australopithecus
Active Member
How dare she feel creeped out when random guys proposition her? How dare she!
:roll:
:roll:
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Thunderf00t gets his own FtB blog...
- Thread starter Dustnite
- Start date
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
australopithecus said:
There's quite a difference between being "creeped out" and Sexual Harassment.
I'm not acquainted with the situation in this regard, but did the guy attend the conference to know these things? And did he literally "solicit" her or make sexual advances on her, or was he flirting and she just being a cunt about it?
Perhaps he simply has no social tact at all - everyone should know at least one person that lacks the ability to suave and woo women... Or hold a conversation without that awkward shifting of the topic onto weird and obscure things that only they know because they don't know anything else.
IT could be awkward, but I dare say that it's nowhere in the ballpark of Sexual Harassment if the above quota is filled.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Nope... nothing sexist about your attitude at all. :facepalm:)O( Hytegia )O( said:
*edit*
Seriously, how hard is it to not post something when you start with "I'm not acquainted with the situation" and then start making things up as an excuse to suggest that a woman is a "cunt"(nothing sexist there!)?
Dogma's Demise said:
I don't think that they're that big, and I think they're quite fitting. His invitation back to his hotel room for coffee at 4 AM has a rather heavy sexual undertone, wouldn't you say? I think it would be naive to assume that he didn't have sex in mind.
And seriously, 4 AM? I'd smack someone in the face from sheer tiredness for making such an idiotic remark! (I'm making hyperbole here.)
Sure, if you don't think that invitation had any sexual undertone at all, then yes, "sexualize me" is perhaps big words (or rather, inaccurate words.)
And well, "creeps me out" isn't big words. A lot of people creep me out in various ways, but a proposition in an elevator like that would outcreep me massively.
Dogma's Demise said:
But being locked in an elevator with some guy you don't know, basically asking for sex? And imagine you're the woman, likely physically inferior by far. Would it not cross your mind that rejecting the guy might hurt his feelings and perhaps anger him?
I don't think we as men can ever appreciate the level of creepy that this kind of encounter can generate.
And I think women have the right to ask men to not do this kind of thing, especially without being called "cunts", "hysterical" or other negative stuff.
Dogma's Demise said:
Yes, it is most likely that he was just an awkward dude who meant no harm, and who didn't know better. But why not then allow Watson and others to "educate" men about what they feel about this? Again, without being called all kinds of derogatory names (sexist ones...)
I mean, it's not such a big deal for me to hear that from a woman, and then make a mental note to myself about not trying to proposition sex in an elevator in a hotel at 4 AM in the future. I've lost nothing from it. It's not a right I'm that desperate to fight for.
The Felonius Pope
New Member
Why are we still arguing about the elevator incident? Why?! Rebecca got creeped out, she made a video explaining her experience, and people, being the douche bags that they are, started screaming about how she 'overreacted'. End of story.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Because it seems like the majority of the people who catch a glimpse of the issue promptly shove their head in the sand like Hytegia just did, say "I don't know the details" and then start making up lies to explain why Rebecca Watson is a lying "cunt" instead of finding out what she actually said and taking her word for it. Accepting that a woman is telling the truth when she has no particular reason to lie seems to be impossible for people, but at the same time they think it is unfair for women to get angry for being called liars constantly on top of being sexually harassed.The Felonius Pope said:
Dogma's Demise
New Member
Laurens said:
To be fair I think that was TheAmazingAheist's influence. I don't recall TF making a video about her until now.
The Felonius Pope
New Member
I have to admit, Joe, that when I first heard about the situation I thought I was going to side with Dawkins. Then I actually did some research and found out that the people saying, "Rebecca overreacted!" were being sexist assholes.ImprobableJoe said:
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
I call men "cunts" a plenty. I also call women "dicks" as well. I use it to describe someone who uses hype to push false and terrible ideas forwards as the solution or to just stir up things.
ImprobableJoe is a dick (compliment. If you weren't, then you wouldn't be Joe).
UltimateBlasphemer, when in discussion about religion, is a cunt.
thunderf00t talking about Islam is a cunt.
