Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:07 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I want someone - me, you, whoever - to come here, bring their bigotry, their ignorance, have their world shattered, be ashamed, and then become a better person for it. That's my vision of fighting ignorance.

~Max
I'm not sure a message board is the best medium for that though (especially a message board that doesn't have much patience for bigots).

However there is some encouraging psych. science showing that parasocial attachments work just as well as real ones. That is to say : people being confronted with positive portrayals of people of other races, other orientations etc... on TV or on YouTube and even in video games tend to become more tolerant of them, just as people tend to be more tolerant who grow up and live in more diverse communities. Not always (it can go the other way as well), but more often than not. Basically people tend to go "huh, They're not so different after all" ; and this even if the They in question aren't "real". This because the lizard brain doesn't differentiate between liking a real person and liking the image of one.

I suppose a message board does work too as far as parasocial relationships go - but it's more abstract and I don't think the lizard brain gets in on the action. Like, I know monstro is a black person and margin is a woman... but they're really just text and opinions when it comes down to it. Who they are as persons, what they look like, how they come off, even class signifiers don't really get into that mix to any perceivable extent. They could all be dogs for all I know.

Last edited by Kobal2; 12-03-2019 at 01:08 AM.
  #302  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:11 AM
nelliebly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It was a childhood memory. Epiphany moments are not limited to one's childhood. I don't know how it works as one grows older, but during my eight or nine months on these boards I have shifted to a different foundation for my personal moral system. I also flipped from entertaining the possibility of physicalism/epiphenomenalism to physicalism/substance-dualism. As a direct result of participating in debates, here. There were moments where I just realized that I was wrong, and sometimes that someone else was right.

You have to realize that some of these people, on the alt-right or whatever you want to call it, they are young dudes like me. It would have been this easy for me to be one of them. That was the point of my story. I've met some of them online and in person. They aren't all stupid and they aren't all rotten to the core. It's not too late to talk sense into them.

Have you read Plato? Maybe bigots won't let us speak back in the cave, but if someone should happen to stumble halfway into the light, covering his eyes with his hands, shouldn't we be there to say, "lift your hands and open your eyes"? Lest he fall back inside and convince his compatriots that there is nothing to see out here.

~Max
Multiple choice:

How many people do you suppose have had epiphanies about racism or sexism due to questions on the SDMB over the years?As far as I can tell, few or none. Do you think it's worthwhile to insult and frustrate many people on this board by allowing racist questions because one or two people might potentially experience an epiphany?
  #303  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:49 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I'm not sure a message board is the best medium for that though (especially a message board that doesn't have much patience for bigots).
Jragon mentioned white men engaging in "civil debate" as if it were mental masturbation. That's precisely the kind of mentality I would expect message boards are suited for. Somebody comes here to get a rise out of critically thinking (I know I do, and this is me projecting myself). In doing so, they end up learning something and becoming a better person.

It's stressful, yes, but to me that is the trade-off.

~Max
  #304  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:01 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Multiple choice:

How many people do you suppose have had epiphanies about racism or sexism due to questions on the SDMB over the years?As far as I can tell, few or none. Do you think it's worthwhile to insult and frustrate many people on this board by allowing racist questions because one or two people might potentially experience an epiphany?
I can't speak for others, and I don't have the experience here to make a guess. I have tried really hard to jump on the anti-misogyny vibe here but I just can't seem to make the right connections.

And I do think it is worthwhile, possibly because I do not share, and cannot comprehend, the frustration. I might agree that individual instances are hijacks or advocate violence, but I would not go so far as to outlaw sincere and non-malicious positions that border on transphobia, mysogyny, racism, etc. In threads about kittens or sports? Sure, leave that stuff at the door. But in threads about those very subjects?

~Max
  #305  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:47 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Jragon mentioned white men engaging in "civil debate" as if it were mental masturbation. That's precisely the kind of mentality I would expect message boards are suited for. Somebody comes here to get a rise out of critically thinking (I know I do, and this is me projecting myself). In doing so, they end up learning something and becoming a better person.

It's stressful, yes, but to me that is the trade-off.

~Max
We've already established I did that first


And, well, I'm sure I'm biased in that, but I have a hard time putting "bigot" and "intellectually stimulated" in the same Venn diagram. Or at least "intellectually honest". I don't really get how one could be bigoted and have a critical look at oneself at the same time. Certainly the racists and bigots in my life are the least self-aware people I know.
  #306  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:29 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Jragon mentioned white men engaging in "civil debate" as if it were mental masturbation. That's precisely the kind of mentality I would expect message boards are suited for. Somebody comes here to get a rise out of critically thinking (I know I do, and this is me projecting myself). In doing so, they end up learning something and becoming a better person.

