Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I'm establishing a base-level statement that I don't believe everyone agrees on given that various posters have disparaged 'feelings' or people being offended as unimportant at all.

I don't think anyone has "disparaged" anything. I mean, you edited a quote of luchog's to make it seem as if that was what he was doing by removing most of what he actually said, but I don't think that counts.

I also don't think it's been established that someone being offended about something is necessarily important. Not that that really matters, as not only is "unimportant at all" your phrase, but it seems to be an argument that you've made up entirely.

It's not clear to me that someone arguing that the behavior also occurs in situations without racial implications isn't arguing that the writer's response should be different.

I'm sure you can infer whatever you like, but these types of conversations generally go better if you respond to what people actually say, rather than making stuff up and then responding to that instead.

 

[qwints]

I also don't think it's been established that someone being offended about something is necessarily important.

Let's see if I can move this forward. Under what circumstances, if any, do you think that someone being offended is important?

I'd say that I try to avoid making people feel hurt/upset/insulted, especially when that hurt ties into a larger pattern of social marginalization. On the other hand, I'm unwilling to give anyone a heckler's veto, and refuse to change the substance of a well-founded opinion I hold simply because someone says it offends them. In most circumstances, I'm willing to re-examine opinions when someone with different experiences makes a claim about something I lack personal experience in. This is an ad hoc idealization of the process and I'm sure I deviate from this ideal constantly.

I'm sure you can infer whatever you like, but these types of conversations generally go better if you respond to what people actually say, rather than making stuff up and then responding to that instead.

Is there a reason you're telling me this and not the other posters who are rephrasing my positions* or arguing against random straw men without citations?

*I generally find that rephrasing people's statements in my own words and then seeing if that represents what the other person meant is a good way of building understanding. I'm perplexed by people who disagree with my interpretation of their statement but refuse to clarify further.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Fixed that for you. Well, maybe the second strike through is a bit much.

LOL! Probably not.

Isn't there a (even loonier than A+) subset of radical feminism that considers all sex to be rape? I seem to recall reading that at some point (and having a good laugh, of course).

 

[qwints]

Also, squeegee here's why I'm confused. I hear you saying two contradictory things

1) The delivery person in your story did not experience racism because your friend didn't have a racist intent. See this post

2) The delivery's person really did experience racism. See this post

I'm obviously misinterpreting one of those two positions, since they're self-evidently contradictory. What am I missing here?

 

[luchog]

I disagree. How people feel has measurable effects on their well-being.

But, as noted, is absolutely irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

Never, you always bear some level of responsibility for the effects of your words and actions. That's not to say intent/knowledge doesn't play into the level of culpability, but it is to say that once you know how your words affect someone you have to choose whether to modify your behavior. I can certainly imagine scenarios where I choose not to modify my behavior despite knowing someone will be offended by my words, but that doesn't remove my responsibility.

Nonsense. I only bear responsibility for what I actually say and do; and for how I say or do it. If someone chooses to misinterpret me in order to be offended, instead of applying the principle of charity, my responsibility ends. I can certainly assume additional responsibility if I feel it would be appropriate; but offense is not my problem if I'm not intending to offend. Any other way madness lies.

Agreed. That's doesn't mean that people cease to be offended.

And in agreeing, you're flying in the face of one of the most cherished principles of SJWs, and indeed many activists of all stripes. Offense is considered the ultimate trump card; and so much of what is wrong with PC culture in the US at least (and certainly many other countries) is to avoid giving accidental offense to individuals who seek to be offended by any worldview that is not strictly in line with their own.

 

[qwints]

Isn't there a (even loonier than A+) subset of radical feminism that considers all sex to be rape? I seem to recall reading that at some point (and having a good laugh, of course).

Andrea Dworkin ^WP was accused of this, especially in Intercourse (book)^WP. She explicitly rejected this interpretation.

 

[qwints]

But, as noted, is absolutely irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

You couldn't be more wrong, it's part of the reality of the situation. Someone's internal state is part of reality.

