AOC offended Team Mitch gets gropey

[plague311]

Why? Is that behaviour that horrifying to you? They're fooling around with a cardboard cutout.

Yeah, well. That cardboard cutout is of another human ******* being. It's not a cardboard cutout of Bob the Builder, Spongebob, or any other non existent entity. It represents a person and the actions they're performing are representative of what they want to do to that person.

Seriously it's innocuous.

I'm not sure why you keep implying this without the "to me" qualifier. It's extremely odd.

Also, it's obviously not innocuous to AOC who gets death threats from Trump\GOP supporters constantly. I totally understand that, to you, this is nothing. Just shrug it away, and move on. To others we see a disturbing pattern of behavior from people and don't condone it.

If that's the objection, Isn't that a matter for their parents, the church, and other picnic-goers? Why does anyone else need to be involved?

Don't start none, won't be none. Don't want public attention? Don't publish photos of yourself doing dumb things on a global communications network.

Exactly. If no one else needs to be involved then why was a picture taken and posted to a social media\sharing cite?

No one else needs to be involved with me taking a ****, that's why I no longer take pictures of it and post it to my social media accounts. That way no one gets involved because no one knows about it.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It's no one's problem. It was a cardboard cutout.

What you posted above is nothing but a platitude. It's not an argument. If a woman pretends to grobe or french kiss a picture of Brad Pitt, is she being misandrist?

And I don't appreciate your accusation. Maybe you need to take a break.

Are you seriously unable to at least attempt to understand how women will feel about that photo, or are you saying that isn't a real problem?

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly. If no one else needs to be involved then why was a picture taken and posted to a social media\sharing cite?

That doesn't make sense. Let's take it as a given that the kids shouldn't have taken the picture or posted it publicly. But how does them making a mistake justify other people making a mistake? Obviously it doesn't. So you still need some actual justification for others getting involved. Some people here have offered reasoning along those lines (like saying it contributes to generalized misogyny in our culture), but pgwenthold's complaint doesn't do it.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, well. That cardboard cutout is of another human ******* being. It's not a cardboard cutout of Bob the Builder, Spongebob, or any other non existent entity. It represents a person and the actions they're performing are representative of what they want to do to that person.

Oh, I'm not sure you want to go there, because that would mean that first-person shooters where you kill civilians are "representative" of what you want to do in real life. Nonsense, right?

If you can't distinguish what you pretend to do from what you want to do, then you're no different than people who call video games murder simulators. And I know that you know better than that.

I get it. Tensions are running high. In the modern world we are hyper-sensitive to things that could in any way be interpreted as sexist or racist or whatever. Couple that with the antagonistic level of partisan politics and you have a recipe for constant outrage. But we can't abandon reason just because the conclusion fits social mores.

Teenagers, and even adults, are known to do things in certain contexts that seem silly, stupid or downright malicious. But sometimes it _is_ just stupid kids being stupid kids. I don't know, despite what you've said here I think you've probably said or did things even recently that someone else would, out of context, call evil. You think it was just in good fun.

Are you seriously unable to at least attempt to understand how women will feel about that photo, or are you saying that isn't a real problem?

Still not an argument. And you don't speak for women.

If some girl pretends to punch a cardboard cutout of Mitch McConnell in the gut, should I be worried as a man? You're not making sense.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If some girl pretends to punch a cardboard cutout of Mitch McConnell in the gut, should I be worried as a man? You're not making sense.

You just might, if you had been raised in a society that treated men the way we do women. But you weren't, were you.

 

[Belz...]

You just might, if you had been raised in a society that treated men the way we do women. But you weren't, were you.

I was, actually. Were you not raised in a western democracy?

But all this is irrelevant anyway. It's just more platitudes; appeals to emotion, not reason. You're suggesting that had I been raised in a world that treated men as, what, second class citizens, I might feel nervous when someone pretends to punch a man? No, I think I could still distinguish between pretense and intent. Toddlers manage to do it.

You're repeating ideological talking points, but I'm not sure you've thought them through.

 

[plague311]

Oh, I'm not sure you want to go there, because that would mean that first-person shooters where you kill civilians are "representative" of what you want to do in real life. Nonsense, right?

If you can't distinguish what you pretend to do from what you want to do, then you're no different than people who call video games murder simulators. And I know that you know better than that.

False equivalence. Virtual worlds that you log in and out of are not the same as the real one. I'm sure the point seemed awesome, but it's laughable to me. Stick with the "teens will be teens". At least that made sense, this doesn't even come close.

I get it.

I'm consistently convinced you don't.

