She was an actress hired by the producers of the video to walk down the street while getting filmed. She was hired for a job and did the job.
It shouldn’t be surprising, I suppose, that the one getting attacked for this video is the actress and not the (male) producers, but it is pretty revealing.
The structure may be loosely similar, but as Bricker noted, the details are fundamentally different rendering the analogy/sarcasm/parody unpersuasive. YMMV.
[ol]
[li]People in this thread have said that since some people feel threatened by strangers interacting with them, even so much as a common greeting, they avoid doing it. And if you know some people feel threatened by some behavior, why would you ever do it, dontchaknow.[/li]
[li]I was automatically disadvantaged. I had my kid with me. And I was carrying some produce. If the person were to engage me with the blunt objects she was suspiciously carrying (canned goods), or her much heavier defensive shield (shopping cart) I would have been seriously outmatched.[/li][/ol]
My point, by way of illustration, is that equivocating normal social behavior with more nefarious harassment weakens claims of actual harassment.
[quote=“Bone, post:622, topic:702930”]
The structure may be loosely similar, but as Bricker noted, the details are fundamentally different rendering the analogy/sarcasm/parody unpersuasive. YMMV.
[ol]
[li]People in this thread have said that since some people feel threatened by strangers interacting with them, even so much as a common greeting, they avoid doing it. And if you know some people feel threatened by some behavior, why would you ever do it, dontchaknow.[/li][/quote]
To repeat myself: People do not routinely report feeling threatened by this kind of behavior.
You’re describing a hypothetical scenario in which someone does feel threatened. But the important point is that, in the actual world, people do not routinely report feeling threatened by this kind of behavior. But as concerns men greeting women uninvited as women walk by, the women do routinely report feeling threatened. This is an important, relevant distinction between the catcalling situation and your attempt at a parody of the argument.
That’s not a systemic power or status differential dynamic.
what a complete stinking liar you are!!! you don’t care about any of this, so quit with your false protestations.
you KNOW you’re wrong. you KNOW that attractive women don’t like getting hit on, all day, every day. yelling at them as they walk by is one of the worst forms of hitting on a woman. you KNOW this. it takes NO INTELLIGENCE to recognize this fact. but if you admitted it was wrong you’d have to admit YOU WERE wrong, and that’s not going to happen, is it???
It’s a good thing that’s not the argument I’m making.
Meds. They are your friend.
this is an issue that only has two sides, right and wrong. you are arguing the wrong side.
Which side do you think I’m arguing?
idk but it’s defiantly not the side that says it’s wrong to harass women with cat calls
Notice that your argument is so weak you can’t even use it. Instead, you have to argue against “yelling at women as they walk by.”
I am talking about the inoffensive practice of greeting passersby by nod and brief “Hi,” or “Morning!” as we pass each other.
There’s no yelling involved.
Are you trying to say that you don’t think she’s attractive enough to harass?
which has nothing, at all, to do with the subject of this thread.
Except that it is, and has been, for some 8 or 9 pages back. People like you jump into the thread without reading the previous posts and seeing how the conversation has evolved and then start spouting bullshit without knowing how the discussion has shifted.
I don’t think anyone is arguing against that, though a couple have people including me have said that it’s not normal behavior in big cities. I’ve been in New York on business, and for my morning commute I walked past a couple of thousand people on my way from the train station to the office. I imagine saying hi to all of them would take a pretty long time, and the majority of them probably wouldn’t appreciate it.
Actually I think people who haven’t actually lived in a city don’t realize how anonymous it is. People cope with high density by basically ignoring each other; and that’s polite behavior in those situations. Go to any large city in the world, and you’ll see people politely giving each other privacy by not paying attention to each other. The guy saying “hi” to people walking by is mentally ill or asking for money (and generally both), or maybe an out-of-place tourist.
I can’t imagine those were very pleasant trips for you, all that nodding and twitching left and right to make sure you leave noone out.
Lol. In this thread, we were talking about social interactions with women, and a poster literally drew a comparison (in all seriousness) to how dogs behave around meat. That poster is the one who made your “gerbil” analogy, and I made fun of it. And yet, instead of lecturing that poster about how their analogy is doomed, you are here lecturing me about how my parody is doomed.
There were tons of your “pet gerbil” arguments throughout the thread that were made in all seriousness, and yet it’s the parody of those “pet gerbil” arguments that warrants your criticism.
I also notice you’ve ignored that I was also making fun of the phony expertise argument.
But, I’ll write another post later tonight dealing with the actual candy analogy in more detail.
That’s not correct. In post 385, Frylock says:
Kimstu also rejects the claim.
So while I grant that it wasn’t discussed in the OP, I don’t agree it has “nothing” to do with the subject of the thread.
Haha I put my initials at the end of that post. Oops.
Old habits die hard.
-FrL-
You were the only one trying parody as an effective argument.
The dogs-around-meat analogy is seriously flawed, of course, but it’s also vulnerable to direct rebuttal because it’s a clear argument. Flawed, fatally, but clear.
No, I used parody as a parody argument. You’re making yourself look silly again.
And yet, when it was made, you didn’t point out why it was flawed. Instead you try to take an argument which should have been used against that (or any similar arguments) and use it against a parody argument.
What was that about begging the question? You’re describing your behavior as inoffensive to prove that it’s inoffensive.
You skipped answering my question upthread of what the benefit your practice adds to society.
Almost all positive comments are acceptable . . . in the right context. The issue with your inoffensive hi is that it’s easy to get that context wrong. Both happen in public and with strangers. The only difference is that the inoffensive hi is generally acceptable with eye contact and with a willing participant.
You’ve easily conflated your behavior with the behavior on the video and have had to correct several people in this thread that the behavior you’re describing is different. If the inoffensive hi is so different than the behavior in the video, why are you discussing it in this thread?
Because there are some amount of people who aren’t distinguishing that context well, I asked, as a thought experiment, what would happen if the social norm of saying hi to strangers on the street was eliminated? What’s the benefit that would be lost?
So far, the only reason you’ve given for why you do this behavior is that it’s the social norm. It’s not the social norm in many places, so that argument doesn’t work for all places. For the places that it is the social norm, does the benefit of the social norm outweigh the consequences of those people who get the context wrong?