Don't get me wrong - I'm an equal-opportunity asshole.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
I honestly think that you believe you're making some sort of rational and relevant point... but you aren't. You also skipped past the fact that twice now, based on your ignorance of the details of a situation, you've pushed forward the idea that your default assumption about women who make claims about unwanted sexual encounters is that are both liars and "cunts".)O( Hytegia )O( said:
BTW, it costs you nothing to use non-genitalia based insults. Try "asshole" since everyone has one and they all stink.
Gunboat Diplomat
New Member
They're really not... but even if they were, who got "crucified?" What's the "crucifixion?" His name wasn't even revealed. He's remained completely anonymous. Maybe you're the one overreacting?Dogma's Demise said:
It was made especially awkward by her preemptively telling him not to hit on her and him hitting on her anyways...
There are two things going on here: he was being creepy and he was being disrespectful.
No one is assuming that "every guy trying to hook up in an elevator is somehow a threat," or that even this guy was a threat. What is undeniable is that this guy (see, not all guys!) is a possible threat, especially since he was disrespecting her explicit wishes and hitting on her anyways. He's obviously not too concerned about her opinion (much like how a rapist wouldn't be). To get a better handle on this, you should read the article Schrà¶dinger's Rapist.
Even if the guy were harmless (and he probably was), that he respects her so little that he ignored her wishes and made her uncomfortable with creepy behavior is endemic of a larger societal problem that happens to be one of the major issues she stands against as part of her career: sexism. Her alleged "overreaction" was to suggest that men not do this and she was subsequently maligned over it and her opinion on the matter dismissed... much like how elevator guy dismissed her opinion of not wanting to be hit on and hit on her anyways, which is endemic of...
Are you beginning to see how this is a big pile of sexism?
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
I don't watch South Park, nor did I watch the episode, but read the plot from the episode's Wiki article. I see what you mean - and it also certainly touches on the aspects of political correctness to which I was referring. I wonder if they got the idea from Rush Hour?
The main difference being that, unlike Randy and Jackie Chan, I didn't use a racial epithet, with or without it being racially-motivated, yet find myself being accused of racism, etc. And anything I subsequently said to the contrary after that is being dismissed - "because that's the sort he is", as we jokingly say at the chess club of someone who sets a trap for us.
What a utterly ridiculous situation in which to find oneself!
And privilege is relative.
However, it was something that borrofburi said - for which, thank you - that made me realise that we were working off different definitions of political correctness.
For example, that you couldn't call a blackboard "black", because it's "racist" - you had to call it "green"(!). And there were similar issues with "whiteboards". Or the suggestion (by a militant feminist in the US) that a certain breed of dog be renamed "Doberperson", because "Doberman" was "sexist" - properly speaking, it's spelled "Dobermann".
It was these sort of over-the-top ideas that caused me to decide that political correctness wasn't helpful.
+++
However, that alone doesn't account for the fact that a number of posters have misread what I'd said. I can only explain this by putting it down to the fact that, having been mislabelled as a "racist/sexist/creep", others are viewing my posts through ImprobableJoe's eyes.
The "lid" of political correctness doesn't cause the problem (the lid blowing off/pot boiling over) - it exacerbates a pre-existing one (simmering pot).
And, as I've already pointed out, just because something *sounds* "libertarian" - which is an Americanism with pejorative connotations - doesn't mean that it is motivated by a "libertarian" attitude.
Likewise, the claim that I *sound like* a white racist from the Deep South.
+++
ImprobableJoe, you had me puzzled with your...
I still didn't get from where this was coming in your later posts - since I wasn't expecting it to go this way, I wasn't looking for it. The only thing I knew was that your perception of me was skewed. I confess to having become increasingly puzzled and irritated by your misperception and misrepresentation of both my motives and myself. Some of that irritation seeped into one of my replies - for which I apologise.
It wasn't until you posted this...
Just over twenty years ago, having had operations on both eyes, I retrained at Roslyn Park College, prior to returning to the work-force.
[Given the time that's passed since then, I see no harm in giving real names.]
A student on my course, named Maurice, was fancied by a girl on another course, named Anne.
