|
Sharkie posted:People can come down on the conservative side about anything. Again, that's so broad it's practically meaningless, and given that people can come down on the conservative side about anything, why link those two specific things together? Are you trying to say that they are both things you come down on the conservative side on? And here's your reply to RRH: No, I honestly appreciate your input on this, and you taking the time to help me clarify some of things that others might've been having problems understanding as well. And I do hope people continue to "address the first part" since that seems to be generating a good amount of the discussion.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:No, I honestly appreciate your input on this, and you taking the time to help me clarify some of things that others might've been having problems understanding as well. And I do hope people continue to "address the first part" since that seems to be generating a good amount of the discussion. so since you're apparently only able to respond to direct questions, what part of that article is ridiculous and hysterical
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:No, I honestly appreciate your input on this, and you taking the time to help me clarify some of things that others might've been having problems understanding as well. And I do hope people continue to "address the first part" since that seems to be generating a good amount of the discussion. Ok but none of this addresses any of my questions or points, or clarifies anything. For example, "Anime headmates and certain methods of addressing campus sexual assault (this is specific as I can get because you've been so vague about it) are alike because you can be conservative about them" is a uselessly vague statement. What is hysterical about the article you referenced? And if sexual assault and consent is something you wanted to discuss why not just make a thread about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:so since you're apparently only able to respond to direct questions, what part of that article is ridiculous and hysterical Well, I thought the link was self explanatory, particularly since I pointed it to the thread with a specific quote. But here it is again: quote:SAN FRANCISCO — The classroom of 10th graders had already learned about sexually transmitted diseases and various types of birth control. Today, the 15-year-olds gathered around tables to discuss another topic: how and why to make sure each step in a sexual encounter is met with consent. And another quote:Last year, Corey Mock, a student at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, was expelled after officials there found him guilty of sexual misconduct because he could not prove he had obtained verbalconsent from a woman who accused him of sexual assault. But a Davidson County Chancery Court judge ruled in August that the school had “improperly shifted the burden of proof and imposed an untenable standard upon Mr. Mock to disprove the accusation.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
I think it's goddamn hilarious that people are still whining about the PC police. It was a tired concept 25 years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Well, I thought the link was self explanatory, particularly since I pointed it to the thread with a specific quote. But here it is again: You have still failed to answer a very simple question. What is wrong with saying "When you escalate sexual interaction, you've got to be sure it's consensual"? In the second example, what is wrong with a person who can't prove consent being prosecuted? Alternatively, what is wrong with the judge's ruling? When you want to argue something, you should really make it clear what your point is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:
You seem to be having a lot of trouble with this one so I'll lay it out for you as simple as I can. In my OP I never mention anime or headmates. I make reference to reading about yes means yes laws as an example of what I felt was sexual hysteria that I was shocked, as a leftist, to find was coming from the left. This prompted me to wonder what social issues I might encounter in the future that I theoretically come down on the conservative side of. Later other posters brought up headmates and otherkin, as examples of extremist views on tumblr also. The two don't necessarily have any more in common then that they were part of an on going discussion about social issues people might face in the future. Sharkie posted:What is hysterical about the article you referenced? See my previous post. Sharkie posted:And if sexual assault and consent is something you wanted to discuss why not just make a thread about it? Honestly, because as I originally said at the bottom of my OP and in bold, the first paragraph was really just a jumping off point for the central theme of the thread, which was to discuss the future of social issues as a whole. A few posters seem to have clung to the first paragraph of the OP like a life preserver and talked only about that. I didn't really want to discourage them because it's generating discussion in the thread and it is part of the OP and thus should be open to discussion, it was just never meant to be the central focus of the thread that it's become to due a few posters getting bogged down in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