Tensions are running high. In the modern world we are hyper-sensitive to things that could in any way be interpreted as sexist or racist or whatever. Couple that with the antagonistic level of partisan politics and you have a recipe for constant outrage. But we can't abandon reason just because the conclusion fits social mores.

You're right, but we can certainly handwave away stupid behavior under the "boys will be boys" mantra. That's not abandoning reason at all. Only those with differing opinions than you are abandoning reason, amiright?

Teenagers, and even adults, are known to do things in certain contexts that seem silly, stupid or downright malicious. But sometimes it _is_ just stupid kids being stupid kids.

That's the claim from you guys anyway.

I don't know, despite what you've said here I think you've probably said or did things even recently that someone else would, out of context, call evil. You think it was just in good fun.

And if I did do that, and it was pointed out to me, I would hope people didn't make excuses for me. I would address my behavior and either rationalize it or apologize for it. I wouldn't expect people to say, "oh, that'll happen sometimes with that plague". Hell, I can't even start a thread without people bitching about how it's not news. Imagine if I had a cardboard cutout of you and I was strangling it, and then posted it on here. People would lose their minds.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I was, actually. Were you not raised in a western democracy?

But all this is irrelevant anyway. It's just more platitudes; appeals to emotion, not reason. You're suggesting that had I been raised in a world that treated men as, what, second class citizens, I might feel nervous when someone pretends to punch a man? No, I think I could still distinguish between pretense and intent. Toddlers manage to do it.

You're repeating ideological talking points, but I'm not sure you've thought them through.

Oh, I assure you I have thought it through. A lot. How much better off would our society be -- that's you and me -- if women had been allowed the opportunity to rise to their full potential? Why haven't they? Misogyny. It's the same with racism: generations of wasted talent. If you don't appreciate the moral reasoning behind "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," there are perfectly logical reasons.

 

[Belz...]

False equivalence. Virtual worlds that you log in and out of are not the same as the real one.

Oh, please. You can do better than that. Is one form of pretense less fictional than the other? You assert that it is so without any other qualification. So tell me, what is the functional difference, here?

You're right, but we can certainly handwave away stupid behavior under the "boys will be boys" mantra. That's not abandoning reason at all.

You're right. Pointing out true things is usually embracing reason, actually.

That's the claim from you guys anyway.

Are you really now claiming that teens don't do stupid things? That's what they are best known for.

And if I did do that, and it was pointed out to me, I would hope people didn't make excuses for me. I would address my behavior and either rationalize it or apologize for it.

Exactly what I said. You'd say it was just in good fun and that it didn't mean anything. When the other people do it, however, you're convinced that they meant it.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I assure you I have thought it through. A lot. How much better off would our society be -- that's you and me -- if women had been allowed the opportunity to rise to their full potential?

What does that even mean? And you don't know. For all you know things would be worse off. Or the same. We have no way to tell.

Why haven't they? Misogyny.

The problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes that men deliberately kept women out of the loop because they hated them. After all, that's what misogyny means. Hatred of women. I guess they met in dark rooms, and made international pacts as to how to prevent them from 'rising to their full potential', because that was a threat to their manhood!

But that's not history. It's ideology; an axiom that makes the past fit our current beliefs and make sense to us. But it doesn't mean that people of those ages thought that way.

It's the same with racism: generations of wasted talent.

Agreed. But I prefer to look at how things are, and why, rather than what I imagine they could've been, based on my own set of values. It's not very useful.

 

[plague311]

Oh, please. You can do better than that. Is one form of pretense less fictional than the other? You assert that it is so without any other qualification. So tell me, what is the functional difference, here?

1's and 0's in a video game generally don't have well known people as their image. When you slice a zombie's head off it doesn't have Trump's face, and if it did there would be hell to pay. Right? I find this to be extremely disingenuous but I'll continue to play along.

If I were playing the Columbine Shooting Massacre game I would get a ******* ton of backlash vs. playing plants vs. zombies. Right? I don't even know how to further clarify. One set of people exists, the other doesn't.

You're right. Pointing out true things is usually embracing reason, actually.

Just because your truth isn't a true truth doesn't mean there is no truth, Ruth.

Are you really now claiming that teens don't do stupid things? That's what they are best known for.

Teens do stupid things all of the time and they should be held accountable for them. Also, teens doing stupid things isn't a reason to ignore or not correct the behavior.

Exactly what I said. You'd say it was just in good fun and that it didn't mean anything. When the other people do it, however, you're convinced that they meant it.

It's actually not exactly what you said at all. I didn't say I would say it was just in good fun. I said I would do one of those two things, and one of them would be acknowledge my behavior and apologize for it. I wouldn't just let people handwave it away. I defended the one kid that apologized for it a few times because that's the appropriate thing to do. So while you guys are like, 'This isn't news, let it go, boys will be boys, shut up', even one of the kids admitted it was stupid and uncalled for.

 

[Belz...]

1's and 0's in a video game generally don't have well known people as their image. When you slice a zombie's head off it doesn't have Trump's face, and if it did there would be hell to pay. Right?

What if you play a video game where you shoot armies of Trump-faced goons? Should Trump be worried about the players? What if it was Kathy Griffin holding his severed head on a picture?

I'm trying to find out what the criteria are for you. I'm going to venture to say we probably agree that pretending to do something, in and of itself, is not enough to constitute intent. So what else is needed? Where do you draw the line exactly? I ask because I have a nagging suspicion that if it was a girl punching McConnell's cardboard cut-out in the gut instead, you'd be more on the "you go girl" side of the discussion.

Teens do stupid things all of the time and they should be held accountable for them.

Sure, so long as there's reason to account for that thing. "Don't be a dick in front of cameras" sounds like good advice.

It's actually not exactly what you said at all. I didn't say I would say it was just in good fun. I said I would do one of those two things, and one of them would be acknowledge my behavior and apologize for it.

Yeah but no. Humans are humans. You wouldn't view your behaviour, which you'd consider to be in good fun, as harmful, and you'd see no need to apologise. Hell, you might even throw in a few curse words at the suggestion that you did anything wrong.

 

[carlitos]

I guess they met in dark rooms, and made international pacts as to how to prevent them from 'rising to their full potential', because that was a threat to their manhood!

Yes. Sometimes dark rooms, sometimes light rooms, sometimes they wrote it all down in a religious text.

 

[WilliamSeger]

What does that even mean? And you don't know. For all you know things would be worse off. Or the same. We have no way to tell.

The problem with that hypothesis is that it assumes that men deliberately kept women out of the loop because they hated them. After all, that's what misogyny means. Hatred of women. I guess they met in dark rooms, and made international pacts as to how to prevent them from 'rising to their full potential', because that was a threat to their manhood!

No, misogyny means "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." That would include things like hiring and promoting less talented men, giving research grants to less talented men, electing less competent men -- that kind of stuff. You are becoming increasingly cynical (or perhaps disingenuous) to suggest that it might not matter.

But that's not history. It's ideology; an axiom that makes the past fit our current beliefs and make sense to us. But it doesn't mean that people of those ages thought that way.

Huh? I can't figure out what you're trying to say, or the relevance. But yes, I take equal opportunity as fundamental to my ideology because it's the moral thing to do, and I take the benefits as axiomatic. And I'm talking about where I want society to go, such as not using a mock assault on a woman as humor (that's you, too, Al Franken), much less a political statement. Misogyny, like racism, continues because it continues to be accepted and taught to our children. It won't disappear on it's own.

 

[Belz...]

No, misogyny means "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women."

Ok fair enough.

That would include things like hiring and promoting less talented men, giving research grants to less talented men, electing less competent men -- that kind of stuff.

None of that requires contempt or prejudice. Also, where do you live, for these things to be rampant behaviour?

But yes, I take equal opportunity as fundamental to my ideology because it's the moral thing to do, and I take the benefits as axiomatic.

No, I mean that you're assuming a particular intent on the part of people in the past because that assumption suits your ideology.

And I'm talking about where I want society to go, such as not using a mock assault on a woman as humor (that's you, too, Al Franken), much less a political statement.

Does that apply to the reverse as well, or are men fair play?

 

[plague311]

What if you play a video game where you shoot armies of Trump-faced goons? Should Trump be worried about the players? What if it was Kathy Griffin holding his severed head on a picture?

What if ifs and buts were candy and nuts? What does a "Trump-faced goon" look like? I condemned Kathy Griffin when she did that dumb ****, the same as I'm condemning these actions here.

I'm trying to find out what the criteria are for you.

That or searching for a "gotcha" moment. You're at least doing something, which is nice.

I'm going to venture to say we probably agree that pretending to do something, in and of itself, is not enough to constitute intent.

Pretending to do something at least shows you thought about doing it, or else why would you have pretended?

So what else is needed? Where do you draw the line exactly?

Uhm, taking pictures of me "pretending" to do it to someone I openly dislike? I figured that would be obvious.

I ask because I have a nagging suspicion that if it was a girl punching McConnell's cardboard cut-out in the gut instead, you'd be more on the "you go girl" side of the discussion.

Well, there are factors that would come into play. Is Mitch regularly harassed and threatened by women, including a branch of law enforcement, that have glorified him being killed? AOC is regularly harassed by white men, she's openly said as much. Does a gut punch kill someone? Strangling sure does. I certainly wouldn't be as dismissive of it as you are here.