One day, in the canteen, whilst a group of us were having lunch, she'd sat down by him and was virtually all-over him - hand on his thigh, leaning/pressing against him, etc. He was sitting stiffly upright opposite me, and turned bright red in embarrassment. I knew something she didn't: Maurice was homosexual.
A day or so later, whilst I was working alone in the computer room, she came in and went to sit on the desk where I was working. I moved some books to make room for her, when she said, "I wasn't going to squash them!". I was somewhat taken aback by the vehemence with which she said this, and explained that I was simply making room for her to sit. The conversation turned to Maurice, which was the real reason she'd come to talk to me - she wanted to know more about him, and if he'd mentioned her at all, and so on. Remembering his reaction to her being all-over him, I mentioned that "You frightened him...". The conversation continued and she eventually left.
The next day, whilst I was in the canteen having a cup of tea by myself, Maurice joined me. He told me that Anne had told him that I'd said he was afraid of her because she was an epileptic.
To say I was shocked is a understatement.
I told him that I *hadn't* said that, and wasn't even *thinking* that - and even if I *had been* thinking it, I'd *never* have said that.
Since he'd trusted me enough to tell me he was "gay" - it may have been his way of testing people to see, by their reaction, whether to include them in his circle of friends or not (at the time I'd told him, "I'm not straight - I'm heterosexual": he'd done a double-take, and then laughed) - he accepted what I said.
I already knew that Anne suffered from epilepsy: the first time I met her was when I found her unconscious in a empty corridor. I wasn't sure, at first, if she'd been attacked (there were some students recovering from mental health issues - including psychotics) or fallen, but she didn't show any obvious signs of injury. I stayed with her until she shortly came round, which is when she told me "I'm an epileptic". Even then, my layperson's knowledge of psychology told me she'd identified herself with her illness - at the time, I didn't realise how much.
The incident with Maurice was the first indication of that.
We both found out later, from the other students on her course, that she had a tendency to tag "- because I'm (an) epileptic" onto anything others said that triggered a knee-jerk reaction to what she'd suffered at school. Her epilepsy, as it often does, caused her to appear slow in thinking, understanding and remembering things at times - as a result, she'd been bullied.
Her nickname at school was "Stupid".
[He_Who_Is_Nobody, as someone who suffers from dyslexia, may also have suffered similarly - if he doesn't mind my mentioning it.]
It was then that I understood the strength of her reaction to my moving the books - it appeared to her that I was thinking/saying "You're stupid (enough to sit on/squash my books".
The point I wish to make, ImprobableJoe, is this:
What Anne did to me then, you're doing to me now.
+++
One thing with which I disagree is the "you don't/*can't* understand what it's like..." attitude that appears to be prevalent here.
There are two levels to this: individual and group-related or, to put it another way, personal and socio-economic/cultural.
On the personal level, what if I said, "You don't understand what it's like to be bullied!".
Undoubtedly you'd reply "Actually, I do understand what it's like to be 'bullied'!".
At which point I reply, "You *can't* understand what it's like to be bullied because you're not straight/white/male/middle class/college educated!". [Cross off all those which you are, leaving only those that you're not.]
Would you really think to yourself, "Well, actually, he's right - I *can't* know what it's like to be bullied from the perspective of someone who's straight/white/male/middle class/college educated"? [Again, cross off all those which you are, leaving only those that you're not.]
Or would you think "His head's stuck up his own bottom!"? [Edited for those with similar sensitivities to myself].
Or, if you were a therapist, would you think, "There's a certain amount of 'victim-thinking' going on here"?
And even if all of those criteria applied to you, and you replied that you could understand what it's like, I can still come back with more criteria - I only have to find one criterion, which doesn't apply to you, to say "Then, you *CAN'T* understand what it's like!".
At the end of the day, it's a case of the "victim" trying to win with "You don't understand what it's like to be *me*!"
Rather like looking at a rainbow: although everyone sees their own unique rainbow, we all know what it's like to see one.
The victim cannot be allowed to win that argument, otherwise they successfully shift the blame onto everyone else and, thus, don't have any responsibility to change.
At the socio-economic/cultural level, you have a similar situation.