It's stressful, yes, but to me that is the trade-off.

~Max

"Civil debate" to some of these guys means they get to claim that if they eschew the "n-word" in favor of "urban" or "thug" or "underclass" or whatever dogwhistle they're using that they're not racist, even if they believe and use every last racist stereotype that exists, they get to claim they're not racist. It's even worse with sexism because what seems to strike the usual offenders as unjust is that they can't use all the comforting slurs on women that they always have. The response to a slur hurled against a woman isn't, "that's awful!", it's, "Well, SHE IS." Every rape victim gets accused of lying-----and no woman is ever defended with, "Well, she's innocent till proven guilty."

Another factor is the fact that these guys AVOID information. They ask for cites, but never read them. Their bigotry is their bedrock. They avoid the reams of information available to cling to the same bigoted beliefs, always using the dogwhistle defense. There's also a curious belief that if they do not announce they are racist or sexist, they cannot be identified as such.

Eight years ago a bunch of guys ganged up and attacked an 11-year-old gang rape victim on this board. They attacked her choices, her clothes, her relationships----but the guys, the rapists, were utterly invisible. (Kind of like how in the abortion "debate" the woman gets entirely erased, as if only the fetus exists.) It's an article of faith here that rape victims lie. It also seems to be the belief here that if you use dogwhistles and euphemisms, you can get away with polite racism or sexism.

That's not civility. Not even close.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #307  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:13 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Jragon mentioned white men engaging in "civil debate" as if it were mental masturbation. That's precisely the kind of mentality I would expect message boards are suited for. Somebody comes here to get a rise out of critically thinking (I know I do, and this is me projecting myself). In doing so, they end up learning something and becoming a better person.

It's stressful, yes, but to me that is the trade-off.

~Max
That's an easy tradeoff because let's face, it is not particularly stressful for you if you are being honest. Certainly not compared to a black man who has to see the biannual "are blacks racially inferior?" debate. Certainly not compared to a rape survivor having to watch the latest "why did she wait to call the cops?" discussion
  #308  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:25 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
We've already established I did that first


And, well, I'm sure I'm biased in that, but I have a hard time putting "bigot" and "intellectually stimulated" in the same Venn diagram. Or at least "intellectually honest". I don't really get how one could be bigoted and have a critical look at oneself at the same time. Certainly the racists and bigots in my life are the least self-aware people I know.
History is chock full of them. Consider Emmanuel Kant, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Aristotle even. Or as you claim to live in France, Charles Fourier.

~Max
  #309  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:39 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
"Civil debate" to some of these guys means they get to claim that if they eschew the "n-word" in favor of "urban" or "thug" or "underclass" or whatever dogwhistle they're using that they're not racist, even if they believe and use every last racist stereotype that exists, they get to claim they're not racist. It's even worse with sexism because what seems to strike the usual offenders as unjust is that they can't use all the comforting slurs on women that they always have. The response to a slur hurled against a woman isn't, "that's awful!", it's, "Well, SHE IS." Every rape victim gets accused of lying-----and no woman is ever defended with, "Well, she's innocent till proven guilty."

Another factor is the fact that these guys AVOID information. They ask for cites, but never read them. Their bigotry is their bedrock. They avoid the reams of information available to cling to the same bigoted beliefs, always using the dogwhistle defense. There's also a curious belief that if they do not announce they are racist or sexist, they cannot be identified as such.

Eight years ago a bunch of guys ganged up and attacked an 11-year-old gang rape victim on this board. They attacked her choices, her clothes, her relationships----but the guys, the rapists, were utterly invisible. (Kind of like how in the abortion "debate" the woman gets entirely erased, as if only the fetus exists.) It's an article of faith here that rape victims lie. It also seems to be the belief here that if you use dogwhistles and euphemisms, you can get away with polite racism or sexism.

That's not civility. Not even close.
What you describe does not fit my idea of civil debate. Using unwarranted slurs, holding double standards, refusing to read citations, attacking other participants in the debate, these do not conform to my idea of civil debate. If someone pulled that on me, I would report them.

I will agree with you on that.

(are you serious about slut-shaming an eleven year old member who shared a rape story? Here? what the fuck?)

