|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
There will never be a point where headmates aren't more indicative of a problem than they are an identity group that needs collective protection. There will never be a point where being a furry isn't absurd. It will be within the bounds of any serious progressive idea set to tolerate these people and accept their life choices as valid as long as they don't hurt others, but they're also quite silly. This is not a post I'll go "what was I thinking?" about in 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Forcing consent advocates to explain time and time again that nonverbal communication is part of consent This is wrong. http://affirmativeconsent.com/whatisaffirmativeconsent/ quote:- The Affirmative Consent Standard states that the person who initiates sexual contact must receive a VERBAL YES (affirmative consent) from the other person before engaging in any sexual activity -- and that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual encounter. People are talking about affirmative consent, specifically. That's the "solution" in the post you quoted. Read more than one post before barging in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:This is wrong. Conceded, my bad. Now link me to the part where the evil feminist harpies demand contracts signed in triplicate. Or even the part where verbal consent has to be formal robot speech instead of normal poo poo people who like each other say when they're in bed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Yes, I am sure that this is meant to be like wishing on the genie's lamp, rather than an explanation to all the poor souls poisoned by our culture that you should make sure that the other person wants it instead of assuming.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yes, I am sure that this is meant to be like wishing on the genie's lamp, rather than an explanation to all the poor souls poisoned by our culture that you should make sure that the other person wants it instead of assuming. A substantial number of people in this thread, myself included, agree what this is meant to be. We agree on how it should work. People's issues with this (specific version of) the law is that it isn't written that way and we don't get to enforce laws the way we think they should have been written.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Conceded, my bad. Now link me to the part where the evil feminist harpies demand contracts signed in triplicate. Or even the part where verbal consent has to be formal robot speech instead of normal poo poo people who like each other say when they're in bed. I think its quite funny that this discussion was 1 definition for affirmative consent offered by Maxxbot, followed by another from SedanChair, followed by a third from yourself and now a fourth from some website. Do you see now why I made my post about watching things devolve into a purely semantic argument? All of us are talking about establishing consent and there is essentially no difference in our actual beliefs about it. Yet somehow we have a crazy amount of vitriol being thrown around. I mean look at this: Effectronica posted:Hey, instead of being passive-aggressive in the thread where you painfully admit that getting consent would destroy your sex life, why not go back to jacking it to a cheesy spinoff of a porn game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:10
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:A substantial number of people in this thread, myself included, agree what this is meant to be. We agree on how it should work. People's issues with this (specific version of) the law is that it isn't written that way and we don't get to enforce laws the way we think they should have been written. Here's a fun fact, though: laws are generally interpreted through context, by case law and precedent and so on. Given that, is this danger really a credible one? Like, I'm sure some dipshit will run in with a tabloid article or something, but I don't believe the fears on display are ones that will bear out. Salt Fish posted:I think its quite funny that this discussion was 1 definition for affirmative consent offered by Maxxbot, followed by another from SedanChair, followed by a third from yourself and now a fourth from some website. Do you see now why I made my post about watching things devolve into a purely semantic argument? All of us are talking about establishing consent and there is essentially no difference in our actual beliefs about it. Yet somehow we have a crazy amount of vitriol being thrown around. I mean look at this: Whenever I hear the word, "vitriol", I reach for my butcher knife and gloves.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I think its quite funny that this discussion was 1 definition for affirmative consent offered by Maxxbot, followed by another from SedanChair, followed by a third from yourself and now a fourth from some website. Together we'll form a tribunal and rule on every blowjob you've ever received.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
-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. Solid read on that topic: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html In Missouri, the video of the insane SJWs trying to kick out reporters from a public space is quite something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Good, use your words. Always a good idea. However, this cannot be a standard for whether or not to prosecute someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I think its quite funny that this discussion was 1 definition for affirmative consent offered by Maxxbot, followed by another from SedanChair, followed by a third from yourself and now a fourth from some website. Do you see now why I made my post about watching things devolve into a purely semantic argument? All of us are talking about establishing consent and there is essentially no difference in our actual beliefs about it. Yet somehow we have a crazy amount of vitriol being thrown around. I mean look at this: Own up to your ridiculous strawman bullshit you loving crybaby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Arkane posted:In Missouri, the video of the insane SJWs trying to kick out reporters from a public space is quite something. E: I'm the dude who is blatantly intimidating the reporter. e2: "Who wants to help me get this reporter out? I need some muscle over here." The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You're being bamboozled by people who are losing privilege/influence (young white men) taking a tiny internet subculture and projecting it to the left as a whole, hth. They're doing a very good job. The problem is the angry side generally wins the things in the era of facebook. And the right wing is very angry. It's in it's nature. When you consider that part of being left wing is critical thinking and open mindedness it's hard to see how the left will ever be on equal footing in the social sphere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Furries, otherkins, and whatever related "Tumblr kiddies" crap are convenient distractions used to deflect attention away from the actual problem of