I was already aware of this video, but thought it useful to demonstrate what I mean.
And here's Fox News take on it;
I do "get it".
This is very much a problem in America - racism hasn't gone away, it's still there under the surface.
You might say that it's due to "privilege" of being "white" - but that really only holds in America, not elsewhere.
If the average American white male went anywhere else in the "non-white" world, he's a foreigner.
In Latin America, he's a gringo; in the Arab world, infidel; in the Far East, gwailo (China) or gaijin (Japan).
And in Africa it doesn't grant you much of an advantage outside of South Africa, and even there its "value" has diminished.
The articles to which borrofburi linked appeared to me to be quite US-centric in their view and, if nothing else, brought out the shallowness of the average white American.
Hasselback has a valid point.
In order to address racism in America, it's not enough to stop whites using derogatory terms, blacks must also be encouraged to come out from under the miasma of self-pity that currently prevails there.
Dogma's Demise has hinted at his own cultural past - although he's from Romania, I wonder if he's a Slav!?
Slavs - from which the word "slave" comes - have a similar cultural thread of victimisation as a result.
Need one mention Jews? And I'm not just talking about the 2,000 years of intolerance and persecution from Christians (and Muslims) - it started even earlier with the Babylonians taking them into captivity.
Even Ireland has its own thread of victimisation.
The tone of Irish literature changed following the British "oppression" from the time of Elizabeth I. It developed a whiney "What the British did to us" lament.
This only ended when the economy took off, leading to Ireland being called the "Celtic Tiger of Europe": young Irish people were able to escape out from under the miasma of self-pity, in which I grew up. The very pro-nationalistic anthem was replaced with a more optimistic one sung in English, for example.
The point I'm making is that there's a two-way street: it's the relaitonship between the bully and his victim - both parties need to change their attitudes to effect permanent change.
+++
There was one other thing which borrofburi posted:
+++
I have the feeling that most of that will be dismissed as "same old, same old". Nevertheless.
Kindest regards,
James
Thanks, Gnug215, for bringing the episode to my attention - although I'd already gathered where I was; the Twilight Zone!Gnug215 said:
I don't watch South Park, nor did I watch the episode, but read the plot from the episode's Wiki article. I see what you mean - and it also certainly touches on the aspects of political correctness to which I was referring. I wonder if they got the idea from Rush Hour?
The main difference being that, unlike Randy and Jackie Chan, I didn't use a racial epithet, with or without it being racially-motivated, yet find myself being accused of racism, etc. And anything I subsequently said to the contrary after that is being dismissed - "because that's the sort he is", as we jokingly say at the chess club of someone who sets a trap for us.
What a utterly ridiculous situation in which to find oneself!
And privilege is relative.
However, it was something that borrofburi said - for which, thank you - that made me realise that we were working off different definitions of political correctness.
My take on it was formed a few decades ago, when the "Loony Left", and their daft ideas, were to the fore in the UK.borrofburi said:
For example, that you couldn't call a blackboard "black", because it's "racist" - you had to call it "green"(!). And there were similar issues with "whiteboards". Or the suggestion (by a militant feminist in the US) that a certain breed of dog be renamed "Doberperson", because "Doberman" was "sexist" - properly speaking, it's spelled "Dobermann".
It was these sort of over-the-top ideas that caused me to decide that political correctness wasn't helpful.
+++
However, that alone doesn't account for the fact that a number of posters have misread what I'd said. I can only explain this by putting it down to the fact that, having been mislabelled as a "racist/sexist/creep", others are viewing my posts through ImprobableJoe's eyes.
I can't see how my analogy could have been so misconstrued except through my having been mislabelled.televator said:
The "lid" of political correctness doesn't cause the problem (the lid blowing off/pot boiling over) - it exacerbates a pre-existing one (simmering pot).
And, as I've already pointed out, just because something *sounds* "libertarian" - which is an Americanism with pejorative connotations - doesn't mean that it is motivated by a "libertarian" attitude.
Likewise, the claim that I *sound like* a white racist from the Deep South.
+++
ImprobableJoe, you had me puzzled with your...
...post.