~Max
  #310  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:52 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's an easy tradeoff because let's face, it is not particularly stressful for you if you are being honest. Certainly not compared to a black man who has to see the biannual "are blacks racially inferior?" debate. Certainly not compared to a rape survivor having to watch the latest "why did she wait to call the cops?" discussion
Right, that's what I was saying to nelliby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S.
And I do think it is worthwhile, possibly because I do not share, and cannot comprehend, the frustration. I might agree that individual instances are hijacks or advocate violence, but I would not go so far as to outlaw sincere and non-malicious positions that border on transphobia, mysogyny, racism, etc. In threads about kittens or sports? Sure, leave that stuff at the door. But in threads about those very subjects?
Maybe this makes me a bigot or something, but if I don't understand it, I don't understand it. I don't want this to be a safe space for me and my cherished ideas, nor for you and yours. That doesn't mean I'll participate in threads that I don't like, but I don't take it personally if someone makes a thread questioning the intelligence or worth of my race or religion. I might not even read the thread. I put up with that stuff all the time, not nearly as much as my parents but still I think I have pretty thick skin. Seeing some random internet person open a thread to debate such topics just doesn't bother me.

The most stressful threads for me are political threads. Sometimes, I just can't wade into a political thread. Politics isn't a core interest for me and I tend to get piled on anyways. In that sense, I can sort of understand why people don't like participating in political threads, or racist threads, or sexist or transphobic or what have you. But what prompts the leap to, let's ban these topics entirely?

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-03-2019 at 11:52 AM. Reason: double signature
  #311  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:58 AM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
(are you serious about slut-shaming an eleven year old member who shared a rape story? Here? what the fuck?)
Closest I can find are
2000's Is It Believable that an 11 year-old girl looks 18?
2006's How far can society fall? Read on...
and 2011's Did half the town Rape this girl?
  #312  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Please balance a ball on your nose and clap your flippers. Thank you in advance.
So, then, I must assume there arent any.

If you two say there are bad, blatant racist posts commonly in the Pit recently, I will accept that- we all know what a morass the Pit is. But I post in GD nearly daily and I dont remember any such stuff for quite some time.
  #313  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Moderator Note



If you want to be snippy, take it to the Pit.
I notice this direct personal insult gets a note, whereas my feeble attempt to be funny got a warning.

Certainly my post could have been read as saying that poster was acting like ostrich with his head in the sand, sure. But this is a direct accusation of sealioning. There is no other possible interpretation and not even a attempt to soften it by adding a emoticon.

Fair moderation means evenhandedness.
  #314  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
...

Eight years ago .....
Much has changed since then. I dont remember that occurring either, but heck, my memory aint that good.
  #315  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
It appears Margin is talking about that last link. if so, there doesnt seem to be anything like "Eight years ago a bunch of guys ganged up and attacked an 11-year-old gang rape victim on this board. They attacked her choices, her clothes, her relationships----but the guys, the rapists, were utterly invisible."

kambuckta replied: Nobody has said this is not a big deal, in fact the opposite that this is a VERY big deal.

Nobody has said that the little girl's behaviour caused or mitigates the culpability of the men involved.

Nobody is attacking the child who was raped.

You are wilfully misrepresenting what people are actually saying in this thread.

Cut it out.

Oh, and FTR, I'm a woman, and I know plenty of male shrieking harpies too. Idiocy on this scale knows no gender boundaries it seems.
  #316  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:50 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Yes, the third one is the one I'm speaking of. But you'd better not offend the Devil's Advocates who want to call the 11-year-old's rapist her boyfriend, lest you get pitted by the sort of guys who have somehow avoided the history of the word "hysteria."

It's not just rape, though accepting and endorsing vicious rape myths means that even 11-year-old girls are considered fair game for slut shaming.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=600622

Argue against slut shaming and rape apology and see what happens. Oh, and don't you dare get angry at the endless verbal attacks by gangs of men, angry that their attacks on a pre-teen were criticized. Attacking women as emotional, hysterical, nuts, and so forth has an actual history in the world. It links in with the "Women on their periods, hurr durr," trope that Trump himself invoked. "She was bleeding out of her eyes, out of her ears, out of her....wherever."

It's not just one dude saying this one time on one message board. It's a political party that runs the country, it's millions of guys, it's the background in every woman's life, where a lot of women can tell you how they got groped or harassed at ten or 11 by their dad's boss or mom's coworker or a guy on the bus or.....whatever. That guy on the message board is just another straw.

I'm old and expected this stuff would be eradicated by now. All it took to deny it was fancy language and utterly refusing to take it seriously. For decades. Now my nieces are dealing with the exact same crap.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #317  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:15 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It appears Margin is talking about that last link. if so, there doesnt seem to be anything like "Eight years ago a bunch of guys ganged up and attacked an 11-year-old gang rape victim on this board. They attacked her choices, her clothes, her relationships----but the guys, the rapists, were utterly invisible."

kambuckta replied: Nobody has said this is not a big deal, in fact the opposite that this is a VERY big deal.