You're not actually saying a goddamn thing, is the thing. I can tell you hate "yes means yes laws," whatever the gently caress that's supposed to mean, but you aren't talking about the meat of these laws nor the specifics about what's so loving terrible. You say you want this to be about what the next horrible thing the left is going to push is, but that's clearly not what this is about; how are we supposed to know and who gives a drat? So just say whatever you really want to say and let's get this over with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:You seem to be having a lot of trouble with this one so I'll lay it out for you as simple as I can. In my OP I never mention anime or headmates. I make reference to reading about yes means yes laws as an example of what I felt was sexual hysteria that I was shocked, as a leftist, to find was coming from the left. This prompted me to wonder what social issues I might encounter in the future that I theoretically come down on the conservative side of. Later other posters brought up headmates and otherkin, as examples of extremist views on tumblr also. The two don't necessarily have any more in common then that they were part of an on going discussion about social issues people might face in the future. We've been over this. You're the one clinging to the OP like a life raft insisting you never linked headmates with sexual assault and consent in the OP, yet when someone asked you what you meant by SJWs this is what you said: -Blackadder- posted:Basically anything from what I linked in my previous post, what LGD mentioned regarding campus sexual assault issues, and the run of the mill tumblr headmate stuff. Obviously not every person who identifies as an SJW or posts on tumblr agrees with each other. And I'm obviously not trying to generalize and say that everyone who posts on tumblr has an elf headmate. In that post you linked them. Now you're saying "the two don't necessarily have any more in common then that they were part of an on going discussion about social issues people might face in the future," yet earlier you said they were in common because -Blackadder- posted:They're both things that one could come down on the conservative side on. You're vague and self-contradictory. And like I said, "boy these people sure are hysterical about sexual assault, now where's that robot marriage cartoon" is incoherent as a thread and you shouldn't be surprised when people think the first part is more worthy of discussion. Lumberjack Bonanza posted:You have still failed to answer a very simple question. What is wrong with saying "When you escalate sexual interaction, you've got to be sure it's consensual"? Here's the part in the article where a room full of teenagers comes up with a way to address something Blackadder thinks is hysterical and ridiculous: quote:“Did you come up with any (ways to ask consent) on your own?” Ms. Zaloom asked. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:You have still failed to answer a very simple question. What is wrong with saying "When you escalate sexual interaction, you've got to be sure it's consensual"? In the second example, what is wrong with a person who can't prove consent being prosecuted? Alternatively, what is wrong with the judge's ruling? Are you not familiar with the yes means yes laws? I'm reasonably sure you'e probably aware of this, and are just feigning ignorance, but the key difference between yes means yest vs what we have now is most definitely NOT "When you escalate sexual interaction, you've got to be sure it's consensual", or "a person who can't prove consent being prosecuted", it's that as is pointed out quite plainly in the quotes from the article, affirmative verbal consent is a requirement. I feel this is particularly obvious since both the "examples" you posted already exist under the current standard consent laws. Honestly, if that's not clear enough for you, I'm don't think I can help you understand any better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Stop loving around in the margins, Blackadder. What's wrong with expressive consent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:You're not actually saying a goddamn thing, is the thing. I can tell you hate "yes means yes laws," whatever the gently caress that's supposed to mean, but you aren't talking about the meat of these laws nor the specifics about what's so loving terrible. You say you want this to be about what the next horrible thing the left is going to push is, but that's clearly not what this is about; how are we supposed to know and who gives a drat? So just say whatever you really want to say and let's get this over with. Well I just responded to your previous post so hopefully that clarifies some things, if not, again, I don't think I can be any clearer. Maybe research yes means yes a little yourself? I'm not sure why you think "that's clearly not what this is about". Whether or not we're able to know is part of the discussion, actually! As far as who gives a drat? People posting in this thread, I hope!  I've, honestly, been saying what I really wanted to see, although I said it more in the beginning of the thread. Lately, I've been trying to explain yes means yes laws etc to you and sharkie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:We've been over this. You're the one clinging to the OP like a life raft insisting you never linked headmates with sexual assault and consent in the OP, yet when someone asked you what you meant by SJWs this is what you said: It's unfortunate if my OP wasn't clear and my responses further muddied the waters for you. Honestly, it really was never my intention to obfuscate any issues. and I think regardless of whatever else, it should be pretty obvious I never intended to send the thread off on the tangent it's taken. But I'm not going to complain about my thread generating discussion either, even if it wasn't exactly the focus I had planned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Stop loving around in the margins, Blackadder. What's wrong with expressive consent? Haha, I gotta say your avatar + posting style works really well. I hear R. Lee. Ermey when I read your posts. I'm sorry, man, I explained it the best I can. I can only do so much, I can do no more!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
I think that worries about explicit consent laws need to be understood as being worries about the conditions we exist in as they affect our own value. Calling them ridiculous is understandable even if it's not 100% what we actually mean--they aren't going anywhere, they're defining factors in our current dialogues about sexual practices. Someone might wish that that dialogue wasn't what it is, for reasons that don't come from bad places mentally, but wishing doesn't make it so. Explicit consent laws add complexity to something that's already pretty complex for a lot of people, and they conceptually add more opportunities to gently caress up (and in so doing diminish your own value as a human). But just calling new rules and practices ridiculous isn't going to protect that value--think about how it puts you on the back foot here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:I'm sorry, man, I explained it the best I can. I can only do so much, I can do no more! You are really bad at explaining. I can't suss out how you feel about these laws other than "They're bad, somehow!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I think that worries about explicit consent laws need to be understood as being worries about the conditions we exist in as they affect our own value. Calling them ridiculous is understandable even if it's not 100% what we actually mean--they aren't going anywhere, they're defining factors in our current dialogues about sexual practices. Someone might wish that that dialogue wasn't what it is, for reasons that don't come from bad places mentally, but wishing doesn't make it so. Hey, this is a good post! Thanks! Whatever wishes I have about the yes means yes laws, or anything else for that matter, I certainly understand that they are just wishes. The world we live in is the world we live in. But you know, your point on that really get's me thinking because part of landing on the conservative side of future issues is a kind of a carnal fear that the world is leaving you behind and even more than that it's becoming a hostile place. That's what I found so fascinating about the yes means yes, and any of the other issue I've been coming across, that was controversial even to a liberal. It's the realization that I'm not always going to be the smug liberal assured in the fact that the future is on my side. I remember there was a daily show episode yeas ago where Jon Stewart interviewed, I think Bill Bennet, there was an exchange where they were talking about Gay Marriage and Jon basically just said "your side's going to lose, your side is always going to lose." and Bennet looked really sad. It was great, but I never considered what it must be like to be on the losing side of social issues. I mean granted it's not like we can say liberals run the planet or anything, there's probably a good argument for conservatives always winning on economic issues, but that might depend on how you look at it. On the one hand we've been losing a lot of the labor progress made from the new deal since Reagan, on the other hand things are overall still better than they were under the robber barons. But anyway, it got me thinking how I would face those future social issues that I wasn't going to be on the winning side of and what could they be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
It's perfectly understandable to worry that circumstances outside your control are going to diminish your social value.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:It's perfectly understandable to worry that circumstances outside your control are going to diminish your social value. Yeah, exactly, I mean, I'm not really sure I make the connection that affirmative consent laws diminish my value as a human being, at least I don't quite see exactly how I'm less of a person because of them or whatever, but I see where you're coming from with it when you link them to creating more opportunities to for screw ups. But as far as everything else, certainly there are going to be changes in the future that really do diminish my social value. I would imagine pervasive autonomous mechanized mobile labor will pretty directly diminish my value to society, for example, and I'm sure they'll be much more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Future?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You are really bad at explaining. I can't suss out how you feel about these laws other than "They're bad, somehow!" I don't have a dog in this fight and it's pretty clear that you do understand the basic points the op is attempting to make but are yourself attempting to pidgeonhole him when it comes to one specific example he gave. Naughty naughty. It's not his bad that he's attempting to avoid being corraled into an arguable derail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
OVERSHARING ALERT I'm an old and "yes means yes"/affirmative verbal consent is how I learned consent as a young adult. I can't honestly say that I've used it in 100% of interactions, but I've sure as poo poo used it if I had any inkling of doubt in my mind that an *ehrm* escalation in activities may have been unwarranted or unwelcome. As a bonus, you get to take another human being's feelings into account during what is ostensibly intimacy. moller fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:I don't have a dog in this fight and it's pretty clear that you do understand the basic points the op is attempting to make but are yourself attempting to pidgeonhole him when it comes to one specific example he gave. Naughty naughty. How is this anything other than "please don't argue specifics otherwise my side will lose." If the op had a coherent argument he'd make it by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:You have still failed to answer a very simple question. What is wrong with saying "When you escalate sexual interaction, you've got to be sure it's consensual"? In the second example, what is wrong with a person who can't prove consent being prosecuted? Alternatively, what is wrong with the judge's ruling? Because the entire conception of justice in the Western tradition is focused on the presumption of innocence? Because these sorts of laws and regulations always seem to reinforce traditionally sexist tropes about women and sexuality(where male sexuality is portrayed as inherently predatory and female sexuality inherently meek and submissive) Because some of these proposed laws and regulations would mean that the vast majority of sexually active adults are transformed overnight into serial rapists?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