I still didn't get from where this was coming in your later posts - since I wasn't expecting it to go this way, I wasn't looking for it. The only thing I knew was that your perception of me was skewed. I confess to having become increasingly puzzled and irritated by your misperception and misrepresentation of both my motives and myself. Some of that irritation seeped into one of my replies - for which I apologise.
It wasn't until you posted this...
...that I realised with what I was dealing.
Just over twenty years ago, having had operations on both eyes, I retrained at Roslyn Park College, prior to returning to the work-force.
[Given the time that's passed since then, I see no harm in giving real names.]
A student on my course, named Maurice, was fancied by a girl on another course, named Anne.
One day, in the canteen, whilst a group of us were having lunch, she'd sat down by him and was virtually all-over him - hand on his thigh, leaning/pressing against him, etc. He was sitting stiffly upright opposite me, and turned bright red in embarrassment. I knew something she didn't: Maurice was homosexual.
A day or so later, whilst I was working alone in the computer room, she came in and went to sit on the desk where I was working. I moved some books to make room for her, when she said, "I wasn't going to squash them!". I was somewhat taken aback by the vehemence with which she said this, and explained that I was simply making room for her to sit. The conversation turned to Maurice, which was the real reason she'd come to talk to me - she wanted to know more about him, and if he'd mentioned her at all, and so on. Remembering his reaction to her being all-over him, I mentioned that "You frightened him...". The conversation continued and she eventually left.
The next day, whilst I was in the canteen having a cup of tea by myself, Maurice joined me. He told me that Anne had told him that I'd said he was afraid of her because she was an epileptic.
To say I was shocked is a understatement.
I told him that I *hadn't* said that, and wasn't even *thinking* that - and even if I *had been* thinking it, I'd *never* have said that.
Since he'd trusted me enough to tell me he was "gay" - it may have been his way of testing people to see, by their reaction, whether to include them in his circle of friends or not (at the time I'd told him, "I'm not straight - I'm heterosexual": he'd done a double-take, and then laughed) - he accepted what I said.
I already knew that Anne suffered from epilepsy: the first time I met her was when I found her unconscious in a empty corridor. I wasn't sure, at first, if she'd been attacked (there were some students recovering from mental health issues - including psychotics) or fallen, but she didn't show any obvious signs of injury. I stayed with her until she shortly came round, which is when she told me "I'm an epileptic". Even then, my layperson's knowledge of psychology told me she'd identified herself with her illness - at the time, I didn't realise how much.
The incident with Maurice was the first indication of that.
We both found out later, from the other students on her course, that she had a tendency to tag "- because I'm (an) epileptic" onto anything others said that triggered a knee-jerk reaction to what she'd suffered at school. Her epilepsy, as it often does, caused her to appear slow in thinking, understanding and remembering things at times - as a result, she'd been bullied.
Her nickname at school was "Stupid".
[He_Who_Is_Nobody, as someone who suffers from dyslexia, may also have suffered similarly - if he doesn't mind my mentioning it.]
It was then that I understood the strength of her reaction to my moving the books - it appeared to her that I was thinking/saying "You're stupid (enough to sit on/squash my books".
The point I wish to make, ImprobableJoe, is this:
What Anne did to me then, you're doing to me now.
+++
One thing with which I disagree is the "you don't/*can't* understand what it's like..." attitude that appears to be prevalent here.
There are two levels to this: individual and group-related or, to put it another way, personal and socio-economic/cultural.
On the personal level, what if I said, "You don't understand what it's like to be bullied!".
Undoubtedly you'd reply "Actually, I do understand what it's like to be 'bullied'!".
At which point I reply, "You *can't* understand what it's like to be bullied because you're not straight/white/male/middle class/college educated!". [Cross off all those which you are, leaving only those that you're not.]
Would you really think to yourself, "Well, actually, he's right - I *can't* know what it's like to be bullied from the perspective of someone who's straight/white/male/middle class/college educated"? [Again, cross off all those which you are, leaving only those that you're not.]
Or would you think "His head's stuck up his own bottom!"? [Edited for those with similar sensitivities to myself].
Or, if you were a therapist, would you think, "There's a certain amount of 'victim-thinking' going on here"?