Nobody has said that the little girl's behaviour caused or mitigates the culpability of the men involved.

Nobody is attacking the child who was raped.

You are wilfully misrepresenting what people are actually saying in this thread.

Cut it out.

Oh, and FTR, I'm a woman, and I know plenty of male shrieking harpies too. Idiocy on this scale knows no gender boundaries it seems.

For starters, you cannot change a word like "harpie" retroactively so that the sexist history is erased.

Secondly, I guess we're going to ignore the whole dogwhistle thing because unless somebody says, "I hearby blame this victim," nothing apparently qualifies as victim blaming. In a case where the victim was 11, treating her like an adult or not centering her age is victim blaming. She's 11. She cannot consent to anything, she cannot have a nineteen-year-old boyfriend. He's a rapist. When somebody comments the victim had a habit of wearing makeup, that's victim blaming. When somebody comments that the victim wore short skirts, that's a victim-blaming dogwhistle. When somebody blames "two parent homes" that's taking the blame off the rapists and blaming society. It's also a rightwing trope that subtly blames single mothers and makes fathers necessary to not produce rapists.

If you can't get all the subtle little pieces there, and if you won't go to the second link I posted, there's no point.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #318  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:19 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,193
It might be informative for Dopers to read the 2011 thread, and consider if a rule classing it as "misogyny" or "slut shaming" would tend to lead to more reasonable debate.

Regards,
Shodan
  #319  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:28 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Must it REALLY be pointed out that "I use [sexist word] on men, ergo it's not sexist," does not work? You're using a female pejorative.....on a man. The insult is because you're saying he's acting like a stereotype that has been used on women for thousands of years. Now, what does that imply?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpy
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #320  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:46 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I notice this direct personal insult gets a note, whereas my feeble attempt to be funny got a warning.

Certainly my post could have been read as saying that poster was acting like ostrich with his head in the sand, sure. But this is a direct accusation of sealioning. There is no other possible interpretation and not even a attempt to soften it by adding a emoticon.

Fair moderation means evenhandedness.
Claiming that a poster is sealioning isn't a 'direct personal insult' any more than accusations of 'ad hominem' and 'straw man' arguments, which happen all the time. The note was for being snarky.
  #321  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:58 PM
nelliebly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Right, that's what I was saying to nelliby.Maybe this makes me a bigot or something, but if I don't understand it, I don't understand it. I don't want this to be a safe space for me and my cherished ideas, nor for you and yours. That doesn't mean I'll participate in threads that I don't like, but I don't take it personally if someone makes a thread questioning the intelligence or worth of my race or religion. I might not even read the thread. I put up with that stuff all the time, not nearly as much as my parents but still I think I have pretty thick skin. Seeing some random internet person open a thread to debate such topics just doesn't bother me.

The most stressful threads for me are political threads. Sometimes, I just can't wade into a political thread. Politics isn't a core interest for me and I tend to get piled on anyways. In that sense, I can sort of understand why people don't like participating in political threads, or racist threads, or sexist or transphobic or what have you. But what prompts the leap to, let's ban these topics entirely?

~Max
Here's where your benefit-of-the-doubt approach goes awry. Asking a question in a public forum about, say, intelligence and race that is NOT in good faith has been a rather common tactic used by cyber-racists: it casts doubt, sows racism (via both the question and the inevitable responses), and intimidates people of color. And the BOTD approach gives these racists cover.

So it's not a "leap" to recommend blocking such avenues of racist ideology. It's a refusal to allow the SDMB to be such an avenue.
  #322  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
For starters, you cannot change a word like "harpie" retroactively so that the sexist history is erased.
....
I never mentioned nor talked about that word.

Not do I condone all of the posts there. However, that was 2011.

This board has changed then. Dredging up old grievances is not helping.
  #323  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:02 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
Times change. People don't.
  #324  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:17 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
I think the 2000 and 2006 threads are excellent additions to the archive. The 2006 thread included insults, but it was a pit thread and those were to be expected. Nobody insulted the eleven year old, or at least no such insults stand out to me after reading the whole thing through.

The 2011 thread made for an interesting read. I found Jragon's position to be closest to mine, especially the exchange midway through between Jragon and SpiceWeasel. I'm sorry margin, but I just don't agree with your level of outrage in that thread from eight years ago. Especially given the mindset from the 2006 pit thread, I think you came across as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Contempt for the actual rapists is implied and obvious. I am not outraged that the discussion was mostly about the community and the victim, and I don't think anybody in that thread blamed the victim.