this victimhood twist on honor culture. It happens over and over again, someone will go "Hey isn't what's going on kind of weird and probably bad?" and they get shouted down, we can see examples of this in this very thread, with "Lol if you think tumblr kiddies actually matter" or variations thereon. As for the future of social issues, I really cannot care one bit whatsoever. Judging people of a particular historical era by the standards of a different era is idiotic. By the standards of 2115 I'm probably a neofascist or whatever other snarl word they've come up with in the interceding century. Someone from 1915 or 1815 would be Extremely Problematic if they lived in today's society. Good thing they don't! I don't see any productive value in retroactively declaring someone a problematic shitlord and it smacks a bit of historical revisionism. We can't predict the social values of the future and it's impossible to try to live up to the standards of something that doesn't exist yet. If you want to be a good person and change society for the better you have to actually address that which exists right now and change that. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Own up to your ridiculous strawman bullshit you loving crybaby. You were presented evidence that specifically proved you wrong. In light of this, you present an insincere apology, and continue to double down. Highly reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Brannock posted:You were presented evidence that specifically proved you wrong. In light of this, you present an insincere apology, and continue to double down. Highly reasonable. I absolutely was not. Strawman arguments are unacceptable, no matter how much you seem to find them personally compelling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:24
|
|
Brannock posted:Furries, otherkins, and whatever related "Tumblr kiddies" crap are convenient distractions used to deflect attention away from the actual problem of this victimhood twist on honor culture. It happens over and over again, someone will go "Hey isn't what's going on kind of weird and probably bad?" and they get shouted down, we can see examples of this in this very thread, with "Lol if you think tumblr kiddies actually matter" or variations thereon. "victimhood twist on honor culture"
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Here's a fun fact, though: laws are generally interpreted through context, by case law and precedent and so on. Given that, is this danger really a credible one? Do you have a legal background? The thing is, laws are interpreted in context and by precedent, but in cases like this there is no precedent and no settled case law because there are no other jurisdictions with "affirmative consent." Context doesn't mean "judges will know what we meant and work it out." For the record, I don't think the "danger," such as it is, is that passionate but well-meaning men will be caught in a rape dragnet. The actual danger is that, lacking a concrete definition of consent beyond the explicitly, cartoonishly precise verbal, a judge will convict based on this law. The convicted party will appeal and the circuit court will throw out the entire AC law as an unconstitutional infringement of due process or (much more likely) rip its teeth out by establishing an extremely broad standard of evidence to determine consent. That's why, waaaaaaaaay back on page 3, I said that my goal is the creation of a strong affirmative consent law that doesn't run afoul of these issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I absolutely was not. Strawman arguments are unacceptable, no matter how much you seem to find them personally compelling. Sorry to Salt, it was you who is melting down in public. I owned up to my technical error bullshit, and I'm a loving crybaby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:28
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Do you have a legal background? The thing is, laws are interpreted in context and by precedent, but in cases like this there is no precedent and no settled case law because there are no other jurisdictions with "affirmative consent." Context doesn't mean "judges will know what we meant and work it out." But we already have existing legal standards of consent. There's not much compelling evidence to suggest that they would be tossed out as irrelevant because of this new law, unless you happen to have some in your back pocket.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Do you have a legal background? The thing is, laws are interpreted in context and by precedent, but in cases like this there is no precedent and no settled case law because there are no other jurisdictions with "affirmative consent." Context doesn't mean "judges will know what we meant and work it out." I can understand that fear considering our constant tidal wave of rape convictions. A prosecutor can hardly keep himself from pumping his fist in the air and shouting "yes" chewing-gum commercial style every time he gets assigned one because of what slam dunks those cases always are. Have you ever heard of rape going unprosecuted? I can hardly imagine such a world. Gonna throw in an extra lol at the idea of the word "yes" being "cartoonishly precise." Every time my waiter asks me if I want more water I say "yaas queen" because I'm a real boy and I don't say that fake poo poo. Amgard posted:Sorry to Salt, it was you who is melting down in public. Haha cool so are you going to join team "the femmynists want you to sign gently caress contracts!" now
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:But we already have existing legal standards of consent. There's not much compelling evidence to suggest that they would be tossed out as irrelevant because of this new law, unless you happen to have some in your back pocket. The entire point of this law is that it invalidates the old standard of consent for a new one. That's its explicit raison d'etre. The one area of jurisprudence a judge would not look for guidance is the law this law was meant to supersede.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:They're doing a very good job. The problem is the angry side generally wins the things in the era of facebook. And the right wing is very angry. It's in it's nature. When you consider that part of being left wing is critical thinking and open mindedness it's hard to see how the left will ever be on equal footing in the social sphere. It's not just the internet, there are real world examples of this being an actual Thing with actual consequences. Here's an excerpt from a speech from the not particularly right wing former president of the ACLU quote:Universities have, in fact, been punishing students and faculty members for all manner of sexually themed expression, even when it has an important academic purpose. The most egregious, most recent example is the prolonged sexual harassment investigation that Northwestern University conducted against film professor Laura Kipnis earlier this year because of an article she published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, in which, ironically, she criticized the exaggerated, distorted concept of sexual harassment that is prevalent on campus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:"victimhood twist on honor culture" Would you like an academic paper on it? If you're, eh, out of the loop, here's an article that goes into it to some depth. Or would you like an example of a classic honor-culture-style response to perceived slights? Is one example not enough?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:36
