Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Nihilus]

The response to a woman who claims she was raped (and omg doesn't write every little detail onto her sign)

Actually, the converse is true. What she did write on her sign is indicative of someone with no regard for her/his partner. If she hadn't been raped, her boyfriend dumping her would be of no surprise. Or maybe you thinking cheating is an attractive trait?

is basically "I think you're lying and even if you weren't you are really dumb for trusting some random guy not to rape you when you got the chance". And that's a link you post as if it is representative of your views?

I have no clue what you're talking about here. I suspect it's the result of shoving every possible critical view into the same bucket with people who do have actively think and say that all rapes are the fault of the woman, and then presuming you understand the intellectual motivations behind any comment.

Or you could start replying to what I say, instead of what you imagine I am saying.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Actually, the converse is true. What she did write on her sign is indicative of someone with no regard for her/his partner. If she hadn't been raped, her boyfriend dumping her would be of no surprise. Or maybe you thinking cheating is an attractive trait?


I have no clue what you're talking about here. I suspect it's the result of shoving every possible critical view into the same bucket with people who do have actively think and say that all rapes are the fault of the woman, and then presuming you understand the intellectual motivations behind any comment.

Or you could start replying to what I say, instead of what you imagine I am saying.

The main point of the "translated" sign was to imply that the woman had consenting sex and just regretted it in the morning and called it rape - all without knowing anything about the woman or the experience she had other than what she wrote on her sign. Every extra little detail that was "filled in" was to make it look like "not rape". If they are not representative of your general views you should make damn sure you point out exactly which bits you agree with and which you don't before you think of posting such a disgusting link.

 

[Nihilus]

The main point of the "translated" sign was to imply that the woman had consenting sex and just regretted it in the morning and called it rape - all without knowing anything about the woman or the experience she had other than what she wrote on her sign. Every extra little detail that was "filled in" was to make it look like "not rape". If they are not representative of your general views you should make damn sure you point out exactly which bits you agree with and which you don't before you think of posting such a disgusting link.

"Disgusting" is an odd choice of critique. It is either correct or not.

I suppose I could have been more clear than...

"the original is on the left and the 'translation' on the right which I had never seen up until now while looking for the original shot, although it does cover some of the basic points I planned on addressing" (i.e. some, not all)

...and...

"While the response image from the link above goes into injecting some unknowable elements to the story"

...when discussing a topic that can elicit rabid emotionalism rather than analytical thought, though.

So, rebooting the image:

The original picture uses rape as a permission slip from being unfaithful and disproportionately irresponsible.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Whether it is "correct" or not is unknowable, as none of us, nor the writer of the translation was in that garage. However the intent of the the "translator" is clearly to imply that most women who say they were raped are lying about it. Which does, indeed, disgust me. I would hope that it would disgust most people, but I'm kind of losing faith in humankind these days.

And by posting it and saying it "covers some basic points" which you planned on addressing, anyone reading it would think you agree with the person who made it and the points you wanted to address were mostly the same as the points in the picture. If you can't see that, I can't see any hope for this discussion with you.

You seriously can't see how offensive that link is?

 

[Nihilus]

Whether it is "correct" or not is unknowable, as none of us, nor the writer of the translation was in that garage. However the intent of the the "translator" is clearly to imply that most women who say they were raped are lying about it.

That's a gross exaggeration of the second image. At best he is saying that woman lied about more incriminating details.

On top of that, I've already made clear the specifics that are in question. Failing to address those while fixating on the emotionalism of what you read into the situation is, coincidentally, precisely the type of issue I'm alluding to: ignoring unpretty facts in the light of a bad event.

And by posting it and saying it "covers some basic points" which you planned on addressing, anyone reading it would think you agree with the person who made it and the points you wanted to address were mostly the same as the points in the picture.

Which is why you're the only one fighting the good fight against my covert rape apologism?

So...even if we grant that a more ideal option would have been to find the original image alone and then point out how the lady is using her rape to excuse her behavior (which is kind of insulting to faithful partners everywhere) and that an additional 5 minutes of typing would have helped prevent someone jumping to conclusions prior to asking for a more detailed response...is the main issue now the more easily assailed elements I've already pointed out as not being relevant?

 

[AlBell]

The response to a woman who claims she was raped (and omg doesn't write every little detail onto her sign) is basically "I think you're lying and even if you weren't you are really dumb for trusting some random guy not to rape you when you got the chance". And that's a link you post as if it is representative of your views?

A guy told me his girlfriend was lousy in bed; she just lays there and shouts NO!

Anyone want to drop that into A+?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

That's a gross exaggeration of the second image. At best he is saying that woman lied about more incriminating details.

Bollocks.
Oh yes, I just decided to accuse some random woman of lying about her rape, but nooooo of course I don't think most women are lying about rape. Just this one. Who I decided was lying, for no reason at all...