Also the victim wasn't a member here. I must have misread your previous post, but I was thinking you meant an eleven year old posted a gang rape story here on the SDMB and was subsequently slut-shamed. That would be way, way out of line - even more out of line than slut-shaming an eleven year old from some news story (which is also out of line).

~Max
  #325  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:21 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238

Lost a whole comment!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It might be informative for Dopers to read the 2011 thread, and consider if a rule classing it as "misogyny" or "slut shaming" would tend to lead to more reasonable debate.

Regards,
Shodan
There's the guy arguing that an 11-year-old prostitute is both a victim and a prostitute.

And then there's you, arguing in post 161 that a curfew on the 11-year-old victim would have been a good idea.

And also evading a direction question of mine, where I ask if you think women don't do anything to protect themselves.

Quote:
Because women are so stupid that they wander around waving wads of cash around in bad neighborhoods. They never protect themselves, right?
You respond with, "This isn't about a woman, it's about an 11-year-old," which is exactly the tactic I've been talking about in my earlier comments.

To these two arguments, one has to say:

One; "If anybody gets curfewed, it should be men," and,

Two, do you really not know how much women do to protect themselves every day? (And God spare me from I'mNotLikeOtherGirls who say they NEVER are afraid of anything, they jog at one AM, they park in the darkest corner of the parking lot, they feel no fear.)

Telling women they have to protect themselves ignores that we DO protect ourselves already. It does fall into line with the just world notion that guns would solve womens' self-defense problems. In other words, society abandons women to protect themselves without having to do squat to change itself. If society still refuses to believe women, they won't believe or respect a woman who stopped an assault from happening, thereby leaving no evidence of an assault whatsoever.

The "women need to protect themselves" trope is EXACTLY the type of sexist dogwhistle thing I'm talking about. It reveals a whole set of beliefs about women, the least offensive of which-----and still pretty bloody offensive----is that women do not protect themselves. If you criticize that particular belief you're apt to be accused of wanting women to be defenseless or some other thing, because the idea that arming women (or teachers) solves the situation is quite popular in certain circles.

But women DO protect ourselves every day. After every attack, somebody will offer advice, which is arrogant because we are already doing everything you can think of, but nobody can be 100% alert 100% of the time. That is the standard behind that, "women need to protect themselves," thing. And why is it victim-blaming? Because it assumes that if the woman had just done this or that, the attacker would have picked someone else. It treats the individual victim as a problem, as THE problem, not the rapist that's just going to look for another victim, like he's playing musical chairs. It's like not allowing female students at a frat notorious for sexual assaults. It might solve the problem for THAT group of women, but only as long as those fratboys confine themselves to that house. What if they go to a bar? Another school? A party somewhere? Then what?

That's all by way of explaining how a whole universe of ideas can be contained in one comment.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #326  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:22 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think the 2000 and 2006 threads are excellent additions to the archive. The 2006 thread included insults, but it was a pit thread and those were to be expected. Nobody insulted the eleven year old, or at least no such insults stand out to me after reading the whole thing through.

The 2011 thread made for an interesting read. I found Jragon's position to be closest to mine, especially the exchange midway through between Jragon and SpiceWeasel. I'm sorry margin, but I just don't agree with your level of outrage in that thread from eight years ago. Especially given the mindset from the 2006 pit thread, I think you came across as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Contempt for the actual rapists is implied and obvious. I am not outraged that the discussion was mostly about the community and the victim, and I don't think anybody in that thread blamed the victim.

Also the victim wasn't a member here. I must have misread your previous post, but I was thinking you meant an eleven year old posted a gang rape story here on the SDMB and was subsequently slut-shamed. That would be way, way out of line - even more out of line than slut-shaming an eleven year old from some news story (which is also out of line).

~Max
Please read the link that I posted, as well as my most recent comment.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #327  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:26 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,193
I wonder if the Dope in general believes advocating curfews for 11 year olds is slut-shaming.

Regards,
Shodan
  #328  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:27 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
When somebody comments the victim had a habit of wearing makeup, that's victim blaming. When somebody comments that the victim wore short skirts, that's a victim-blaming dogwhistle. When somebody blames "two parent homes" that's taking the blame off the rapists and blaming society. It's also a rightwing trope that subtly blames single mothers and makes fathers necessary to not produce rapists.

If you can't get all the subtle little pieces there, and if you won't go to the second link I posted, there's no point.
I disagree, and I'm fine if we agree to disagree. Or we can talk about it.