I only bear responsibility for what I actually say and do; and for how I say or do it.

No man is an island, Entire of itself. But this is a deep ethical divide we're not going to resolve here.

And in agreeing, you're flying in the face of one of the most cherished principles of SJWs, and indeed many activists of all stripes.

I've seen plenty of people denying the existence of a right not to be offended, but I've seen no one advocate one. Would you care to show me otherwise or are you just going to continue to make broad onsourced assertions?

 

[WillyWonka]

LOL! Probably not.

Isn't there a (even loonier than A+) subset of radical feminism that considers all sex to be rape? I seem to recall reading that at some point (and having a good laugh, of course).

I believe that it was all sex "with a penis" to be rape.

 

[squealpiggy]

I'm still not sure. Just what do you mean by "typically associated"? Is there some sort of reference to this? Or is it just funny pseudo-African sounding names? Is Latoya an upper class name because we know there's a Latoya with some bucks? Sounds just as po' black trash to me as "Latisha".

You think that a single pop star changes the class of the name "Latoya"? Didn't work for Britney!

I just googled Latisha and the first thing I found was a Baby Name site. All the commenters on those pages are usually people with the same name. A whole lot of Latishas seem to be in a University, somewhere.

And what? The presence of people called Latisha in University does not change the perception of the class of the name.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

And in agreeing, you're flying in the face of one of the most cherished principles of SJWs, and indeed many activists of all stripes. Offense is considered the ultimate trump card; and so much of what is wrong with PC culture in the US at least (and certainly many other countries) is to avoid giving accidental offense to individuals who seek to be offended by any worldview that is not strictly in line with their own.

Reminds of what happens when someone in public life makes a remark
considered by some, to be "not quite right", critical (or offensive) in some way and are pressured to say something. Without retracting or apologising for the remark itself , which may be justified or unjustified, they will often apologise instead "for the offence" they may have caused.

 

[Joe Random]

I believe that it was all sex "with a penis" to be rape.

Easiest example to find quickly on the internet would be Twisty Faster :

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/07/18/a-bit-of-lighthearted-fun/

<...> in a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist. This is because, in a patriarchy, agency is not conferred equally upon women and dudes. This untoward circumstance creates a contingency wherein the notion of consent is, for women, entirely non-substantive <...>

Granted, this is Twisty Faster, so quoting her in a discussion of societal attitudes toward sexual relations is kind of like citing Lord Humungus in a discussion about oil exports, but still. While I doubt anyone would claim it's a mainstream view, there is a lunatic fringe which does in fact claim that all PiV sex is necessarily rape.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's at least a few different things going on here. "Sex with someone who can't consent is rape" is, as you say, not a difficult concept. It's a tautology.

I wouldn't say the people who respond with the drunk girlfriend argument are necessarily "resisting" that statement. Most likely one or both of the parties are misunderstanding the other. The statement that "having sex with someone who's been drinking is rape" is not equivalent to the statement that "having sex with someone who's too drunk to consent is rape". The latter is qualified with the fact that the person is too drunk to consent, while the first could refer to literally anyone who's been drinking, even if drinking has not diminished their capacity.

If, on the other hand, the first party has made exactly that tautological argument and the second party makes the drunk girlfriend argument, I'd argue the second party has most likely just misinterpreted the argument, or read too far into the first party's intent, especially if they're actually engaged in debate. If not, then clearly they're wrong or don't understand the concept of consent, because, as stated before, "having sex with someone who's too drunk to consent is rape" is tautological on its face.

On the other hand, there are a few flakes who have argued that if anyone has one drink they're unable to consent, and that can rub off on arguments. If someone has told me "the sky is always red (and therefore you're evil)," and I've had to argue against that position, with the accompanying baggage of being called evil, then someone else comes along saying, "the sky is sometimes red (and that can mean you're evil)," it can be hard to not immediately jump to "the sky is usually blue!" even when that has nothing to do with their argument.

Exactly and the issue is exactly where to draw the line around how drunk does someone need to be to be too drunk to consent. There is the clear case of passed out but black out drunks are capable of dirrected willfull action, they might be clearly drunk but is it too drunk?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Let's see if I can move this forward. Under what circumstances, if any, do you think that someone being offended is important?

Well, "important" is a vague term. On a global scale? Never. From the inside of that person's head? Always. But I would say that, as a general rule of thumb, offence matters when offence is intended or when it's generated from a larger framework of injustice.

But, then again, I don't think it's an easy concept to pin down. To use a couple of banal examples, I hate what I've seen of the comedian Andrew Dice Clay, as his entire schtick seems to be saying misogynist things - and those things are the entirety of the joke. On the other hand, almost every telling of the joke "the Aristocrats" I've ever heard I've found funny. I like Sarah Silverman's stand up. I like South Park, for the most part, although I absolutely loathe the East Asian stereotypes they employ. But, on the other hand, I don't like Family Guy.

Is there any quantifiable metric I can use to assess why I like or dislike any of those things? Not really. Sarah Silverman says things which are more offensive than Andrew Dice Clay, and often those things are the joke in and of themselves. You can make the argument that Andrew Dice Clay means the things he says and that Sarah Silverman is being racist (or whatever) ironically, but that's not an argument I really buy. 'Till Death Do Us Part (All In The Family in the US) was intended to be an anti-racist programme, yet the racists loved it and the audience laughed whenever Alf Garnet said "darkie", or whatever. Sometimes I think that "I'm being ironic" is a nice shield to hide behind while getting cheap laughs by saying the word "******". And, as we've established, intent need not be the only determining factor in whether something is or is not offensive.

So, I suppose, where I fall down is in saying that I do think that offence matters, but I also think that the right of people to be offensive matters. It's hard to speak in generalities because I think that each case has to be assessed on its individual merits. Context means a lot.

I'd say that I try to avoid making people feel hurt/upset/insulted, especially when that hurt ties into a larger pattern of social marginalization.

As do I.

On the other hand, I'm unwilling to give anyone a heckler's veto, and refuse to change the substance of a well-founded opinion I hold simply because someone says it offends them. In most circumstances, I'm willing to re-examine opinions when someone with different experiences makes a claim about something I lack personal experience in. This is an ad hoc idealization of the process and I'm sure I deviate from this ideal constantly.

And a ditto for all of that for me, too. Although I would change the emphasis away from experiences and use the more general term "knowledge" which includes, but is not limited to, experience.

Is there a reason you're telling me this and not the other posters who are rephrasing my positions* or arguing against random straw men without citations?

Because you keep doing it to me, and what you keep restating is something that was explicitly said at the start of the conversation. You keep responding to my posts, but your replies often seem to indicate that you've not actually read anything that I've posted over the last couple of days.

I'm sure you're a big boy and can tell other people yourself if you feel they're representing you unfairly.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Also, squeegee here's why I'm confused. I hear you saying two contradictory things

1) The delivery person in your story did not experience racism because your friend didn't have a racist intent. See this post

2) The delivery's person really did experience racism. See this post

I'm obviously misinterpreting one of those two positions, since they're self-evidently contradictory. What am I missing here?

You have, seemingly, missed the several posts in which I have clearly and explicitly said that people's perception of reality need not necessarily be representative of reality. Given that that's been the entire thrust of my argument over the last 3 or 4 pages, I'm going to stick by my opinion that you've not really been paying much attention to what I've been posting.

 

[qwints]

But I would say that, as a general rule of thumb, offence matters when offence is intended or when it's generated from a larger framework of injustice.
...
So, I suppose, where I fall down is in saying that I do think that offence matters, but I also think that the right of people to be offensive matters. It's hard to speak in generalities because I think that each case has to be assessed on its individual merits. Context means a lot.