So...even if we grant that a more ideal option would have been to find the original image alone and then point out how the lady is using her rape to excuse her behavior (which is kind of insulting to faithful partners everywhere) and that an additional 5 minutes of typing would have helped prevent someone jumping to conclusions prior to asking for a more detailed response...is the main issue now the more easily assailed elements I've already pointed out as not being relevant?

Did I miss a memo? Is flirting with someone who isn't your partner now considered being unfaithful? And I don't see anywhere that she is using the rape to excuse her flirting. She is just pointing out that the flirting does not in any way excuse the rape. And yes, maybe the ex would have had the exact same response if he had just found out she had flirted with someone rather than been raped (or had sex with someone in the words of the translation), but personally I doubt it.

I just don't get why talking about someone flirting with someone other than their boyfriend is a major point when we are talking about attitudes surrounding the issue of rape/sexual assault.

 

[Hokulele]

I have to agree with Professor Yaffle, that is one of the more obtuse and offensive "translations" I have seen in a long time.

 

[s_pepys]

I have to agree with Professor Yaffle, that is one of the more obtuse and offensive "translations" I have seen in a long time.

yep.

 

[theprestige]

See, that has nothing to do with gender "privilege" and everything to do with either knowledge of your surroundings or general cautioned decision-making.

I meant that it's easy for me to be dismissive of problems I don't usually have to worry about myself.

Not to mention that I don't know anyone who would immediately jump to "that was kinda stupid of her" (that actually sounds like you're subversively strawmanning from the inside).

I'm not strawmanning. I'm conflicted. I hear a story like that, I immediately jump to a few different places, more or less simultaneously. "What a tragedy." "There ought to be the death penalty for rape." "She neglected to take basic precautions? That was kind of stupid of her." Etc.


My particular pet peeve is the conflation of events even slightly related to a rape that also are carte-blanched because, presumably, having suffered a horrible thing exempts one from other things.

This is the particular examples I tend to see (the original is on the left and the 'translation' on the right which I had never seen up until now while looking for the original shot, although it does cover some of the basic points I planned on addressing): http://melvin-udall.livejournal.com/1272935.html[/QUOTE]

 

[s_pepys]

i really liked this comment and am thinking, im going to try to be more like this.

I think we all should remember the principle of charity, something which is often missing in these internal fights.
When considering another’s argument it helps to give it the most charitable interpretation, to argue against the best possible argument on the “other side.” This is the antidote to the straw man fallacy. If you are not charitable then it is likely that you will waste time arguing against a position that was never articulated.
Find common ground and be charitable. How many times have we as skeptics advocated this approach when dealing with the most dedicated charlatans or pseudoscientists? It seems like we should be able to extend the courtesy to others in our own community.
My problem with so many of the exchanges that are fueling internal strife is that they are maximally uncharitable to the target of their criticism. This is very counterproductive.

then rebbecca pipes in with the exact opposite of novellas suggestion!

and suddenly im trying really hard to be charitable towards her and the sgu.

it really is time they confronted this on the show imo.

(hopes me quotes work, at the risk of prof yaffles ire!)lxxx

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

518 words ~25 of them are "I".

Love the closing:


I’m writing all this to you now because I want to be sure that you know that I do not think of you as my enemy. In fact, I don’t really think of you at all. The most one could say is that when you are occasionally brought to my attention, as happened with Will’s recent posts, I simply think of you as ill-informed on social issues.

So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.


IOW I'm taking time to notice you to tell you you're below my notice.

My absolute favourite thing about Watson's post is that Hall completely ignored it. Just as she should.

 

[Nihilus]

Bollocks.
Oh yes, I just decided to accuse some random woman of lying about her rape, but nooooo of course I don't think most women are lying about rape. Just this one. Who I decided was lying, for no reason at all...

Him imagining things she said that paint her in a bad light = "disgusting".
You imagining things he said that paint him in a bad light = truth.

Gotcha.

Did I miss a memo? Is flirting with someone who isn't your partner now considered being unfaithful?

Yep. Unless her ex just likes spitting in her face and breaking up with her for no reason. The underlying point of her having done something he clearly considered unnaceptable for their relationship is pretty clear. What is odd is your attempt to softball it ("It was only flirting! Geez!") is pretty bad pandering.

And I don't see anywhere that she is using the rape to excuse her flirting. She is just pointing out that the flirting does not in any way excuse the rape.

Right. And the inclusion of how the boyfriend broke up with her and her friends thought she was unacceptably publicly promiscuous was just fluff to add to the story.

The clearly implied idea is how her ex and friends are subversively supporting rape culture, when they're really just supporting being-mature-and-honest-partner culture.

And yes, maybe the ex would have had the exact same response if he had just found out she had flirted with someone rather than been raped (or had sex with someone in the words of the translation), but personally I doubt it.