If you are referring to Thomas MacAulay Millar's "Meet The Predators" article, I have read that particular article in the past. It is a great article. I don't think it supports your position. It certainly doesn't put a dint in mine.

~Max
  #329  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:32 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I wonder if the Dope in general believes advocating curfews for 11 year olds is slut-shaming.


Got anything serious to add?
  #330  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:33 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Please read the link that I posted, as well as my most recent comment.
With all due respect, I am not about to jump between you and Shodan. He can defend himself, and if you have a problem with my opinion, you can address me and my opinion.

I don't think a curfew would have helped in that particular situation, and two, I do not believe that women generally fail to protect themselves or should even be responsible for doing so.

~Max
  #331  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Times change. People don't.
Many posters there have been banned, and what is requested here is a change in the rules and how they are enforced- and there have been many changes in how the rules are enforced since then, including strong changes on misogyny.

Your statement argues against what you want.
  #332  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:36 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Here's where your benefit-of-the-doubt approach goes awry. Asking a question in a public forum about, say, intelligence and race that is NOT in good faith has been a rather common tactic used by cyber-racists: it casts doubt, sows racism (via both the question and the inevitable responses), and intimidates people of color. And the BOTD approach gives these racists cover.

So it's not a "leap" to recommend blocking such avenues of racist ideology. It's a refusal to allow the SDMB to be such an avenue.
I think it would be a better approach if we addressed the bad faith directly. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

~Max
  #333  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post


Got anything serious to add?
Again, that's a 8 year old thread, it this a good place to bring old ancient grievances and arguments?
  #334  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:40 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think it would be a better approach if we addressed the bad faith directly. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

~Max
That doesn't work too well if the subject in question wants to spread the disease and not treat it.
  #335  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:42 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That doesn't work too well if the subject in question wants to spread the disease and not treat it.
Why not? That's how infectious diseases work. They spread.

~Max
  #336  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:50 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That doesn't work too well if the subject in question wants to spread the disease and not treat it.
Upon reflection I think we have a misunderstanding of my analogy here. The disease would be bad faith posters, and the symptoms would be offensive threads. If you want to bring a "subject" into this, meaning a patient, the patient would be the message board as a whole.

In this construction your comment makes no sense.

(I had previously interpreted you as writing "That doesn't work too well if the [disease] in question wants to spread the disease and not treat it.")

~Max
  #337  
Old 12-03-2019, 02:52 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I wonder if the Dope in general believes advocating curfews for 11 year olds is slut-shaming.

Regards,
Shodan
I'd like to think that if I point out how utterly dishonest this is, it would be regarded as fair.

I SAID that if ANYBODY should have a curfew, it should be men. Is that clear?

You are doing that thing where you mock people who are trying to make a point that you really don't want to get made.

Max, when I point out the string of victim blaming statements, I believe I included language to the effect that that victim's age amplified the sexism of pointing out the victim's appearance. The "short skirt" thing is so classic a slam I hardly need point it out, right?https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/11...-Anderson.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/11...-Anderson.html


https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/

https://www.mic.com/articles/141781/...an-the-obvious
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #338  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:02 PM
Ponder Stibbons's Avatar
Ponder Stibbons is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 5,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Fair moderation means evenhandedness.
No it doesn't.
__________________
Ignore This Moron
  #339  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:06 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post


Got anything serious to add?
Yes, what I said.

The title of the thread is Disputation and the Straight Dope Message Board. I assume we all agree that misogyny and slut-shaming are detrimental to disputation here. Thus the question - does it help, or hurt, disputation on the SDMB to class advocating curfews for 11 year olds as slut-shaming? IMO it hurts, and is more an example of
Quote:
People don't discuss or debate in good faith, they decry, they demand, they assault.
IMO describing the 2011 thread as 'a bunch of guys getting together to slut-shame an 11 year old' or alleging that anyone defended the rapists or that the rapists were anything but condemned in the harshest possible terms, does not help disputation on the SDMB. And therefore IMO that thread is a good example of something that should not be outlawed, or sanctioned in any way.

If you have anything to add besides an emoticon and a question, I am sure we would all be interested to hear it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #340  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:15 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Max, when I point out the string of victim blaming statements, I believe I included language to the effect that that victim's age amplified the sexism of pointing out the victim's appearance. The "short skirt" thing is so classic a slam I hardly need point it out, right?https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/11...-Anderson.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/11...-Anderson.html


https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/

https://www.mic.com/articles/141781/...an-the-obvious
Yes, calling out a victim's clothing can be used to blame the victim. But I think this is like the square and the rectangle. I think it is possible to see a problem with the victim's clothing or behavior, without blaming the victim. Specifically, when we are talking about children.