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:The entire point of this law is that it invalidates the old standard of consent for a new one. That's its explicit raison d'etre. The one area of jurisprudence a judge would not look for guidance is the law this law was meant to supersede. This law is, in reality, meant to adjust the current standard and not replace it with a totally unrelated one. Someone doing what you fear is probably going to be the result of malfeasance more than any genuine confusion about implementing the standard.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Haha cool so are you going to join team "the femmynists want you to sign gently caress contracts!" now You should stop jumping into bullshit like this. This isn't what people are saying and unless you're really dense you should be able to understand that. You're accusing people of having a meltdown, but are you actually reading what you're typing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:41
|
|
Brannock posted:Would you like an academic paper on it? If you're, eh, out of the loop, here's an article that goes into it to some depth. Hmm, I see that you don't understand why someone might repeat that phrase in disbelief. Maybe, someday, you will have the emotional maturity necessary to do so.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Effectronica is like the cartoon version of a bad poster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Haha cool so are you going to join team "the femmynists want you to sign gently caress contracts!" now Point out where I said as such or own up to your team-thinking bullshit politics, you massive crybaby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Hmm, I see that you don't understand why someone might repeat that phrase in disbelief. Maybe, someday, you will have the emotional maturity necessary to do so. I understood your insinuation perfectly well  My post was not for your benefit, Effectronica, because you are a disingenuous goblin and I hold incredibly low expectations for any productive discussion from you, but for the other posters reading this thread.Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Haha cool so are you going to join team "the femmynists want you to sign gently caress contracts!" now If they're not allied with you, then they are the evil Other and must be browbeaten into silence. A surprisingly consistent worldview.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This law is, in reality, meant to adjust the current standard and not replace it with a totally unrelated one. Someone doing what you fear is probably going to be the result of malfeasance more than any genuine confusion about implementing the standard. That's not how jurisprudence works. An adjustment is a replacement. No judge anywhere, when confused about whether an activity is consensual under this law, is going to check if it was consensual under the old law. To do so would be an unconscionable abrogation of the legislative prerogative. It would be tantamount to saying the new law is not operative. If a judge did use the old law as a standard it would be strong evidence for the appeal that the law fails in its duty and should be overturned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Own up to your ridiculous strawman bullshit you loving crybaby. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Conceded, my bad. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Brannock posted:As for the future of social issues, I really cannot care one bit whatsoever. Judging people of a particular historical era by the standards of a different era is idiotic. By the standards of 2115 I'm probably a neofascist or whatever other snarl word they've come up with in the interceding century. Someone from 1915 or 1815 would be Extremely Problematic if they lived in today's society. Good thing they don't! I don't see any productive value in retroactively declaring someone a problematic shitlord and it smacks a bit of historical revisionism. These two paragraphs struck me as definitely true, but I think they miss 1 detail which is that of course it's true when you take a very long historic view. However, social progress requires us to have at least some short term view of how things could be better. On a time scale of 10 years for example people tend to be able to imagine what social progress looks like. If we can manage 10 years, we might be able to imagine 15 or 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Effectronica is like the cartoon version of a bad poster. Took a look at the rap sheet. Was about what I expected Arkane posted:Solid read on that topic: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html This is the kind of bullshit that's pushing people away. Same deal with that recent Yale Halloween nonsense. People like that end up pushing away support because no one want's to be associated with people like that, just like no one wants to be associated with right wing nutters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Asuron posted:
What you're NOT going to do is come into OUR space and deny us OUR AGENCY to self-express. I'm sorry, SIR, that you don't understand that these are PEOPLE TOO. HEY HEY! HO HO!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:These two paragraphs struck me as definitely true, but I think they miss 1 detail which is that of course it's true when you take a very long historic view. However, social progress requires us to have at least some short term view of how things could be better. On a time scale of 10 years for example people tend to be able to imagine what social progress looks like. If we can manage 10 years, we might be able to imagine 15 or 20 years. I'm not sure even that much far ahead is possible, though. Social issues today are very significantly different, in large part thanks to smartphones and near-universal Internet access, than it was in 2005. Twitter was still a gleam in someone's eye and Facebook was a year away from going public access. We can make a reasonable guess at 2025 but 2035 is far too murky. Who knows what will happen or what we'll discover or develop?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
i laughed today at the journalism professor getting a mob together to chase out a student journalist photographer from their protest camp on public land. shouting like "we need some muscle over here" and trying to wreck his camera that espn bought him. America is worth it for the funny little moments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
This kind of behavior by quite a few regulars in this forum is why we have a hard time getting new people to get involved in D&D. I suggest you read over this thread and reflect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:15
|
|
