Disputation and The Straight Dope Message Board

About This Message Board
321

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

I never mentioned nor talked about that word. :confused:

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

Times change. People don’t.

324

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

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.

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.

326

Please read the link that I posted, as well as my most recent comment.

327

I wonder if the Dope in general believes advocating curfews for 11 year olds is slut-shaming.

Regards,
Shodan

328

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

:dubious:

Got anything serious to add?

330

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

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

I think it would be a better approach if we addressed the bad faith directly. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

~Max

333

Again, that’s a 8 year old thread, it this a good place to bring old ancient grievances and arguments?

334

That doesn’t work too well if the subject in question wants to spread the disease and not treat it.

335

Why not? That’s how infectious diseases work. They spread.

~Max

336

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

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?Men still believe women in short skirts are 'asking for it', says Gillian Anderson

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

338

No it doesn’t.

339

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

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

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