# Maybe puddleglum misunderstood the analogy **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 16, 2019, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965 "2019-12-16T21:47:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/1 "2019-12-16T21:47:58Z")
I urge **Jonathan Chance** to reconsider his warning from the thread “[THREAD=886260]Where’s the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?[/THREAD]” It appears to me that **puddleglum** misinterpreted **SmartAleq** ’s analogy, and then when **margin** pointed out how it is insulting to compare women to children, **puddleglum** thought that was criticism of **SmartAleq** ’s original analogy. Your warning accuses **puddleglum** of bad faith, and if you feel justified in doing so please consider modifying your warning to quote **puddleglum** ’s initial post in the exchange, where he expanded **SmartAleq** ’s analogy to encompass giving children advice. Warning and context in spoiler. > [@Where's the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-line-between-advising-someone-to-take-steps-to-protect-themselves-and-victim-blaming/844322/582): > > > [@Where's the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-line-between-advising-someone-to-take-steps-to-protect-themselves-and-victim-blaming/844322/574): > > > > Yeah, to any man who gets tempted AGAIN to try to equate rape to whatever property crime suits his fancy, try this–substitute “torturing a small child with pliers and red hot metal and knives for several hours” instead of whatever bloodless, essentially harmless crime you’re imagining. Imagine the blood and the screaming and the smells as the child shits herself, imagine him crying for his mother to come save him. There you go, that’s a whole lot closer to the reality of what a rapist does to his victim. Then see if you can put yourself into those shoes and imagine the situation that would lead to you doing that to a child. Women aren’t cars, or bags of money, or any other type of property and if you can’t see why it’s a huge problem that simply huge swathes of men are able to dissassociate and dehumanize women to the point where they think it’s a fair comparison to equate car theft to rape then, well, see a fucking therapist. > > In this analogy is it okay to tell kids not to get into cars with strangers, or is that victim blaming? > [@Where's the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-line-between-advising-someone-to-take-steps-to-protect-themselves-and-victim-blaming/844322/583): > > > [@Where's the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-line-between-advising-someone-to-take-steps-to-protect-themselves-and-victim-blaming/844322/582): > > > > In this analogy is it okay to tell kids not to get into cars with strangers, or is that victim blaming? > > You’re comparing children with adult women? Gee, nothing insulting _there_! Silly women, getting in strangers’ cars. > > The advice being offered here reminds me of when the Italian Supreme Court decided that the fact that a rape victim had worn tight jeans meant no rape had occurred, as she must have “helped” get the jeans off. Italy, home of the Mafia, apparently contains no guns, knives, fists, or scissors within its borders, or groups of men. > > That decision was made by several people. It went through layers and layers of the judiciary. Everyone found it acceptable. > > So, yes, let’s assume women are children, that’s not incredibly, almost viciously insulting at ALL. > [@Where's the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-line-between-advising-someone-to-take-steps-to-protect-themselves-and-victim-blaming/844322/584): > > > [@Where's the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-line-between-advising-someone-to-take-steps-to-protect-themselves-and-victim-blaming/844322/583): > > > > You’re comparing children with adult women? Gee, nothing insulting _there_! Silly women, getting in strangers’ cars. > > > > The advice being offered here reminds me of when the Italian Supreme Court decided that the fact that a rape victim had worn tight jeans meant no rape had occurred, as she must have “helped” get the jeans off. Italy, home of the Mafia, apparently contains no guns, knives, fists, or scissors within its borders, or groups of men. > > > > That decision was made by several people. It went through layers and layers of the judiciary. Everyone found it acceptable. > > > > So, yes, let’s assume women are children, that’s not incredibly, almost viciously insulting at ALL. > > We don’t know if SmartAleq meant to be insulting in her analogy, maybe she just had not thought it through. Give her a chance to apologize before comparing her to Italians. > [@Where's the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-line-between-advising-someone-to-take-steps-to-protect-themselves-and-victim-blaming/844322/588): > > > [@Where's the line between advising someone to take steps to protect themselves and victim-blaming?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wheres-the-line-between-advising-someone-to-take-steps-to-protect-themselves-and-victim-blaming/844322/584): > > > > We don’t know if SmartAleq meant to be insulting in her analogy, maybe she just had not thought it through. Give her a chance to apologize before comparing her to Italians. > > That sort of nonsense earns you a warning, puddleglum. Do not denigrate other posters nor distort their intent to score points. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/2 "2019-12-16T22:55:30Z")
I think puddleglum understood the SmartAleq analogy and also understood that margin was referring to him and not SmartAleq. What he was saying was a valid rhetorical device, in pointing out that he was not the one who compared women to children and he was only working with the comparison that SmartAleq already made. (pg did not “expand” SA’s analogy to apply to giving advice. The entire discussion in the thread is about giving advice.) So while margin’s comments were directed at him, they should properly have been directed at SmartAleq. It was a perfectly valid response, and of a sort which gets made on this MB routinely. But puddleglum is arguing a position which is very in-PC on this board, and anything said in support of that position is going to be interpreted and judged very harshly by the moderation. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/3 "2019-12-16T23:23:43Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > (pg did not “expand” SA’s analogy to apply to giving advice. The entire discussion in the thread is about giving advice.) I have been following the thread, and in context I think the focus was whether it is reasonable for men to try and identify with rapists. The point was being made that certain advice was ineffectual, born from men trying to identify with rapists and then, from the mind of the rapist, try and identify how a person could avoid being raped. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/4 "2019-12-16T23:32:45Z")