The Telegraph piece isn't surprising to me although, as I said above, I don't think it's necessarily victim blaming to think that wearing a short skirt is "asking for it". I haven't seen the X-Files so the reference is lost on me entirely. Asking to be raped? assaulted? harassed? That's victim blaming. Asking for people to look at your legs? Not victim blaming. Somehow leveraging this into removing culpability from the rapist? Victim blaming. Saying it statistically affects your chance of being raped? Not victim blaming, at least not until you leverage it to remove culpability from the rapist. That's my opinion, but I'll admit in an instant that I'm unqualified to hold a strong opinion.

I have no idea what you brought up the reddit link for, and I couldn't wrap my head around the purpose of that site. I am entirely unfamiliar with Dr. Peterson and couldn't immediately make heads or tails of his views.

I think I've addressed the Mic/Polymic cite above as to when it crosses the line, in my eyes. ETA: If it somehow shifts culpability away from the rapist, it's victim blaming.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-03-2019 at 03:18 PM.
  #341  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:18 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you have anything to add besides an emoticon and a question, I am sure we would all be interested to hear it.
You and the mouse in your pocket aside, I find it hard to believe that
Quote:
I wonder if the Dope in general believes advocating curfews for 11 year olds is slut-shaming.
is something that can be derived from what has been said here.
  #342  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:21 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,091
For anyone who is interested, I've started a thread to discuss what constitutes victim-blaming here.
  #343  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:26 PM
tricoteuse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 171
And we're right back where we started with the same handful of posters making the same old lame old arguments and the same handful of people trying to explain the same old things that the first group will never, ever listen to, with the moderators not doing a damn thing to rein it in. Tuba Diva vanished as soon as people started criticizing how the board is run and as soon as she realized her Mr. Rogers talk wasn't going to miraculously fix the problem.

I'm gone.

Someday, if you really want to know why women are leaving this board, and why new posters don't stick around, come back and read this thread with your eyes open for a change.

[Trico makes a point of hitting the door with her butt as she leaves.]
  #344  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:39 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The 2011 thread made for an interesting read. I found Jragon's position to be closest to mine, especially the exchange midway through between Jragon and SpiceWeasel. I'm sorry margin, but I just don't agree with your level of outrage in that thread from eight years ago. Especially given the mindset from the 2006 pit thread, I think you came across as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Contempt for the actual rapists is implied and obvious. I am not outraged that the discussion was mostly about the community and the victim, and I don't think anybody in that thread blamed the victim.
Don't use my posts in that thread they were wrong. For one I was a shitty person 8 years ago and being on this board since I was 16 and impressionable world-view-wise was a big part of it, I wasn't slapped down hard enough for making bullshit "emotionally detached" arguments about shit like rape and pedophilia. My change happened I think that same year, but it was getting temp-banned from another board for doing the "pedophilia and ephebophilia aren't the same thing and people shouldn't feel bad for being pedophiles/ephebophiles anyway as long as they don't act on it," something which is, at best, not something you should say because it culturally defends pedos, and is an argument I came across repeatedly on this damn board.

I had also been repeatedly coerced into sex by my partner the last couple years before that and was trying to make sense of why I kept letting it happen and took it out on that news story by trying to rationalize what had gone wrong in her (my) life that she (I) didn't do "the right thing" after.

Last edited by Jragon; 12-03-2019 at 03:42 PM.
  #345  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:39 PM
DocCathode's Avatar
DocCathode is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philladelphia-Mummer city
Posts: 11,820
First, I agree with Margin, Monstro, Manda JO and Tricoteuse. As much as I usually hate "ditto!" and "QFT" and "this!" posts, I wish more lurkers in this thread would let those fighting the good fight know that they are heard, agreed with and supported.

Max S You say that you would avoid threads you found offensive. Do you not understand that their very existence is offensive and that it shows the Dope allows such things?

I agree with ( who ever it was) about bigots and such not learning anything here. When somebody posted a thread "Defend White Supremacism, I Dare You!", the Dope was flooded with folks who wanted to do just that. They apparently mostly came from St*rmfr*nt. Some were beaten in debates with cites and reason. Some broke the rules and got banned. Later (I'm sorry. I can't remember who it was) read the stories of the SDMB that were posted when the racists returned to St*rmfr*nt. They spoke of finding idiots who were blind to the brown menace and how they kicked our butts in debate.