To give the OP some credit, dumb rear end tumblrites present their pointless stuff as some kind of radical/revolutionary social stance. Whether it actually is or not is another issue - if I say I'm a punk band, but it's just me making fart noises, does that count? I don't think so. Not that I really enjoy the individualist/de-universalizing direction of the post-modern left, but that's another debate for another thread. But I mean, worrying about social issues in the future is being a little premature - there are plenty of racial/nationalist stuff out there now, women still aren't getting paid the same as men and they're generally not seen as leadership material, even when compared to an equally qualified man. The social battles of the past 100 years haven't ended, they've simply changed form from fighting de-jure/explicit bigotry to de-facto/hidden/implicit bigotry. The form of future social issues after the currently lot are going to depend on how technology and society is structured then, not now. If you can accurately predict that, then congratulations, no one else can. It's easy to fall into the simplistic trap of thinking that the future is the present extended outwards ala that smbc cartoon - ' marrying a robot' is funny, but ultimately still projects current racial/sexual conflicts out, with appropriate sci-fi substitutions. Whatever happens, I'm sure love will win out over hate. But you'll be dead by then, so there's no reason to care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not that I really enjoy the individualist/de-universalizing direction of the post-modern left, but that's another debate for another thread. Actually, I'd read that thread. rudatron posted:It's easy to fall into the simplistic trap of thinking that the future is the present extended outwards ala that smbc cartoon - ' marrying a robot' is funny, but ultimately still projects current racial/sexual conflicts out, with appropriate sci-fi substitutions. Yeah, this is what I was fascinated by as well. It reminds me of the "Anthropormorphic Problem" in Sphere. They posit that all of our conceptualizations of alien lifeforms have been incorrectly biased by our human perspective, having our biological foundations, human values, cultural framing, forms of communication and understanding projected onto them by us. And that real alien lifeforms would be, due to divergence in evolution, so abstract to us that they would be essentially Lovecraftian. Not only would we have no hope of ever having meaningful communication with them, we might not even be able to exist in the same relative space without involuntarily destroying one another. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
I think this has way more to do with intrrnet echo chamber politics than anything with the left itself. There's no need to moderate a position on the internet so everything gets taken to its maximal conclusion from libertarianism to social justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
And those echo chambers make it seem like they carry more cultural clout than they actually do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
The future will be the continued cessation of population from whites to other minorities (particularly Hispanics*). Contrary to popular belief, racism hasn't actually been "solved", it's just been relegated to an out of sight area. What changing demographics will allow is those issues to be brought to the forefront, and (hopefully) dealt with. This will be an incredibly gradual process though, so it might not even end by the time I grow old and die. The other major issue is the topic of gender. What needs to happen (and what is naturally occurring in many areas) is a normalization of genders in various areas. Historically, women were segregated from men everywhere from the workplace to social areas. The former issue is primarily one of economics (eg, women are ghettoized in low paying jobs while high paying jobs (like programmers) are utterly male dominated), while the latter is the softer "social issue" that you're complaining about. For an example of the latter, take the internet: a common phrase a decade ago is that the internet is where "men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents". While the joke is on the final statement, there is a normalization of the idea that any woman on the internet was secretly a man. This evolved into such things as the "trap" meme, where someone would post pictures of an attractive woman, and would then surprise people by showing them that the woman was a trans-woman. Today, while pockets of those subcultures still exist (SA is an example, although it's less derogatory than other pockets) the internet is much more gender balanced; there are even pockets of female dominated websites! Tumblr (the go-to example) is actually around 60%-65% women, and while that isn't the highest gender imbalance, it lends credence to the theory that the reaction against that website is at least partially based on the gender of people encountered there. To summarize the past few paragraphs, we're going to see a normalization of gender ratios in social spaces (particularly the internet) as time goes on. As this goes on, there will be conflict by the men that formerly dominated those social spaces, and this will likely continue until they lose their social relevance (i.e., they become old and Freeper-esqe). During and after this, there may be a merging and swapping of traditional gender roles and things of that nature. On the economics side, there is a push for normalization of gender ratios in workplaces, but it is stymied due to various factors. I can talk about those more, but I was mainly focused on the softer side since that's what the OP is about. *"Well we'll just consider Hispanics white" is not a viable tactic, no matter how much you may like to repeat that meme. It didn't work in the 1920s when Hispanics were actively trying to be integrated into the white community and it's not going to work now. It especially won't work for any Hispanics that don't pass the paper bag test (which spoiler: is the vast majority of them). Don't even try to mention it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:To summarize the past few paragraphs, we're going to see a normalization of gender ratios in social spaces (particularly the internet) as time goes on. Hasn't this already happened internet-wide, or do you mean greater intermingling instead of the genders segregating themselves?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
It's worth taking a look at Yale right now, where a certain segment of the students are freaking out about literally nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:It's worth taking a look at Yale right now, where a certain segment of the students are freaking out about literally nothing. Which of the 'nothings' are you talking about? The costumes or the white only parties? I'm guessing it's probably not the latter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Which of the 'nothings' are you talking about? The costumes or the white only parties? I'm guessing it's probably not the latter. The costume thing, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