Good general rule, and I completely agree. Was the reference intentional? If so, quite clever.

You have, seemingly, missed the several posts in which I have clearly and explicitly said that people's perception of reality need not necessarily be representative of reality.

I re-read every post of yours, and I'm still confused by your position. You've said this:

I don't think there's anything inherently racist about the phrase "you people", and nor do I think there's anything inherently racist about jokingly saying to someone that they should have gone round to the back entrance.

Assume the black delivery man disagreed with you, even knowing your friend's intent. Would you change your opinion?

 

[Quinn]

This does mean that, absent prior consent, it's theoretically possible for two people to sexually assault each other.

Then how do you deal with the problem that the concept of two people sexually assaulting each other is, on its very face, inescapably bat-**** crazy stupid? And that if you advance a definition of sexual assault that includes that as a legitimate scenario, you are trivializing the very concept of sexual assault? As has been pointed out, at that point you are forcing me to ask, when I hear that someone has been sexually assaulted, whether it's the kind of sexual assault I care about, like someone using a position of authority to coerce someone else into sex; or the kind I don't even slightly care about, like two people cheerfully hooking up when they're both sloppy drunk. You are giving ammo to the Todd Akins of the world and their despicable "legitimate rape" comments.

 

[qwints]

Then how do you deal with the problem that the concept of two people sexually assaulting each other is, on its very face,
inescapably bat-**** crazy stupid?

It's the product of two good rules:

1) Getting drunk doesn't excuse you committing a crime
2) Having sex with someone who can't consent is a crime

There are all sorts of absurd crim law scenarios involving good laws. (See Bad Acts and Guilty Minds). This is conceptually similar to mutual statutory rape - the correct response is discretion based on the individual facts of the case.

And that if you advance a definition of sexual assault that includes that as a legitimate scenario, you are trivializing the very concept of sexual assault?

Nope. Having sex with someone who doesn't or can't consent is wrong. That's not trivial. In Texas, for example, can't consent means "unconscious", "physically unable to resist" or "unaware that the sexual assault is occurring." Tex. Pen. Code 22.011(b). For non-criminal sanctions, I don't think such bright-line standards are needed. I really don't think saying you should only have sex with someone who really wants to have sex with you is trivializing anything.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Then how do you deal with the problem that the concept of two people sexually assaulting each other is, on its very face, inescapably bat-**** crazy stupid? And that if you advance a definition of sexual assault that includes that as a legitimate scenario, you are trivializing the very concept of sexual assault? As has been pointed out, at that point you are forcing me to ask, when I hear that someone has been sexually assaulted, whether it's the kind of sexual assault I care about, like someone using a position of authority to coerce someone else into sex; or the kind I don't even slightly care about, like two people cheerfully hooking up when they're both sloppy drunk. You are giving ammo to the Todd Akins of the world and their despicable "legitimate rape" comments.

At the risk of sounding like a Dittohead......"ditto".

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Then how do you deal with the problem that the concept of two people sexually assaulting each other is, on its very face, inescapably bat-**** crazy stupid?

Just popping in here to note this concept exists, and is called a hate ****. The broad spectrum of human affection is far too vast and wonderous to let a little thing like logical impossibility keep a concept from being explored.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Every time this crap comes up about 2 drunk people assaulting eachother comes up I have to roll my eyes... Its really not that difficult to understand. If you are too drunk to consent, you are in such a condition that you are unable to initiate or actively take part in sex. In any sexual encounter there has to be at least one partner who is actively taking part. This person is not to drunk to consent. If the other person is also actively participating, then they are also not too drunk to consent. If one of the people is lying there passively, perhaps not resisting - then they may very well be too drunk to consent. If 2 people are so drunk that all they can do is lie there passively, then there is no sex happening, and therefore no rape. If your partner is actively and enthusiastically taking part in sex with you, then there is no way you can be raping them, no matter if they are quite drunk. This would be a potential example of regretful drunken sex, but not of rape.

Please use your brains!