Tuba Diva The only power I have as a poster is to follow the rules and report those who do not. If a poster is an obvious racist, but follows all the rules, there's nothing I can do.
__________________
Nothing is impossible if you can imagine it. That's the wonder of being a scientist!
Prof Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama
  #346  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:40 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I wonder if the Dope in general believes advocating curfews for 11 year olds is slut-shaming.

Regards,
Shodan
I'd like to think that if I point out how utterly dishonest this is, it would be regarded as fair.

I SAID that if ANYBODY should have a curfew, it should be men. Is that clear?

You are doing that thing where you mock people who are trying to make a point that you really don't want to get made.

Max, when I point out the string of victim blaming statements, I believe I included language to the effect that that victim's age amplified the sexism of pointing out the victim's appearance. The "short skirt" thing is so classic a slam I hardly need point it out, right?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/11...-Anderson.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/11...-Anderson.html


https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/

https://www.mic.com/articles/141781/...an-the-obvious
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #347  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:57 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,699
Also for anyone catching up on that thread getting the wrong idea of what pronouns to use for me, if you didn't pick it up within the last couple years of me posting here I'm agender (but live life being perceived as a woman, and for purposes of discussions like the one in this thread, "woman" is closest for how I'm affected by board culture) and use she/her pronouns.

Sorry, I have to head this off before being referred to as "a guy" or getting he/him used for me.
  #348  
Old 12-03-2019, 03:58 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
Don't use my posts in that thread they were wrong. For one I was a shitty person 8 years ago and being on this board since I was 16 and impressionable world-view-wise was a big part of it, I wasn't slapped down hard enough for making bullshit "emotionally detached" arguments about shit like rape and pedophilia. My change happened I think that same year, but it was getting temp-banned from another board for doing the "pedophilia and ephebophilia aren't the same thing and people shouldn't feel bad for being pedophiles/ephebophiles anyway as long as they don't act on it," something which is, at best, not something you should say because it culturally defends pedos, and is an argument I came across repeatedly on this damn board.

I had also been repeatedly coerced into sex by my partner the last couple years before that and was trying to make sense of why I kept letting it happen and took it out on that news story by trying to rationalize what had gone wrong in her (my) life that she (I) didn't do "the right thing" after.
Perhaps you are about eight years wiser than I.

This doesn't change my opinion today, but I am sorry for digging up old bones.

~Max
  #349  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:02 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,204
The message board/bulletin board format is limited in its usefulness, and people have been trying to fix it since the Usenet days. Slashdot's moderation system was developed to address this 20 years ago, and since then we've seen many attempts to improve that system, most notably at this point, Reddit. Upvotes and downvotes are meant to bury the sorts of unhelpful, trollish, or cruel posts that litter comment sections while allowing the cream to rise to the top. The SDMB's linear format is fundamentally broken if the goal is reasoned debate, because it gives the same traffic to any reply, regardless of how quality it is. On Reddit, Shodan's multiple attempts to derail and victim-shame in this thread under the guise of "just advocating for curfews" would be downvoted into oblivion, until Shodan would finally give up and wander over to one of the troll farms like The_Donald where people would enjoy his antics.

In the absense of any kind of crowd-sourced moderation like that, it would be up to the mods to micro-manage threads to prevent someone from say, dropping a turd of an argument and ignoring all 15 replies only to drop a different turd of an argument. And it would require throwing out the limited rules and actually moderating based on what a GOOD discussion looks like, not on what a consistently enforceable discussion looks like. Consistently enforceable but bad isn't what anyone wants, except for the trolls.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone would volunteer to curate posts that agressively, and I'm not sure I'd trust the kind of person who would volunteer anyway. Maybe the mods try it out on a limited basis -- 30 days in GD of quickly putting the kibosh on any posts that aren't in furtherance of whatever the GD mods decide isn't a "good discussion," heavy on the subjective reasoning and light on the objective hedging.
  #350  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:08 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocCathode View Post
Max S You say that you would avoid threads you found offensive. Do you not understand that their very existence is offensive and that it shows the Dope allows such things?
I don't understand how their very existence is offensive.

No, really.

I've brought this up before, but if someone made a thread claiming that they are the only person who exists (a form of solipsism), I would not be offended. If someone told me to my face that they think I and those of my religion are going to hell, I don't become irate, I just think that they are misguided. When someone tells me, to my face, that my race is inferior and deserves to be rid from the face of the earth, the primary emotion I feel is one of pity for the person in front of me.

If someone were to say they wish harm to me or my loved ones personally, or if there is an actual threat, then I get angry.

~Max
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017