Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Amadanb]

And yes, the A+ SJW's have argued (presumably with a straight face) that is someone has been drinking (and even 1 beer counts as "drinking"), they cannot give consent.

I'm sure there are some flakes who argue with a straight face that unless someone can blow 0.001 on a breathalyzer, you're committing rape if you have sex, but come on. "Do not have sex with someone with diminished capacity" is not really a difficult concept, and a lot of people who seem to resist it pull out the "Oh, I guess if my girlfriend and I have a few beers before we have sex, we're raping each other" argument.

 

[squealpiggy]

Are you sure about this? Latisha and Jamal are lower class names?

Latisha certainly.

 

[luchog]

Are you sure about this? Latisha and Jamal are lower class names?

For the most part; yes. Those types of names are typically associated primarily with underclass/working class black populations; and secondarily with fringe black populations. Middle/Upper class black groups tend to have names more similar to their white counterparts; so the study can be interpreted as a class prejudice as easily as racial prejudice. I'm not aware of similar studies being done with Asian or Hispanic names, or with middle/upper and under/working class white names, so there's a lot of factors that have not been adequately controlled for.

 

[shuttlt]

I wonder whether this wouldn't be a worthwhile example... how about recovered/false memories that we periodically talk about on the forum. There you have all the hurt feeling we are discussing about events that never happened. Would we be saying here that the child abuse was real, because the feelings of the "victim" were real, even though the events never actually happened?

 

[Amadanb]

I wonder whether this wouldn't be a worthwhile example... how about recovered/false memories that we periodically talk about on the forum. There you have all the hurt feeling we are discussing about events that never happened. Would we be saying here that the child abuse was real, because the feelings of the "victim" were real, even though the events never actually happened?

It seems more than a little dodgy to me to compare someone who maybe misinterpreted something that actually happened with someone suffering from delusions or false memory syndrome.

 

[qwints]

In mixed social circles (westerners and Chinese) if there's any inequality, it's in favor of the westerner.
...
Ask any guy who's got a shaved head how many people ask him if they can feel it. Or anyone with a long beard. This is a common phenomenon.

Then my stated assumption is wrong, and I would accept your idea that in that case it's solely about curiosity. Of course, the fact that similar behavior occurs in other situations doesn't mean the writer I linked to or the other women she talked to are wrong to be bothered by people asking to touch their hair.

And surely you're not asking me if I agree that the institutional racism of the sentencing in the USA - I assume you're speaking of the numerous studies done here - is something I approve of.

No, I'm just asking where you classify it under the hierarchy of harm you laid out. As I said, if it's covered under that rubric, I agree with you that some harms are more urgent than others.

Feelings are ... rarely relevant.

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

At what point do we cease to be responsible for someone else's misinterpretation of our words and actions?

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.

There is no right to not be offended

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

 

[Foolmewunz]

Latisha certainly.

So you can eliminate one of them, then? That's 50% of the group.

For the most part; yes. Those types of names are typically associated primarily with underclass/working class black populations; and secondarily with fringe black populations. Middle/Upper class black groups tend to have names more similar to their white counterparts; so the study can be interpreted as a class prejudice as easily as racial prejudice. I'm not aware of similar studies being done with Asian or Hispanic names, or with middle/upper and under/working class white names, so there's a lot of factors that have not been adequately controlled for.

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".

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. Now, mind you, I'm sure the drug runners and crack hos are too busy bustin' a cap in someone's ass to post on a silly web page, but still it seems to be merely a black name.

 

[qwints]

Those types of names are typically associated primarily with underclass/working class black populations; and secondarily with fringe black populations.

I'm getting tired of you asserting claims to refute published studies I'm posting, especially when you use the passive voice like that. Do you have evidence that this is a widely-held association or are you just saying that you make that association?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm sure there are some flakes who argue with a straight face that unless someone can blow 0.001 on a breathalyzer, you're committing rape if you have sex, but come on. "Do not have sex with someone with diminished capacity" is not really a difficult concept, and a lot of people who seem to resist it pull out the "Oh, I guess if my girlfriend and I have a few beers before we have sex, we're raping each other" argument.

You'll need to take that up with the A+ nutters. It's their position.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sure there are some flakes who argue with a straight face that unless someone can blow 0.001 on a breathalyzer, you're committing rape if you have sex, but come on. "Do not have sex with someone with diminished capacity" is not really a difficult concept, and a lot of people who seem to resist it pull out the "Oh, I guess if my girlfriend and I have a few beers before we have sex, we're raping each other" argument.

The thing is it is marking as immoral a lot of human activity around drinking. This is uncomfortable for people and it is complecated by questions like should a person black out drunk be charged with drunk driving or not?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It seems more than a little dodgy to me to compare someone who maybe misinterpreted something that actually happened with someone suffering from delusions or false memory syndrome.

Why? Their experiences are both equally real to them.

 

[qwints]

Wait if feeling oppressed is enough to count as being oppressed then shouldn't they do something about how gays are now oppressing Christians?

This is a good question, similar to the question about why we should care squealpiggy(?) raised earlier. The answer is that the feeling takes place in the context of an unjust society, which probably leads to a much broader discussion.

Here are two posts from the blogger y'all criticized earlier on the subject, both of which discuss racism in the US.

Racism 101
The asymmetry of racism

 

[qwints]

The thing is it is marking as immoral a lot of human activity around drinking. This is uncomfortable for people and it is complecated by questions like should a person black out drunk be charged with drunk driving or not?

Sure, voluntary intoxication is not and should not be a defense to a crime. If you rape someone while you're drunk, you're still morally responsible for doing so. Voluntary intoxication does, however, mean that you have diminished capacity to do things, including consent to sex. This does mean that, absent prior consent, it's theoretically possible for two people to sexually assault each other. That is, each party had sex with someone who didn't consent. But that possibility doesn't mean that moral and legal proscriptions against having sex with someone incapable of consent are bad things.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is a good question, similar to the question about why we should care squealpiggy(?) raised earlier. The answer is that the feeling takes place in the context of an unjust society, which probably leads to a much broader discussion.

Here are two posts from the blogger y'all criticized earlier on the subject, both of which discuss racism in the US.

Racism 101
The asymmetry of racism

So only some peoples feelings matter while others need punishment because of their race.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Then my stated assumption is wrong, and I would accept your idea that in that case it's solely about curiosity. Of course, the fact that similar behavior occurs in other situations doesn't mean the writer I linked to or the other women she talked to are wrong to be bothered by people asking to touch their hair.

It seems that the point under discussion here has changed from whether asking to touch someone of a different ethnicity's hair is an expression of racism to whether someone is "wrong" to be bothered by people asking to touch their hair.

Seeing as everybody seems to agree on this point, can we just take it as read that everybody acknowledges that people have a right to feel however they want about however they want, and that there's no such thing as being "wrong" about an emotion? Because, really, giving the same answer to everything, despite the fact that nobody disagrees with that answer doesn't do anything to further discussion.

 

[qwints]

So only some peoples feelings matter while others need punishment because of their race.

Only some feelings of marginalization are related to societal-level injustice. In the US, whites have racial privilege over blacks.

I'm not advocating punishing anyone because of race. I am advocating paying attention to the effects of race on people's behavior, including my own.

 

[qwints]

It seems that the point under discussion here has changed from whether asking to touch someone of a different ethnicity's hair is an expression of racism to whether someone is "wrong" to be bothered by people asking to touch their hair.

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. 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.

Focusing on any individual act rather than the overall trend is also missing the forest for the trees. The original article was about the specific experiences of black women who've had multiple white people either ask to touch their hair or touch without permission. One linked account clearly had a racial component given the asker's follow-up remark.

 

[shuttlt]

It seems more than a little dodgy to me to compare someone who maybe misinterpreted something that actually happened with someone suffering from delusions or false memory syndrome.

I'm not saying they are equivalent. I thought that perhaps the example of the delivery person was being confused by whether or not he was misinterpreting things and what biases the other person in the situation may have had. in what sense are our feeling real etc...

 

[Senor_Pointy]

I'm sure there are some flakes who argue with a straight face that unless someone can blow 0.001 on a breathalyzer, you're committing rape if you have sex, but come on. "Do not have sex with someone with diminished capacity" is not really a difficult concept, and a lot of people who seem to resist it pull out the "Oh, I guess if my girlfriend and I have a few beers before we have sex, we're raping each other" argument.

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.

 

[rustypouch]

In other words, if everything is rape, then nothing is rape.

And yes, the A+ SJW's have argued (presumably with a straight face) that if someone a woman has been drinking (and even 1 beer counts as "drinking"), they cannot give consent.

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