Yeah but no. Humans are humans. You wouldn't view your behaviour, which you'd consider to be in good fun, as harmful, and you'd see no need to apologise. Hell, you might even throw in a few curse words at the suggestion that you did anything wrong.

It's outstanding how much you know about me and my thought process. I've apologized, and admitted that I was wrong on this forum several times. Don't project your personal outlook on me. Make no mistake though, swearing would be apart of it. It's seem to become the subject of conversation a few times around here. Apparently you can't converse if swear words are included because it means you're angry, unintelligent, and mean! It's fun to watch.

 

[Belz...]

What if ifs and buts were candy and nuts? What does a "Trump-faced goon" look like?

You know what I mean.

That or searching for a "gotcha" moment. You're at least doing something, which is nice.

Interesting. I flat out tell you what my goal is, you substitute your own speculation for that, then declare that to be the truth. And you speak of me looking for a "gotcha" moment? I'll never understand posters who think that asking for specific arguments, points or reasons is somehow dishonest.

Pretending to do something at least shows you thought about doing it, or else why would you have thought it up?

For ***** and giggles, to make a statement, to be cool, to troll. Who cares? The point is that pretending to do something is not the same thing as intending to do that thing. There has to be a credible threat to offset that, and there isn't one here.

Uhm, taking pictures of me "pretending" to do it to someone I openly dislike? I figured that would be obvious.

That's the line, then. It has to be someone you dislike? If you prentend to strangle a friend it's just fun and games?

Well, there are factors that would come into play. Is Mitch regularly harassed and threatened by women, including a branch of law enforcement, that have glorified him being killed? AOC is regularly harassed by white men, she's openly said as much. Does a gut punch kill someone? Strangling sure does.

That's all entirely beside the point, which is about intent, not how the target feels about it.

 

[WilliamSeger]

None of that requires contempt or prejudice. Also, where do you live, for these things to be rampant behaviour?

I live in a country where we elected a seriously incompetent man over a highly competent woman, and I assure you we're much worse off for it. I have no idea how many Trump votes were because of misogyny, but having read way too many misogynistic screeds about Hillary, I feel pretty confident in believing it was much larger than his very slim win. As for the other stuff, surely you know that prejudice against women is supported by statistics?

No, I mean that you're assuming a particular intent on the part of people in the past because that assumption suits your ideology.

I have no idea what assumption you're talking about. I haven't said anything about intent on the part of people in the past -- only their misogynistic behavior. Surely you aren't suggesting that that isn't well documented in history?

Does that apply to the reverse as well, or are men fair play?

Well, maybe it should, at least until they get the idea. But it doesn't seem to be catching on, for some reason, so I wouldn't worry about it just yet. I'm sure the right will alert us if any threats arise.

 

[Belz...]

I live in a country where we elected a seriously incompetent man over a highly competent woman, and I assure you we're much worse off for it.

America, then. By your earlier posts I assumed you were in some oppressive theocratic third world country.

I have no idea what assumption you're talking about. I haven't said anything about intent on the part of people in the past -- only their misogynistic behavior.

We both defined misogyny as a set of beliefs, not behaviours. You're assuming their beliefs.

Well, maybe it should, at least until they get the idea. But it doesn't seem to be catching on, for some reason, so I wouldn't worry about it just yet.

Just to be clear: you think such beliefs or behaviours towards men is ok, but not towards women?

 

[plague311]

You know what I mean.

No, I literally don't.

Pro-Trumpers got butthurt when ******* Wolfenstein killed Nazi's in their game because it said "Make America Nazi Free Again."

Interesting. I flat out tell you what my goal is, you substitute your own speculation for that, then declare that to be the truth. And you speak of me looking for a "gotcha" moment? I'll never understand posters who think that asking for specific arguments, points or reasons is somehow dishonest.

You told me how I would act in a given situation just one post earlier. You'll get over it.

For ***** and giggles, to make a statement, to be cool, to troll. Who cares? The point is that pretending to do something is not the same thing as intending to do that thing. There has to be a credible threat to offset that, and there isn't one here.

Now think long and hard about what statement they were making. Go ahead, and take your time. Get back to me with your results. You seem to be missing the fact that doing this "to be cool" is the problem in the first place.

There have been several credible threats to AOC. Apparently not credible enough for you, but credible to me.

That's the line, then. It has to be someone you dislike? If you prentend to strangle a friend it's just fun and games?

Is that...is that odd? Yes, if I take pictures of me strangling someone that I consider my opposition it should have completely different context than pretending to strangle a friend of mine.

That's all entirely beside the point, which is about intent, not how the target feels about it.

The context of something is beside the point? Interesting take.