I believe you’re wrong about this. SA’s post didn’t quote anything, but began with “Yeah …” and was apparently in response to the post which immediately preceded it, from Ann Hedonia. That post addressed the Porsche vs Toyota comparison. The Porsche vs Toyota comparison was made in the thread in the context of whether women who were more attractive (the Porsche) was more likely to be raped (stolen) than women who were less attractive (the Toyota). The relevance of the likelihood comparison was about the validity of advising women that appearing less attractive would make them safer from rape to some extent. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/5 "2019-12-16T23:57:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I believe you’re wrong about this. > > SA’s post didn’t quote anything, but began with “Yeah …” and was apparently in response to the post which immediately preceded it, from Ann Hedonia. That post addressed the Porsche vs Toyota comparison. The Porsche vs Toyota comparison was made in the thread in the context of whether women who were more attractive (the Porsche) was more likely to be raped (stolen) than women who were less attractive (the Toyota). The relevance of the likelihood comparison was about the validity of advising women that appearing less attractive would make them safer from rape to some extent. The reference to men comparing rape to property crime was the context. cf post [POST=22023685]#309[/POST] and subsequent discussion. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/6 "2019-12-17T14:29:29Z")
I assume you mean post #509, which is the one you linked to. Regardless, the reference to “car theft analogies” and Porsche vs Toyota was made in [Post #480](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22022999&postcount=480), and the context was about whether rapists/robbers are influenced by attractiveness vs opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/7 "2019-12-17T16:03:51Z")
This is never a good idea. You shouldn’t try to come up with a possible explanation for someone else. You should let them offer their own defense. The rationale is this: if it’s the truth, they’ll say it, because the first defense is the truth. If you think you’ve been misunderstood and were punished for it, the first thing you’ll do is explain what you actually meant. If, on the other hand, they have to wait for someone else to come up with an excuse, then chances are that it wasn’t the truth. If it were, they would have come up with it first. What’s more, this sort of thing actually hurts them. If it just turns out there was a bit of a delay before they could explain, and their explanation is what you said, then it looks like they just stole it from you, and so their explanation is less believable. In order to get believable explanations, it is better not to volunteer a possible explanation for someone else. It’s fine to take what they say and try to explain it in different words, but don’t come up with your own possible explanation. It hurts the ability to find the truth, and hurts their believability if you turn out to be correct. I understand the instinct, but it isn’t helpful to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/8 "2019-12-17T17:35:16Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This is never a good idea. You shouldn’t try to come up with a possible explanation for someone else. You should let them offer their own defense. Although I do appear to white knight for **puddleglum** , that’s not my primary motivation here. I made a post trying to tell **puddleglum** he misinterpreted the analogy _before the warning was given_. My motivation in this thread is based on **Jonathan Chance** ’s warning. The warning itself does not appear to make sense; if there was bad faith, it would be **puddleglum** purposefully misinterpreting the analogy in post #582. Post #584, which was quoted by the warning, does not appear to be out of line. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/9 "2019-12-17T17:56:44Z")
Post #584 was warned for pretending that the post it quoted was directed at SA when it was obvious that it was really directed at pg himself. As above I think it was a legitimate rhetorical device, and in a thread in which people on the other side of the argument were seriously accusing their opponents of being sexual assaulters and hinting that it would be nice if they were assaulted themselves, it’s striking that this was singled out for a warning. But not surprising. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/10 "2019-12-17T19:20:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This is never a good idea. You shouldn’t try to come up with a possible explanation for someone else. You should let them offer their own defense. > > The rationale is this: if it’s the truth, they’ll say it, because the first defense is the truth. If you think you’ve been misunderstood and were punished for it, the first thing you’ll do is explain what you actually meant. If, on the other hand, they have to wait for someone else to come up with an excuse, then chances are that it wasn’t the truth. If it were, they would have come up with it first. > > What’s more, this sort of thing actually hurts them. If it just turns out there was a bit of a delay before they could explain, and their explanation is what you said, then it looks like they just stole it from you, and so their explanation is less believable. > > In order to get believable explanations, it is better not to volunteer a possible explanation for someone else. It’s fine to take what they say and try to explain it in different words, but don’t come up with your own possible explanation. It hurts the ability to find the truth, and hurts their believability if you turn out to be correct. > > I understand the instinct, but it isn’t helpful to anyone. “In order to get believable explanations, it is better not to volunteer a possible explanation for someone else.” Great insight. And I take this to pertain to politics too, for me anyway. As we head into an impeachment with no potus witnesses provided. But there is a lot of it about here. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-puddleglum-misunderstood-the-analogy/844965/11 "2019-12-18T19:24:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Post #584 was warned for pretending that the post it quoted was directed at SA when it was obvious that it was really directed at pg himself. If true I agree with you, it was a valid rhetorical device. **Jonathan Chance** , who was **puddleglum** disparaging or twisting the intent of? ~Max