Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Foolmewunz]

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?

<snip>

WTH? Are you just caught up in an argument that you feel you need to win? Did you actually read that paragraph and think about it before posting, or did you just engage your fingers while thinking "Hmmm, I've got to score a counter-argument point here somehow."

You're taking the translation at face value. Where, on her version, do you see "cheating"? All I see is her description with none of the back-story that you and that blogger are filling in.

Are you posting from Islamabad? Rape victims are cheating, now? We are so far beyond that barbaric notion, that you using it just completely baffles me.

In the absence of any other testimony/testimonial, we accept, with conditions, one's narrative at face value. If you don't choose to believe it, that's not license to make up your own version. If you or that charming blogger want to actually go find the woman and do some investigations, then go for it. Until then, just making up **** doesn't cut it, especially reprehensible victim-blaming ****.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

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.

Wait...the only way the conclusion that you, and the person who "translated" the sign is anything but a ridiculous, unwarranted slur, is if you already have the mindset of villainizing anyone who deviates from some puritanical, prudish morality.

What this blogger did is create some alternate explanation for these events, based on his own sick and twisted imagination. There's no reason for him to believe things went down the way he says they did; it's all just his hatred for women, apparently.

Do you think he has any justification for calling this woman a liar? If so, what is it?

 

[qwints]

Well, we knew it was just a question of time TB, and tonight the Samsa saga ended. I doubt they will bring it back, and think today's exchanges are really worth reading. The link below is to quint's last reply there and before Setar returns. Fortunately quint can still continue this discussion here, and I for one am looking forward to reading his interpretation of what went down there today.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=70973&sid=2016728812cb69dae52d40c0c98a68f7#p70973

People were getting heated, and several people, including Mr. Samsa, explicitly said they didn't feel that people were listening to them. I think pausing the discussion and allowing time for reflection is likely to improve the quality of discussion in the future. Splitting out the topics is also likely to improve the intelligibility of the discussion, as will insisting on people defining terms.

 

[Foolmewunz]

People were getting heated, and several people, including Mr. Samsa, explicitly said they didn't feel that people were listening to them. I think pausing the discussion and allowing time for reflection is likely to improve the quality of discussion in the future. Splitting out the topics is also likely to improve the intelligibility of the discussion, as will insisting on people defining terms.

I actually thought Ischemgeek's thread-closing post was pretty good, too. Whether they live up to those even-handed standards will remain to be seen, however. I can't see any of the mods putting up a stop sign and saying, "Just stop right there, Setar. What is this rant adding to the discussion?", and then hiding the post with TW: Irellevant Dribble tags. And just who's going to make Ceepolk actually converse rather than piss on socks?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

And just who's going to make Ceepolk actually converse rather than piss on socks?

In all fairness, at least she tells you it's raining.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Harriet Hall has commented on the ructions.

It boggles the mind that someone like Dr Hall can be accused of not being a feminist.

Some interesting comments, plus some from RW making it all about her, as usual.

Does anyone know who this "Will" from Skepchick is? A medical doctor of some sort or an SJW talking out xe's ass?

 

[squealpiggy]

So the fact that they have to is a bad thing. What's wrong with saying that it is, in fact, a bad thing? .

Nothing is wrong with saying a bad thing is a bad thing. The issue arises when advice to help people protect themselves from bad things is considered to support a culture of bad things.

I'd say the precautions suggested against stranger rape are way over the top and misdirected considering its a rare form of rape compared to acquaintance rape.

In all honesty the advice given to women about avoiding stranger rape is no different to the advice given to anyone to help them avoid being the victim of any crime. Be aware of your surroundings, don't walk around anywhere alone at night, avoid deserted and especially poorly lit areas at night, tell people where you are going before you go out, don't get too drunk, have a means of getting home. This advice can help to protect anyone.

In fact giving rape avoidance advice to women is considerably more likely to protect them from street robbery than it is to protect them from sexual assault. It doesn't make it bad advice though.

WTH? Are you just caught up in an argument that you feel you need to win? Did you actually read that paragraph and think about it before posting, or did you just engage your fingers while thinking "Hmmm, I've got to score a counter-argument point here somehow."

You're taking the translation at face value. Where, on her version, do you see "cheating"? All I see is her description with none of the back-story that you and that blogger are filling in.

Are you posting from Islamabad? Rape victims are cheating, now? We are so far beyond that barbaric notion, that you using it just completely baffles me.

I would say that the pertinent line is "My rapist doesn't know he is a rapist". I don't see how he can be a rapist without knowing it unless he

1. Thinks that the act is consensual
2. Was too wasted to know he was doing it
3. Doesn't know that non-consensual sex is a crime

I agree that the "translation" is pretty pathetic, but it's hard to think of a scenario in which someone commits a crime without knowing it without it being contrived in some way.

 

[Kaosium]

I would say that the pertinent line is "My rapist doesn't know he is a rapist". I don't see how he can be a rapist without knowing it unless he

1. Thinks that the act is consensual
2. Was too wasted to know he was doing it
3. Doesn't know that non-consensual sex is a crime

I agree that the "translation" is pretty pathetic, but it's hard to think of a scenario in which someone commits a crime without knowing it without it being contrived in some way.

Because the context suggests she thinks society, or at least those she told, blames her because she was dressed to attract attention and was out drinking and flirting. I think she needs to hang out with a better class of people.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

dRama kWeen - Your hurt feelings would be completely understandable, especially if he did this following a year in which you received a nonstop avalanche of insults, slurs, rape threats, and death threats from skeptics.

Oh good lord, is she still maintaing this fatuous B.S.

 

[Quinn]

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.”

While it's a concept I wholly support, I think it's doomed to failure in the social justice world because it violates at least two of their most cherished axioms:

• INTENT IS NOT ****-ING MAGIC!!! It doesn't matter if a statement is intended charitably. If there's a non-charitable way to interpret it, then I am ***-ing well allowed to interpret it that way. You don't get to tell me how to feel about it.

• THE "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO" PRINCIPLE. Just like we shouldn't have to be mindful of of our environment, actions and appearance to minimize the chance of being attacked, we shouldn't have to consider the most charitable interpretation of someone else's words. They should simply be 100% clear and unmistakable at all times. Asking us to factor in the complexity and nuance of these topics is not okay.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

To all of those commenters saying “she didn’t mean to be offensive” or “you need to calm down if we are to take you seriously” y’all need to read some Derailing 101!

“She didn’t mean to be offensive” – Intent doesn’t matter. Thinking that someone’s well wishes can alter the outcome of their behavior is like a reverse-ad-hominem. You can be the nicest most generous bigot in the world, and it wouldn’t change the bigot part. What she said is damaging to non-binary individuals. It is cissexist. Her ignorance or well-wishes won’t change that.

“You need to calm down if we are to take you seriously” – my tone doesn’t need policing, thanks. I am allowed to be as angry as I want to be. It doesn’t change the content of my arguments. Tone policing is one of the most common forms of silencing minorities. Be careful who you tell to calm down, its almost always condescending and minimizing.

This sounds like some serious aplusplaining.

And this below...

I’m not being too sensitive when I say cissexism creates real harm. Trans women are more likely than any other sexual minority to be unemployed, assaulted and murdered. This is not due to some fraction of the heterosexual cis population that are criminals – this is due to a system of oppression towards gender-non-conforming people. To use language that further identifies trans people as “other” and to take away their identities by not addressing them or to reduce them to a set of genitals or chromosomes is violence against trans people. Women are getting murdered because cis people can’t get over the fact that some women have penises or ask for pronouns that are outside their small worldview. So don’t tell me that I’ve “decided to take offence”. It is not an unreasonable demand that everyone be regarded with respect and digntity. The way to strip a trans person of respect and dignity is cissexism – which is run rampant all over Dr. Hall’s articles.

I'm sorry, but women don't have penises. Transgendered persons might, but women don't. I'm further sorry, but not using made up, PC, BS terms invented by activists is not violence by any (real world) definition of the word.

This person is not advocating social justice, they're advocating madness.

I guess that makes me cissexist (or whatever nom de jure has been invented for today).

 

[Foolmewunz]

dRama kWeen - Your hurt feelings would be completely understandable, especially if he did this following a year in which you received a nonstop avalanche of insults, slurs, rape threats, and death threats from skeptics.

Oh good lord, is she still maintaing this fatuous B.S.

Point of order: I thought we decided she was the drama llama. (And in hindsight, she's beginning to look kinda like a llama. Just hope she doesn't start spitting.)

Read on. The veterans on there really wiped the floor with Li'l Becky. Nice to know that it's not just some of her old friends over here, but her old friends in many places who think she's become an irrelevance.

Oh, and if someone else hasn't responded, I think "Will" is a social anthropologist. I've lost track. Is she for or against social anthroopolgy. Or was that misanthropomorphic evolution?

 

[jhunter1163]

I actually thought Ischemgeek's thread-closing post was pretty good, too. Whether they live up to those even-handed standards will remain to be seen, however. I can't see any of the mods putting up a stop sign and saying, "Just stop right there, Setar. What is this rant adding to the discussion?", and then hiding the post with TW: Irellevant Dribble tags. And just who's going to make Ceepolk actually converse rather than piss on socks?

Except for the part about closing the thread for the sake of his stress level. Why is that a valid reason for stopping a debate for a week? A week? Can you imagine what would happen if something like that happened here? FMF would light up like Broadway on opening night. It's rare that we close a thread here for more than 24 hours, and even that's so we can clean up the mess and send the miscreants lovely yellow cards.

God, those people (the A+ mods) are on a power trip.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's probably the most charitable response.

I just like the fact that Watson made an effort to post on Hall's blog just in order to say "you're beneath my attention", and Hall didn't even bother to respond. It's the most sensible use of Hall's time, it's giving Watson the level attention she deserves, and it's an almighty bitch-slap, all rolled in to one. Watson has to make an effort to tell Hall she's beneath Watson's attention, and Hall...paid her no attention.

 

[tsig]

Rebecca is boycotting again.

Sexism.

 

[tsig]

How dare you !

Ninajed!

 

[bedlin88]

Except for the part about closing the thread for the sake of his stress level. Why is that a valid reason for stopping a debate for a week? A week? Can you imagine what would happen if something like that happened here? FMF would light up like Broadway on opening night. It's rare that we close a thread here for more than 24 hours, and even that's so we can clean up the mess and send the miscreants lovely yellow cards.

God, those people (the A+ mods) are on a power trip.

It's nitpicking I know, but they closed the thread forever, the way I'm reading it, it's the topics that are off-limits for a week.

 

[jhunter1163]

It's nitpicking I know, but they closed the thread forever, the way I'm reading it, it's the topics that are off-limits for a week.

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that someone would close a thread because it stressed them. If you can't stand the heat...

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Point of order: I thought we decided she was the drama llama. (And in hindsight, she's beginning to look kinda like a llama. Just hope she doesn't start spitting.)

Trigger warning: cisarchaic slang

Poppycock! ReBecky-Becky-Becky-stan-stan deserves as many unique appellations as there are terabytes on the Internet written by and about her (which is one in the same more often than not).

Read on. The veterans on there really wiped the floor with Li'l Becky. Nice to know that it's not just some of her old friends over here, but her old friends in many places who think she's become an irrelevance.

I particularly liked GG's refusal to mention the time when she got so drunk on the Alaska cruise that she vomited everywhere and embarassed her roommate, along with the one who noted that Harriet's blog entry didn't appear to be about her, much less all about her.

Oh, and if someone else hasn't responded, I think "Will" is a social anthropologist. I've lost track. Is she for or against social anthroopolgy. Or was that misanthropomorphic evolution?

Ah. Reading his smarmy, self-congratulatory, SJW haka made me think he was a professor Queer Theory at Histrionic U.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that someone would close a thread because it stressed them. If you can't stand the heat...

That's the thing, they couldn't stand the heat, so created their own forum where debating is against the rules.

Not sure I can see the point of a forum in which debating is disallowed, but each to hir own.