I don’t think you know what “vitriol” means, then. It was disturbing to many, true, but it was by no means vitriolic. Quite measured, actually.
I think that’s debatable, but I honestly have no desire whatsoever to debate it. Happy Friday!
Some additional material (referenced earlier in the thread):
– If men were rational they’d treat women as radioactive AND a woman who’d balks at being videotaped by a sex partner does so because she doesn’t care about the man’s problems. Link.
– No one cares if men are tortured or killed AND **olives **might be lying about being raped. Link.
– Even if you’ve been married for 30 years, that scheming bitch might hit you with a false rape accusation. Link.
– It’s foolhardy for men to have sex with women without surreptitiously videotaping the encounter. Link.
– Women would be offended by said videotaping because they don’t want men to have any legal defense against whatever false accusations they might later decide to make. Link.
– “Feminists and divorce lawyers” encourage people to make false accusations. Link.
Despite all that, I wouldn’t say for certain that Der Trihs** is a misogynist. He may well just be a misanthrope who can’t see past his own nose, so anything “other” is drenched in villain sauce and filled with cartoonishly evil motives.
Most of those statements are true and/or hyperbolic.
Oh, man, I never saw the response to that. I remember that, I totally lost my shit in that thread and I knew I wasn’t being completely rational, so I just left it alone. And I actually apologized to him later about it. But if I’d have read what he’d written, I don’t think I would have been too worried about his feelings. What a fucking ass.
And just so we’re clear, olives never claimed she was raped. I was sexually abused as a child. I think the experiences are alike in some ways and different in other ways. I can support them and understand them, but I can’t speak for rape victims.
Ding ding ding we have a winnah!
IMHO, anyone who uses their own personal experiences as a trump card in a debate, as you did, is fair game for having their veracity questioned.
If you’re too sensitive - or the memories and scars still too raw - for that, then you need to avoid references to your own experiences. But you can’t participate in a debate and say “I had these experiences and you didn’t so you can’t argue with me” and disallow any challenges as infringing on your feelings.
I just said that I was pissed off and behaving irrationally in that Great Debates thread, and you are pointing this out to me why? On an emotional level, I don’t give a shit whether he believes me or not, but I’m sure not going to blow smoke up his ass after he says something like that. Who would? Seriously.
This probably should be sent as a PM but since you did post it here in the thread, I’m going to answer this here.
At the time I voted in that poll but didn’t take part in the discussion because by the time I’d voted there was already too much heated discussion and, quite frankly, I had no interest in having to defend my feelings and life experience to a few people who were in that thread shitting it up.
Over the course of the last day or so I’ve reread that whole thing and I’m pretty disturbed by the attitude of a few. I’m bad with names usually but believe me, I remember them now. I also will remember yours because you were numerous shades of awesome in that thread so I hope you don’t feel like your time was wasted. After feeling like I needed a shower after reading so many responses from jackasses, it was refreshing to read your responses.
Not if the debate is about those experiences. I can debate the Iraq war with anybody, but if someone was in Iraq and says “This is what it was like,” I hope I’d have the decency to let them speak, and not tell them what they really experienced or felt.
Thank you for that, Sleeps With Butterflies. It’s kind of fucked up for me to say I wasted my time, since more people said nicer things to me in that thread than ever happens in real life. And now you said a nice thing.
I just mean that I was super invested, for a while, in the idea that since the same group of people kept popping up in thread after thread with the same bitter whiny nonsense, they actually wanted to argue about it. I must have set a record for good-faith questions that got totally ignored. Der Trihs is the champion at it; it’s like he thinks that as long as he’s in a new thread nobody can remember that two days ago somebody called him out for making some shit up when he said the exact same thing he’s saying today. I started just wanting to post “you are a dumb fuck and I would a little bit like to fight you in some sort of charity match” after two or three different posts in every thread, and then they started with the rape month shit, and then I discovered bath salts, and suddenly I’m not worried about it anymore.
Including filming sexual encounters without the knowledge of one’s partner? It may be illegal in some states.
aren’t you worried where your next deliciously fleshy face meal will come from?
Seconding that.
Your post in this thread is poorly written and somewhat unclear, but best as I can figure, you were saying that you had not read his response that VarlosZ was quoting, and you were reacting to it now. My comments were in response to your words in this thread, not to your words in the GD thread.
I suppose if the debate was about this one person’s experiences specifically - were that possible - then that might be true. But if the debate is about the experiences of people in that situation generally, then no.
We’ve got a problem here.
You’ve added words to a quote from me, (and then responded as if I had said them) which is both against the rules and generally dishonest.
To be clear, I have never said “It’s foolhardy for men to have sex with women without surreptitiously videotaping the encounter”, as incorrectly quoted by gamerunknown. These are actually the words of VarlosZ, quoting or paraphrasing Der Trihs.
Yeah, I’m done wasting my time with you. You’re behaving like a complete douche and I tire of your pedantic nonsense. I can only hope that your superior intellect can parse my incoherent ramblings because having to explain it again would be a huge pain in my ass.
Missed the edit window: I would have edited the previous post if I could have, to be less inflammatory, because generally I think insults hinder communication more than anything else. I just hate passive aggression and being patronized in general; throw in some pedantry and it’s the perfect cocktail of pissing me off.
My main point is that the things Der Trihs has said - even excluding anything he’s ever said about women - are indefensible. It’s not really worth debating about, because there is no debate… he’s just wrong. Attempting to discredit me or my experiences or my writing will not change the fact that Der Trihs is a seething ball of irrational rage who harbors dangerous delusions about human nature in general. To support his statements is to consciously put something destructive into the world. Obviously I think this is a bad thing.
I hope that’s nice and clear for you.
Well to the extent that you’re not putting it forth in the context of a response to what I’ve said, then yes, it’s nice and clear.
But my actual point here was that “anyone who uses their own personal experiences as a trump card in a debate, as you did, is fair game for having their veracity questioned”.
That’s my point and I’m sticking to it, “complete douche” or not.
Sorry, I mangled the quote.
Care to respond to the content?
Yes, I understood your point. It’s a shit point, based on a complete mischaracterization of my intent with that post, and grounded in the erroneous assumption that it’s totally okay to be an asshole in certain contexts. In other words, I disagree with you. Calling a sexual abuse victim a liar in order to win points in a debate is not ethically justified. Your point, I also note, completely circumvents the main thrust of my argument, which is that his behavior in the sexual assault thread was deplorable. Whatever happened later has nothing to do with that.
**Der Trihs **spews distilled vitriol in every Christian thread but since some is deserved and seriously parsing morality and how it relates to the modern world from a Bronze Age allegory is so absurd I find his contributions nevertheless refreshing.