And even if all of those criteria applied to you, and you replied that you could understand what it's like, I can still come back with more criteria - I only have to find one criterion, which doesn't apply to you, to say "Then, you *CAN'T* understand what it's like!".
At the end of the day, it's a case of the "victim" trying to win with "You don't understand what it's like to be *me*!"
Rather like looking at a rainbow: although everyone sees their own unique rainbow, we all know what it's like to see one.
The victim cannot be allowed to win that argument, otherwise they successfully shift the blame onto everyone else and, thus, don't have any responsibility to change.
At the socio-economic/cultural level, you have a similar situation.
I was already aware of this video, but thought it useful to demonstrate what I mean.
And here's Fox News take on it;
I do "get it".
This is very much a problem in America - racism hasn't gone away, it's still there under the surface.
You might say that it's due to "privilege" of being "white" - but that really only holds in America, not elsewhere.
If the average American white male went anywhere else in the "non-white" world, he's a foreigner.
In Latin America, he's a gringo; in the Arab world, infidel; in the Far East, gwailo (China) or gaijin (Japan).
And in Africa it doesn't grant you much of an advantage outside of South Africa, and even there its "value" has diminished.
The articles to which borrofburi linked appeared to me to be quite US-centric in their view and, if nothing else, brought out the shallowness of the average white American.
Hasselback has a valid point.
In order to address racism in America, it's not enough to stop whites using derogatory terms, blacks must also be encouraged to come out from under the miasma of self-pity that currently prevails there.
Dogma's Demise has hinted at his own cultural past - although he's from Romania, I wonder if he's a Slav!?
Slavs - from which the word "slave" comes - have a similar cultural thread of victimisation as a result.
Need one mention Jews? And I'm not just talking about the 2,000 years of intolerance and persecution from Christians (and Muslims) - it started even earlier with the Babylonians taking them into captivity.
Even Ireland has its own thread of victimisation.
The tone of Irish literature changed following the British "oppression" from the time of Elizabeth I. It developed a whiney "What the British did to us" lament.
This only ended when the economy took off, leading to Ireland being called the "Celtic Tiger of Europe": young Irish people were able to escape out from under the miasma of self-pity, in which I grew up. The very pro-nationalistic anthem was replaced with a more optimistic one sung in English, for example.
The point I'm making is that there's a two-way street: it's the relaitonship between the bully and his victim - both parties need to change their attitudes to effect permanent change.
+++
There was one other thing which borrofburi posted:
ImprobaleJoe, have you considered how much of the above may be due to your having been the victim of racism throughout your life?
+++
I have the feeling that most of that will be dismissed as "same old, same old". Nevertheless.
Kindest regards,
James
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Oh no, Dragan Glas is totally not being condescending and refusing to listen to people, I had him all wrong [/sarcasm]
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
I've edited the post as I left out a section following the Whoopi videos.
And, as I thought, there are still going to be disagreement(s) on this - although I hadn't expected it to be resolved on a first attempt.
Kindest regards,
James
I've edited the post as I left out a section following the Whoopi videos.
And, as I thought, there are still going to be disagreement(s) on this - although I hadn't expected it to be resolved on a first attempt.
Kindest regards,
James
borrofburi
New Member
Hmm. Much like sexism i think there are probably varying degrees of "political correctness", and varying degrees of what will get you a negative reaction. I do recall the switch from "black" to "African American", and then back, and I've always found that one to be a little silly. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of people complain about "political correctness" when they're called out for using insults such as "gay", and that's a case where someone is trying to use it as a shield for their homophobic remark (even if they themselves aren't actually homophobic, the insult itself *is* and using it perpetuates the idea that being homosexual is a bad thing). When people complain about PC, it's usually the latter case; which is why Joe straight up assumed it was the latter case.Dragan Glas said:
Still, I think it's worth pointing out: you *don't* get it. You might partially get it. I think I partially "get" sexism for a variety of reasons. But I'll never truly "get it", as I've never had to grow up with the life experience and socialization that females do (e.g., I have not had to deal with tons of media (viewed from a young age on up) that has a single message: your value as a human being is in how physically attractive you are).