Now who is relying on "disgusting" presumptions? So, your first though about a man who breaks up with a woman, post-rape, is that he has severely serious emotional issues and is pissed off about the rape itself?

How is that preemptive outlook on men any different than men who say women are to blame for their rapes?

I just don't get why talking about someone flirting with someone other than their boyfriend is a major point when we are talking about attitudes surrounding the issue of rape/sexual assault.

Umm...because that's the whole point I've been making: how, in this case, she tried to use the rape to garner sympathy for being irresponsible and indecent in other slightly-related parts of her life.

 

[Nihilus]

I have to agree with Professor Yaffle, that is one of the more obtuse and offensive "translations" I have seen in a long time.

I think you're misusing the word "obtuse" here. It is presumptive, yes. Some of it is relatively wild guessing based on the emotional interpretation of what the lady originally wrote.

But unless you were trying to add a touch of alliterative dismissal to something you wanted to say naughty things about, it doesn't much make sense.

 

[Nihilus]

I meant that it's easy for me to be dismissive of problems I don't usually have to worry about myself.

That's fair. But, in a general sense, "we could all use a bit more empathy" is always a positive view.

I'm not strawmanning. I'm conflicted. I hear a story like that, I immediately jump to a few different places, more or less simultaneously. "What a tragedy." "There ought to be the death penalty for rape." "She neglected to take basic precautions? That was kind of stupid of her." Etc.

Didn't mean to accuse you. I suppose I'm weirded out by the inclusion of the "stupid" part because I don't see it as necessarily relevant to rape; it can be a component that leads up to it, or it cannot.

 

[Hokulele]

I think you're misusing the word "obtuse" here. It is presumptive, yes. Some of it is relatively wild guessing based on the emotional interpretation of what the lady originally wrote.

But unless you were trying to add a touch of alliterative dismissal to something you wanted to say naughty things about, it doesn't much make sense.

"Obtuse" is often used when someone is deliberately misunderstanding someone else, or is demonstrating a distinct lack of sensitivity. I believe both apply to that "translation".

The reactions of the boyfriend, the friends, and the translator all appear to suggest that they believe flirting+alcohol+attire=consent. That is the assumption I find objectionable, offensive, and yes, obtuse.

 

[s_pepys]

s novella with a later comment:

To summarize – everyone here seems to agree on some pretty important principles:
- gender equality
- judging people by the content of their character, and not by physical or gender attributes
- creating a safe and open environment regardless of sex or gender
- the concept of sex and gender are complex and multifarious, and it’s all within the spectrum of what it is to be human.
- condemnation of sexism in all its forms
- respect and recognition of the dignity of all people regardless of their sex/gender.
Can we all please recognize that these are important points of general agreement?
The points of contention are small by comparison and it is irresponsible, in my opinion, not to put them into the context of the above areas of agreement.
Points of contention:
- Is it strategically better, in order to achieve the above goals, to pursue a sex/gender blind society (Harriet’s approach), or one that celebrates sex/gender distinctions (Skepchick approach)? Harriet has stated specifically that she has made a personal choice for the former, but does not condemn the latter. This seems like a point that can be discussed civilly without implying disagreement on the core principles outlined above.
- Is it OK to use colloquial male/female or man/woman binary language when the topic of discussion does not directly involve the cis/trans issue? While no-one is defending the straw man position that human gender is binary, there are those defending the position that it is bimodal – to a first approximation most people fall into a man/woman category, with recognized exceptions to this general rule. Yes the exceptions should be recognized and respected, but does this meant that a caveat of their existence is universally necessary. I am not taking a position – just pointing out that this is the actual point of contention. I would only add that I think Harriet is being unfairly singled out on this issue (which I think was made a proxy excuse to dismiss her many valid points). Look through the Skepchick blog and you will see many posts that assume man/woman binary categories when discussing topics not directly related to the cis/trans issue.

lxxx

 

[Nihilus]

The reactions of the boyfriend, the friends, and the translator all appear to suggest that they believe flirting+alcohol+attire=consent.

The only way that kind of conclusion (specifically with relation to the ex and her friends; it could potentially be argued for the maker of the response image) is anything but a ridiculous non sequitur is if you already have the mindset of villainizing anyone who deviates from complete, expansive coddling of any and every part of a victim's life.

 

[s_pepys]

skepchicks will responds to harriet hall....again.

http://skepchick.org/2013/02/a-final-response-to-harriet-hall/

lxxx

 

[Zelenius]

s novella with a later comment:



lxxx

So I am not the only one who finds Novella's comments strange in light of the fact that one of his co-hosts on SGU is arguably the single most divisive figure in the entire skeptic community, who seems to be habitually ignoring his good advice? That seems to be the elephant in the room that no one on that thread is mentioning, while they praise Novella for his attempts at bridging the divide.

Makes me glad I never tuned into SGU even once.