You were asking “feminists” to push for more women to be charged and arrested, right?
No. I’m surprised you got that out of anything I said. If there’s some particular sentence I wrote that made you think that, I’d be curious to know which one it was.
FTR: I agree with the Harvard Law professors who attacked it. I think it’s dangerous and counter-productive, as well as unfair and quite likely unconstitutional.
One lesson an undergrad might likely take from this case, and others like it, is: “If I wake up after a night of drunken sex, I better make sure I’m the first to report it, even if it was 100% consensual if I don’t want to be the one who gets kicked out of school.”
It may be that there are good ways to encourage undergrads not to have drunk sex, but this isn’t it.
In any event, I agree with you: “My problem isn’t that the the woman wasn’t also charged with rape, it’s the idea that anyone should be charged. It’s the denial of due process when it is charged. It’s the counselors that traumatized the woman by convincing her she was raped.”
I don’t know how familiar you are with GD, but rhetoric you describe as dishonest is pretty common here. I’ve always interpreted it as "This is what I believe most [Republicans] (or whoever) believe. Not as an assertion that every member of the group believes it.
.
The general idea is to challenge those who disagree to come forward and defend their position. It may be that people in GD, in general, are thicker-skinned than in some other sub-forums. In other words, stating a position strongly is meant as a challenge, and an attempt to draw people in, not shut them out.
Stating a position timidly, or uncontroversially, here at least, is likely to draw few responses.
The main points are:
(1.) Feminism is not about equality (but what’s best for women).
(2.) Feminism mischaracterizes the historical differences in the roles of men and women. Specifically, it characterizes them as attempts to oppress women, when in fact (given that most of human history and evolution occurred before the last 200 years) it was an attempt to protect women.
(3.) Women are not currently oppressed.
You’re free to challenge any or all of those if you want, or to ignore them, if you want.
I’m sorry to hear that.
Again, I think you and your friends are taking the norms from another sub-forum, and applying them here. GD is not a social club, or a virtual community. It’s a place to debate ideas. Generally, the more assertively you put forward your argument, the more likely you are to get responses.
I’ve never asserted that. And, FTR: I don’t hold you responsible for every person who claims to be a feminist.
I’ll keep your advice in mind.
I’ve never asserted that Straughan isn’t relevant to this thread. In fact, I’d encourage anyone who’s interested to look at her vlogs or interviews, or anything else she’s said or written.
I have said I’m not particularly interested in Elam, based on what’s been said about him in this thread. If you want to drag him into the thread, that’s your right. But his views (based on what’s been presented here) are not mine.
Yes. Many (not all) were dishonest, particularly after your friends joined the thread. Not only that, they were personal attacks, which are explicitly against the rules of GD.
It doesn’t matter how many people say it. What matters is whether it’s true.
If you want to give some specific examples, I’d be happy to address them.
Otherwise, you’re not giving me anything to work with.
You’re making generalized attack on the how I presented the arguments, rather than a responding to the arguments themselves.