It's not even the costumes; it's an incredibly intolerable, inflammatory email from a professor that included such racist hate speech as "I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students. I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious... a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition. And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity—in your capacity to exercise selfcensure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?" Obviously, the students reacted properly to such a vile, hateful message, by demanding that the professor be fired, calling her "disgusting," and spitting on other students who took her up on her invitation to discuss these issues over dinner. They also correctly identified the evil race traitors in their midst who broke bread with this succubus and yelled "traitor" at them as they left the dinner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
rudatron posted:if I say I'm a punk band, but it's just me making fart noises, does that count? I don't think so. Also OP it seems like "well I'm really super liberal but maybe [looming social issue] is a bridge too far, you know what I mean?" has been a common refrain among people who don't want to perceive themselves as being on the wrong side of history. Plenty of people thought they could be liberal without believing in womens' suffrage or racial equality or gay marriage, but they were wrong. What makes this current/near future moment different? T. Bombastus fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:What is wrong with saying "When you escalate sexual interaction, you've got to be sure it's consensual"? In the second example, what is wrong with a person who can't prove consent being prosecuted? The second example / your second sentence highlights the problems of mediating a dispute of the kind described by the first sentence. It is fairly easy for anyone to make sure that when they escalate sexual interaction, it's done consensually. That shouldn't really be a controversial position (I am aware that some people criticize it, though). But it is considerably more difficult (not to mention, disruptive to sex) to create evidence that your sexual interactions have all been consensual. For most people's sexual encounters, the only 'evidence' they have that the interaction was consensual is that the person they had the interaction with would agree that it was consensual. When the dispute is that one person says it was consensual and another person says it wasn't, you don't really have anything to go with. In an 'innocent until proven guilty' system of the law, this is unfair to victims. But reversing it makes it unfair to the accused. And there isn't a good middle ground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I think almost all of unusual features of modern social movements boil down to the how modern media works and how the Internet is used by both progressive groups and their detractors. Lowtax used to talk about this years ago; the internet allows marginalized groups to organize more efficiently than at any prior point in human history. This organizational ability combines with an infotainment orientated mass-media to create an effect where the most extreme and shrill individuals from any given social movement group automatically become the representative for a multitude of probably more reasonable individuals. This is turn creates cognitive dissonance for people where they want to dissociate from a positive movement that they'd typically support because of the extreme personalities involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I think almost all of unusual features of modern social movements boil down to the how modern media works and how the Internet is used by both progressive groups and their detractors. Lowtax used to talk about this years ago; the internet allows marginalized groups to organize more efficiently than at any prior point in human history. This organizational ability combines with an infotainment orientated mass-media to create an effect where the most extreme and shrill individuals from any given social movement group automatically become the representative for a multitude of probably more reasonable individuals. This is turn creates cognitive dissonance for people where they want to dissociate from a positive movement that they'd typically support because of the extreme personalities involved. This is all correct but it has one further consequence you missed: as a result of this amplification of the most extreme, young people who believe in the cause in question see these extremists as models for tactics and beliefs. They feel that in order to be a member in good standing of the group they must share all of the person's extremism. Some are disenchanted but some embrace the crazy, that's how you get young progressives shouting down the media like brownshirts without apparent irony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:You have still failed to answer a very simple question. What is wrong with saying "When you escalate sexual interaction, you've got to be sure it's consensual"? While the government has tried placing the burden on the accused via Title IX (which has led to a string of widely publicized shitshows at assorted college campuses across the country), the courts generally have not been terribly sympathic to the view that we should punish people merely for being accused of rape. ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:34 |
|
-Troika- posted:While the government has tried placing the burden on the accused via Title IX (which has led to a string of widely publicized shitshows at assorted college campuses across the country), the courts generally have not been terribly sympathic to the view that we should punish people merely for being accused of rape. What does that have to do with anything he said? Do you have any moral objections, or are you a kind of inhuman monster that only concerns yourself with what The Law says?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 17:44
|
|