or physics, the debate is perpetually on the table.

Look I agree on the whole "race, sex" part, but I don't think the idea that "humans are part of a universal community" is in any way rational, not for the time being at least due to some practical considerations, we don't all get along, we don't all share the same values, the same culture and sometimes we just have to keep contact minimal. Look at Yugoslavia. Sometimes it just doesn't work, and you have to separate people who cannot play nice with each other. You're advocating a utopian view and if that implies what I think it does (i.e. an excuse for more mass immigration, more failed multicultural policies, more diminishing of national sovereignty by insisting that a country has to accept someone as citizen no matter how much his values conflict with that country's core values), just NO.

No, we're not all "part of a universal community", we should probably strive for that, but let's be realistic and take it slow.

Progressive socio-political views

Hmm "the social betterment of all through social and political action".

Well yeah that's a noble thing to strive for, but I don't like the phrase used here "progressive socio-political views" because of some other implications. Is this freethought or leftist-thought? I mean are you honestly implying that someone cannot rationally hold a single conservative viewpoint?

Please clarify because this is starting to sound increasingly dogmatic.


Also this is disappointing, while SkepchickCON (claims to) strive to promote gender equality, they let a few jokes (which could be interpreted as sexist) slip out around minute 37. So I guess they just violated their own rules. :lol: