• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
A SJW mischaracterising what another person is saying in order to score a cheap point? Never!

The thing is, though, he's also mischaracterising what she said.

His article said, in part, "it's not a list for men, though, it's a list for everybody". Her reply is "by saying that you're removing the focus from the group to which you belong to which this list needs to be applied - men". And his reply is "I'm not removing the focus from the group to which I belong - I'm included in 'everybody'".

She is actually mischaracterising what he said less than he is mischaracterising what she said.

So, anyway, is this the beginning of an implosion where all the SJWs are going to start turning on each other?
Click to expand...

probably not this time, but i think, sooner or later, it is inevitable.
 
recursive prophet said:
I suspect we're all getting a bit bored with it at this point. Gonna be hard for them to top some of their past actions/arguments, and having driven off all the soft targets it looks to me like even they are starting to yawn.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's all getting to be routine now. An unsuspecting noob wanders in attracted by the atheist bait, says something non-hardcore, gets dogpled and ceepolk wields the ban battleax.

Supervictim, thechemgeek wades in with "yes me too" on almost every issue.

We do have this though

Classic aplus with all the thrills chills and spills. WATCH as aplussers deny misandry is a "thing" Go AGOG an an aplusser says hating men is OK cause, you know, patriarchy. CHEER an the ceepolk drives home the lance. OOOOO and AAAAAH as parting words of advice are delivered in eulogy.

Maybe it's time to recreate a simpleflower character. I hear the internet has some good long pig recopies.;)
 
Stout said:
Yea, it's all getting to be routine now. An unsuspecting noob wanders in attracted by the atheist bait, says something non-hardcore, gets dogpled and ceepolk wields the ban battleax.

Supervictim, thechemgeek wades in with "yes me too" on almost every issue.

We do have this though

Classic aplus with all the thrills chills and spills. WATCH as aplussers deny misandry is a "thing" Go AGOG an an aplusser says hating men is OK cause, you know, patriarchy. CHEER an the ceepolk drives home the lance. OOOOO and AAAAAH as parting words of advice are delivered in eulogy.

Maybe it's time to recreate a simpleflower character. I hear the internet has some good long pig recopies.;)
Click to expand...

Awesome.

I'm amused by the implication that in a romantic situation the man should be able to tell what the woman wants, but if he misreads signals he's a scumbag. If she doesn't say 'no,' it's his fault for not reading her mind and continuing.
 
rustypouch said:
Awesome.
I'm amused by the implication that in a romantic situation the man should be able to tell what the woman wants, but if he misreads signals he's a scumbag. If she doesn't say 'no,' it's his fault for not reading her mind and continuing.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the genders of the partners? The point is that having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex is a bad thing.
 
qwints said:
Who said anything about the genders of the partners? The point is that having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

This type of dishonest framing is exactly what people really have a problem with the Aplussers

Nobody is claiming that it OK to have sex with somebody who doesn't want to, that isn't even the issue being raised.

The fact that you would even respond in such a way demonstrates an inherent disrespect for those you responded to... and it is this type of tone-deaf behavior that has destroyed the credibility of A+ from day one.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
His article said, in part, "it's not a list for men, though, it's a list for everybody". Her reply is "by saying that you're removing the focus from the group to which you belong to which this list needs to be applied - men". And his reply is "I'm not removing the focus from the group to which I belong - I'm included in 'everybody'".

She is actually mischaracterising what he said less than he is mischaracterising what she said.
Click to expand...

lol! Thats actually quite revealing of their mindset isnt it? You cant say "everyone" because that now includes women, and as we all know women arent a threat or perpetrators of anything bad except sugar and spice and all things nice.
 
Last edited:
qwints said:
The point is that having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Who said it wasn't? Certainly not the person you replied to.

This kind of response I always find quite curious because presumably the person saying it thinks they are fighting for women but what they are really doing is just dumbing down what "rape" is defined as. Its only considered something so awful because of what it means, if you guys keep watering to down to include anything you like then you really aren't helping actual rape victims or helping anyone to take it seriously.
 
Last edited:
adamwho said:
This type of dishonest framing is exactly what people really have a problem with the Aplussers

Nobody is claiming that it OK to have sex with somebody who doesn't want to, that isn't even the issue being raised.

The fact that you would even respond in such a way demonstrates an inherent disrespect for those you responded to... and it is this type of tone-deaf behavior that has destroyed the credibility of A+ from day one.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Indeed, no one is saying that it's fine to have sex without consent.

When one partner is held accountable for not knowing the desires of the other, who is unwilling to express them, I have an issue with this.
 
qwints said:
Who said anything about the genders of the partners? The point is that having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

If you need further clarification about who is always presumed to be the aggressor and who is always presumed to be the gatekeeper in the minds of the aplussers. I'd like to enter the following thread and the article linked to in the OP into evidence.

Thread, linked to just for the lulz of Kaissaine's post.

As you read that article, keep in mind that it's directed toward a seven year old. Yep a seven year old. Seven. This might have been Schrodinger's Rapist 2 had the author had the sense to make her "sons" 13 and 15 rather than 7 and 11. As it is it's downright creepy.
 
luchog said:
This thread is increasingly bringing to mine one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes, referring to the same sort of mentality exhibited by the APlussers and their supporters (albeit the SJWs of his time tended to be more overtly religious).

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a documentary I saw about freak shows in the early 20th century. "Freaks" (small people, tall people, people with unique deformities, etc.) made money touring with circuses and carnivals. Well-meaning people started passing laws banning those shows, and the people who were making a decent living were out of work. They didn't appreciate the unemployment they got from people trying to "help" them.

ETA: I do think "freak" shows are a little disgusting, and I've never understood the attraction for some people, but it's a good example of well intended but misguided legislation.
 
Last edited:
TheGoldcountry said:
This reminds me of a documentary I saw about freak shows in the early 20th century. "Freaks" (small people, tall people, people with unique deformities, etc.) made money touring with circuses and carnivals. Well-meaning people started passing laws banning those shows, and the people who were making a decent living were out of work. They didn't appreciate the unemployment they got from people trying to "help" them.

...
Click to expand...

Lucky for them, we now have Reality TV...
 
Stout said:
Yea, it's all getting to be routine now. An unsuspecting noob wanders in attracted by the atheist bait, says something non-hardcore, gets dogpled and ceepolk wields the ban battleax.

Supervictim, thechemgeek wades in with "yes me too" on almost every issue.

We do have this though

Classic aplus with all the thrills chills and spills. WATCH as aplussers deny misandry is a "thing" Go AGOG an an aplusser says hating men is OK cause, you know, patriarchy. CHEER an the ceepolk drives home the lance. OOOOO and AAAAAH as parting words of advice are delivered in eulogy.

Maybe it's time to recreate a simpleflower character. I hear the internet has some good long pig recopies.;)
Click to expand...

ceepolk said:
I do not care. You don't get to be {bleep} about rape here. You don't get to invalidate the experience of other people who have been raped, and you don't get to spout of rape culture microaggressions and expect to get away with it unchecked.
Click to expand...

Ummm, didn't the cool kids do just that a couple of monthgs ago?
 
Wow. There's a few new responses in that thread.

So much bitterness. I don't know if I want to meet Ceepolk anymore. She seems very abrasive, extremely self-centered, and unwilling to even entertain someone else's desires, or try something new. The type of girl who would demand oral every time, but never reciprocate.
 
rustypouch said:
Wow. There's a few new responses in that thread.

So much bitterness. I don't know if I want to meet Ceepolk anymore. She seems very abrasive, extremely self-centered, and unwilling to even entertain someone else's desires, or try something new. The type of girl who would demand oral every time, but never reciprocate.
Click to expand...

Check your privilege and stop polksplaining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom