Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
ZenMasterBullshit
Nov 2, 2011

Restaurant de Nouvelles "À Table" Proudly Presents:
A Climactic Encounter Ending on 1 Negate and a Dream

xcheopis posted:

I don't consider sexual assault a game.

I don't think anyone you've quote does either and acting or implying like they do because they didn't type out Tara Reade's name a 3rd time in the thread about her specifically with a title that also has her name in it is absolutely disgusting and missing the problem and discussion entirely. Please stop.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pentecoastal Elites
Feb 27, 2007

xcheopis posted:

I don't consider sexual assault a game.

This really isn't the thread to try out a gross bit like this.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


Pentecoastal Elites posted:

This really isn't the thread to try out a gross bit like this.

Not doing a bit. I've been raped, more than once, and this dehumanizing language is demeaning. You can pile the anger and hate on Biden and also have compassion for Tara.
Accusing me of trying out a bit over being asked to consider your words before posting is, at best, tone deaf and ignorant of how all victims of sexual assault are treated whenever they speak up.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

One of the things I've thought about is how Dem sexual abuse & harassment is usually only covered by rightwing media, which makes it easy for liberals to dismiss such news as "Another rightwing smear job by a discredited hack outlet. :rolleyes: "

If it's deemed big enough--ie, Lewinsky--and the media can't ignore it, then it's time to discredit by smearing the accuser. Otoh, if it's the way Biden ignored the physical boundaries & autonomy of young girls & women it's easy for corporate media to brush it off as james o'keefe-ish editing tricks bc until the past year that behavior was only covered by rightwing outlets--but that doesn't make Biden's behavior any more acceptable, and then the sourcing becomes the story more than the underlying news. (And such a tactic is p. effective, as we see itt when the behavior is shrugged off as "creepy grandpa stuff.")

I haven't yet read the dnd thread on reliable media sourcing, but this media dynamic is why I'm a bit squicked out at Dems' eagerness to censor & de-platform rightwing sources; I wonder if that eagerness isn't at least partly due to a Dem ideal of marginalizing & shutting out news that is damaging to members of the party.

I have no idea whether the flip side is true--I imagine it's done by the GOP as well, but I don't read rightwing media. Ultimately I really don't want Jack Dorsey determining that certain stories are injurious to his ideals of democracy, as happened with the Hunter Biden coverage in the NY Post, because the next time a Dem politician rapes someone, and only outlets like the NY Post are covering it, it'll become even easier for liberals to squelch & dismiss the news.

And this also ties in with the Me Too eruption of media scandals post-Weinstein; beloved liberal media figures like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Glenn Thrush and John Hockenberry and lesser-known-but-influential names like the head of NPR's news division, Michael Oreskes, were all found to be harassers & rapists.

If liberal-media ranks are filled with sex pests & rapists, how reliably will they cover Dem sex pests & rapists, especially when it's politically inconvenient, as in 2020? And if rightwing media are the only ones amplifying news about Dem rapists, does shutting them out of social media & censoring such news (as well as amplifying non-news like Bernie's imaginary hatred of women intuited through his body language, as someone mentioned upthread) serve our political process or further destroy it?

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Feb 20, 2021

Pentecoastal Elites
Feb 27, 2007

xcheopis posted:

Not doing a bit. I've been raped, more than once, and this dehumanizing language is demeaning. You can pile the anger and hate on Biden and also have compassion for Tara.
Accusing me of trying out a bit over being asked to consider your words before posting is, at best, tone deaf and ignorant of how all victims of sexual assault are treated whenever they speak up.

A rhetorical choice made specifically to tie a rapist to his crime within the context of specifically talking about Tara Reade -- literally in the middle of the conversation about her -- and more specifically drawing the distinction that she, Tara Reade, is merely the most public victim of said rapist by using those words is, I'm sorry, not that big of a deal in the midst of the entire democratic apparatus and, moreover, posters ITT trying to claim Reade is lying, or it doesn't matter, or it's not worth talking about.

You popping into this thread to call out that little detail, outside of context, reads as really disgusting hard-right trolling, even if that doesn't describe you or you didn't intend for your comments to be read that way. Context matters, in both what you're posting and the posts you're responding to.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


Willa Rogers posted:

One of the things I've thought about is how Dem sexual abuse & harassment is usually only covered by rightwing media, which makes it easy for liberals to dismiss such news as "Another rightwing smear job by a discredited hack outlet. :rolleyes: "

If it's deemed big enough--ie, Lewinsky--and the media can't ignore it, then it's time to discredit by smearing the accuser. Otoh, if it's the way Biden ignored the physical boundaries & autonomy of young girls & women it's easy for corporate media to brush it off as james o'keefe-ish editing tricks bc until the past year that behavior was only covered by rightwing outlets--but that doesn't make Biden's behavior any more acceptable, and then the sourcing becomes the story more than the underlying news. (And such a tactic is p. effective, as we see itt when the behavior is shrugged off as "creepy grandpa stuff.")

I haven't yet read the dnd thread on reliable media sourcing, but this media dynamic is why I'm a bit squicked out at Dems' eagerness to censor & de-platform rightwing sources; I wonder if that eagerness isn't at least partly due to a Dem ideal of marginalizing & shutting out news that is damaging to members of the party.

I have no idea whether the flip side is true--I imagine it's done by the GOP as well, but I don't read rightwing media. Ultimately I really don't want Jack Dorsey determining that certain stories are injurious to his ideals of democracy, as happened with the Hunter Biden coverage in the NY Post, because the next time a Dem politician rapes someone, and only outlets like the NY Post are covering it, it'll become even easier for liberals to squelch & dismiss the news.

And this also ties in with the Me Too eruption of media scandals post-Weinstein; beloved liberal media figures like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Glenn Thrush and John Hockenberry and lesser-known-but-influential names like the head of NPR's news division, Michael Oreskes, were all found to be harassers & rapists.

If liberal-media ranks are filled with sex pests & rapists, how reliably will they cover Dem sex pests & rapists, especially when it's politically inconvenient, as in 2020? And if rightwing media are the only ones amplifying news about Dem rapists, does shutting them out of social media & censoring such news (as well as amplifying non-news like Bernie's imaginary hatred of women intuited through his body language, as someone mentioned upthread) serve our political process or further destroy it?

One of the (many) spectacularly awful things in treatment of Lewinsky is that she isn't the person who made the accusations and didn't know Tripp was recording their conversations.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


Pentecoastal Elites posted:

A rhetorical choice made specifically to tie a rapist to his crime within the context of specifically talking about Tara Reade -- literally in the middle of the conversation about her -- and more specifically drawing the distinction that she, Tara Reade, is merely the most public victim of said rapist by using those words is, I'm sorry, not that big of a deal in the midst of the entire democratic apparatus and, moreover, posters ITT trying to claim Reade is lying, or it doesn't matter, or it's not worth talking about.

You popping into this thread to call out that little detail, outside of context, reads as really disgusting hard-right trolling, even if that doesn't describe you or you didn't intend for your comments to be read that way. Context matters, in both what you're posting and the posts you're responding to.

The ones making this "a big deal" are the ones upset over a small request to consider their language. Why does that upset you so much?

silicone thrills
Jan 9, 2008

I paint things

Willa Rogers posted:

One of the things I've thought about is how Dem sexual abuse & harassment is usually only covered by rightwing media, which makes it easy for liberals to dismiss such news as "Another rightwing smear job by a discredited hack outlet. :rolleyes: "

If it's deemed big enough--ie, Lewinsky--and the media can't ignore it, then it's time to discredit by smearing the accuser. Otoh, if it's the way Biden ignored the physical boundaries & autonomy of young girls & women it's easy for corporate media to brush it off as james o'keefe-ish editing tricks bc until the past year that behavior was only covered by rightwing outlets--but that doesn't make Biden's behavior any more acceptable, and then the sourcing becomes the story more than the underlying news. (And such a tactic is p. effective, as we see itt when the behavior is shrugged off as "creepy grandpa stuff.")

I haven't yet read the dnd thread on reliable media sourcing, but this media dynamic is why I'm a bit squicked out at Dems' eagerness to censor & de-platform rightwing sources; I wonder if that eagerness isn't at least partly due to a Dem ideal of marginalizing & shutting out news that is damaging to members of the party.

I have no idea whether the flip side is true--I imagine it's done by the GOP as well, but I don't read rightwing media. Ultimately I really don't want Jack Dorsey determining that certain stories are injurious to his ideals of democracy, as happened with the Hunter Biden coverage in the NY Post, because the next time a Dem politician rapes someone, and only outlets like the NY Post are covering it, it'll become even easier for liberals to squelch & dismiss the news.

And this also ties in with the Me Too eruption of media scandals post-Weinstein; beloved liberal media figures like Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Glenn Thrush and John Hockenberry and lesser-known-but-influential names like the head of NPR's news division, Michael Oreskes, were all found to be harassers & rapists.

If liberal-media ranks are filled with sex pests & rapists, how reliably will they cover Dem sex pests & rapists, especially when it's politically inconvenient, as in 2020? And if rightwing media are the only ones amplifying news about Dem rapists, does shutting them out of social media & censoring such news (as well as amplifying non-news like Bernie's imaginary hatred of women intuited through his body language, as someone mentioned upthread) serve our political process or further destroy it?

Don't forget the Prairie Home Companion guy even got outed.

Meanwhile a ton of centrists are now super mad that Al Franken resigned over "only being distasteful and hoverhanding a woman's breasts while she slept" meanwhile im just like "good on him for actually resigning" because its one of the only things that redeems him imo.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


silicone thrills posted:

Don't forget the Prairie Home Companion guy even got outed.

Meanwhile a ton of centrists are now super mad that Al Franken resigned over "only being distasteful and hoverhanding a woman's breasts while she slept" meanwhile im just like "good on him for actually resigning" because its one of the only things that redeems him imo.

I was also surprised and pleased he resigned. People do change and their thoughts and opinions evolve.

Pentecoastal Elites
Feb 27, 2007

xcheopis posted:

The ones making this "a big deal" are the ones upset over a small request to consider their language. Why does that upset you so much?

Because it is a profoundly unfair reading and a total refusal to contextualize a good point about how an entire political body worked overtime to smear Tara Reade in order to protect the man who raped her, who is now literally the most powerful man on the planet. This being the thing you wanted to call out specifically instead of, say, the people in this thread who have been probated for calling Reade a liar and/or a Russian agent and are doing it again here reads, at best, as worthless woke positioning to derail the conversation and is indistinguishable from far-right parody, which is what multiple people (the people who are most vociferously calling out the Democrats' hideous treatment of Tara Reade) thought you were doing.

Hard to imagine a better way to shut down an otherwise good-faith conversation about rape and political power structures than by policing extremely minor rhetorical choices. You should probably at least recognize that, even if you don't think you did anything wrong here.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


Pentecoastal Elites posted:

Because it is a profoundly unfair reading and a total refusal to contextualize a good point about how an entire political body worked overtime to smear Tara Reade in order to protect the man who raped her, who is now literally the most powerful man on the planet. This being the thing you wanted to call out specifically instead of, say, the people in this thread who have been probated for calling Reade a liar and/or a Russian agent and are doing it again here reads, at best, as worthless woke positioning to derail the conversation and is indistinguishable from far-right parody, which is what multiple people (the people who are most vociferously calling out the Democrats' hideous treatment of Tara Reade) thought you were doing.

Hard to imagine a better way to shut down an otherwise good-faith conversation about rape and political power structures than by policing extremely minor rhetorical choices. You should probably at least recognize that, even if you don't think you did anything wrong here.

How hard was it to just scroll on by?

edit: I don't know how many other women are posting/reading this thread. Personally, having been through many of these conversations with leftist men (and some women!) in my life, I have a lot of hesitancy in believing any man will have a "good-faith conversation" about sexual harassment and assault. My confidence that such a thing is possible will coincide with the Left being a lot more active in dealing with these specific crimes within their own circles.

xcheopis fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Feb 20, 2021

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Holy poo poo, this thread is becoming toxic, with you being the main culprit it seems. A minor suggestion was made by a poster, while acknowledging that they were sure that the OP's intention was good, and other posters are attacking them? And you're still continuing after they came out to the thread about being raped multiple times in the past??

E: Clarified my remarks after looking back on this last page

Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Feb 20, 2021

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

silicone thrills posted:

Don't forget the Prairie Home Companion guy even got outed.

Meanwhile a ton of centrists are now super mad that Al Franken resigned over "only being distasteful and hoverhanding a woman's breasts while she slept" meanwhile im just like "good on him for actually resigning" because its one of the only things that redeems him imo.

Yeah, I forgot to include Keillor, but when I found this list of those who'd been outed by Me Too I couldn't bring myself to read the entire list. :sweatdrop:

Another thing I thought of after posting was how the Mass. Dems smeared Alex Morse last year as a sexpest, just entirely making that poo poo up out of whole cloth, which is yet another reason I'm not keen on allowing liberal outlets to make judgment calls on censorship & de-platforming: They will go after leftists as vociferously as they'll go after the right--and in some cases, they'll go even further with leftists, as in Mass. and as when they amplified Warren's bullshit about Bernie--when the trad Dems are threatened.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

xcheopis posted:

I was also surprised and pleased he resigned. People do change and their thoughts and opinions evolve.

I'm p. sure that Franken resigned bc other Dem pols, like Gillibrand, were calling for a (public) Congressional inquiry into his behavior. Remember: Prior to Me Too, Congress buried complaints about harassment by its members with its secret tribunals.

Far better to be seen as doing "the honorable thing" of resigning, then rehabbing your image so that your behavior goes down the memory hole as "a rightwing smear job based on a rightie pretending that Franken harassed her"--a take I saw only yesterday on a popular liberal forum, and a take that simply ignores the other women who came out about Franken harassing them.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


Willa Rogers posted:

I'm p. sure that Franken resigned bc other Dem pols, like Gillibrand, were calling for a (public) Congressional inquiry into his behavior. Remember: Prior to Me Too, Congress buried complaints about harassment by its members with its secret tribunals.

Far better to be seen as doing "the honorable thing" of resigning, then rehabbing your image so that your behavior goes down the memory hole as "a rightwing smear job based on a rightie pretending that Franken harassed her"--a take I saw only yesterday on a popular liberal forum, and a take that simply ignores the other women who came out about Franken harassing them.
Very true.

Pentecoastal Elites
Feb 27, 2007

Kalit posted:

Holy poo poo, this thread is becoming toxic, with you being the main culprit it seems. A minor suggestion was made by a poster, while acknowledging that they were sure that the OP's intention was good, and other posters are attacking them? And you're still continuing after they came out to the thread about being raped multiple times in the past??

E: Clarified my remarks after looking back on this last page

I think what they did has a far more chilling effect on earnest discussions of rape and rape culture than the thing they were complaining about, to the extent that multiple posters thought they were a sick gimmick or something at first blush. That seems more "toxic" to me than my recognizing it.

This is becoming a derail so this'll be my last post on the subject, but anyone, no matter who they are and what has happened to them, intentionally or unintentionally, can be a malign influence on these (in my opinion very necessary) conversations.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


Pentecoastal Elites posted:

I think what they did has a far more chilling effect on earnest discussions of rape and rape culture than the thing they were complaining about, to the extent that multiple posters thought they were a sick gimmick or something at first blush. That seems more "toxic" to me than my recognizing it.

This is becoming a derail so this'll be my last post on the subject, but anyone, no matter who they are and what has happened to them, intentionally or unintentionally, can be a malign influence on these (in my opinion very necessary) conversations.

Your responses have come across as "caring" about rape victims only in the abstract and not the actual human to whom you are responding.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

silicone thrills
Jan 9, 2008

I paint things

Willa Rogers posted:

Yeah, I forgot to include Keillor, but when I found this list of those who'd been outed by Me Too I couldn't bring myself to read the entire list. :sweatdrop:

Another thing I thought of after posting was how the Mass. Dems smeared Alex Morse last year as a sexpest, just entirely making that poo poo up out of whole cloth, which is yet another reason I'm not keen on allowing liberal outlets to make judgment calls on censorship & de-platforming: They will go after leftists as vociferously as they'll go after the right--and in some cases, they'll go even further with leftists, as in Mass. and as when they amplified Warren's bullshit about Bernie--when the trad Dems are threatened.


What's hosed is I'm still running into people who claim Alex Morse was in the wrong for ... dating someone who happened to be in college? In an area where like people are in college into their mid 30s because PHDs. Because when it comes down to it that was it. Dems have 100% weaponized MeToo anytime its their enemy but the moment that it was any of their own people it was quietly swept under the rug or outright ignored or fully shut down harshly via smears.


Its impossible for me to look at all these incidents as a whole and ever trust the dems in power ever again.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


silicone thrills posted:

What's hosed is I'm still running into people who claim Alex Morse was in the wrong for ... dating someone who happened to be in college? In an area where like people are in college into their mid 30s because PHDs. Because when it comes down to it that was it. Dems have 100% weaponized MeToo anytime its their enemy but the moment that it was any of their own people it was quietly swept under the rug or outright ignored or fully shut down harshly via smears.


Its impossible for me to look at all these incidents as a whole and ever trust the dems in power ever again.

And also get our own house in order.

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

Kalit posted:

Holy poo poo, this thread is becoming toxic, with you being the main culprit it seems. A minor suggestion was made by a poster, while acknowledging that they were sure that the OP's intention was good, and other posters are attacking them? And you're still continuing after they came out to the thread about being raped multiple times in the past??

E: Clarified my remarks after looking back on this last page

Oh good, it's that point in the thread where we all have to specify how many times we've been sexually assaulted to decide who's allowed to set the terms of the conversation, that's always a hoot for everyone!

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

xcheopis posted:

How hard was it to just scroll on by?

edit: I don't know how many other women are posting/reading this thread. Personally, having been through many of these conversations with leftist men (and some women!) in my life, I have a lot of hesitancy in believing any man will have a "good-faith conversation" about sexual harassment and assault. My confidence that such a thing is possible will coincide with the Left being a lot more active in dealing with these specific crimes within their own circles.

It definitely seemed like you were trying to disrupt the thread using a concern troll version of "say her name" and the fact you've now launched into "everyone disagreeing with me is a man who thinks sexual assault is not big deal" is not exactly changing my mind

e: and gently caress it, you know what, I'll play by your rules: yes I'm a woman and yes I've been sexually assaulted before

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


some plague rats posted:

Oh good, it's that point in the thread where we all have to specify how many times we've been sexually assaulted to decide who's allowed to set the terms of the conversation, that's always a hoot for everyone!

Good-faith conversation until even a single sexual assault victim gently asks that posters think about what they are saying before posting.

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

xcheopis posted:

Good-faith conversation until even a single sexual assault victim gently asks that posters think about what they are saying before posting.

You're not the only one here that applies to and its lovely to use it to make yourself the arbiter of the conversation as though only yours matters and the rest of us are somehow being victims incorrectly for disagreeing with you

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


some plague rats posted:

You're not the only one here that applies to and its lovely to use it to make yourself the arbiter of the conversation as though only yours matters and the rest of us are somehow being victims incorrectly for disagreeing with you

I haven't done any such thing. I made one small request that no one has to abide by and now you're losing your poo poo over it.

silicone thrills
Jan 9, 2008

I paint things
For the record, I don't think saying - say her name with Tara Reade is a bad thing and it seemed like a really minor ask. People getting uber defensive over it is weird as hell.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

silicone thrills posted:

For the record, I don't think saying - say her name with Tara Reade is a bad thing and it seemed like a really minor ask. People getting uber defensive over it is weird as hell.

It's an effective way to derail the thread so that it ends up closed instead of making some tummies hurt.

How are u
May 19, 2005

by Azathoth

Willa Rogers posted:

It's an effective way to derail the thread so that it ends up closed instead of making some tummies hurt.

How is saying Tara Reade's name in the thread about Tara Reade a derail? How is being thoughtful and considerate of other people a derail?

e: ah ok, I gotcha vvvv

How are u fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Feb 20, 2021

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

How are u posted:

How is saying Tara Reade's name in the thread about Tara Reade a derail? How is being thoughtful and considerate of other people a derail?

It isn't; I'm with silicone thrills.

eta: reading thru some plague rats' posts in this thread, I see I was prolly flippant & uncharitable in my interpretation of their latest posts.

Nevertheless, let's all try to honor each others' feelings in a thread the topic of which is as emotionally fraught for those of us who've experienced harassment & assault.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 20, 2021

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy
e: missed your edit, Willa

Willa Rogers posted:

It's an effective way to derail the thread so that it ends up closed instead of making some tummies hurt.

Is that an honest assessment of what you think I was trying to do?

I was not intending to start a big derail with my original post, but the jump to "people are disagreeing with me, must be men who refuse to take sexual assault seriously" really gets my blood up. It's a cheap,lovely tactic and I'm pretty sure I actually posted in this thread or maybe the last one about how much I hate the whole idea that in conversations like this we all have to list our identities and experiences of trauma to be taken seriously at all.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

some plague rats posted:

e: missed your edit, Willa


Is that an honest assessment of what you think I was trying to do?

I was not intending to start a big derail with my original post, but the jump to "people are disagreeing with me, must be men who refuse to take sexual assault seriously" really gets my blood up. It's a cheap,lovely tactic and I'm pretty sure I actually posted in this thread or maybe the last one about how much I hate the whole idea that in conversations like this we all have to list our identities and experiences of trauma to be taken seriously at all.

I generally agree, and again, I apologize. But let's not give the mods reasons to close what's been a good thread, and instead, er, let's Move On. :wink:

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


some plague rats posted:

e: missed your edit, Willa


Is that an honest assessment of what you think I was trying to do?

I was not intending to start a big derail with my original post, but the jump to "people are disagreeing with me, must be men who refuse to take sexual assault seriously" really gets my blood up. It's a cheap,lovely tactic and I'm pretty sure I actually posted in this thread or maybe the last one about how much I hate the whole idea that in conversations like this we all have to list our identities and experiences of trauma to be taken seriously at all.

Yeah, it would be bad if someone had done that.

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy
Yeah, moving swiftly on: god drat I hate Joe Biden! I hate him so much for doing this, and also everything else he's done, and will do! and I hate that things are bad enough or people are apathetic enough about this they just voted for him anyway!

e: xcheopis, please just shut the gently caress up about it now. we're moving on. please not more smarmy sarcasm

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy
Here's an edit I made back when the whole Tara Reade thing surfaced, in an attempt to bring some desperately needed levity

Pentecoastal Elites
Feb 27, 2007

xcheopis posted:

Good-faith conversation until even a single sexual assault victim gently asks that posters think about what they are saying before posting.

I have been sexually assaulted and don't think that has any bearing on what you said or what I said and I loving hate even mentioning it anywhere, much less online, and I don't think I ever have on something awful before but here we are. I, as a sexual assault victim, thought what you did was lovely and have seen those exact tactics shut down conversations before and that has when it has happened, and as it happens now, make me, a sexual assault victim, feel like poo poo. I must stress again that when you smoked on in here people immediately thought you were trolling the thread. It made me, a sexual assault victim, feel disgusted because I, again, have seen those exact tactics shut up a room because everyone gets worried that they're not using the correct language or they might get into a fight with someone because their specific words are being scrutinized instead of the content of what they're trying to say. I guess that counts as "losing my poo poo over it"! and I should have just ignored it and moved on. Boy, I've never ever, ever, heard that sentiment in response to an earnest challenge from someone who has been sexually assaulted themselves!

I think what you did was wrong even if it was done in good faith and I don't think me or you being victims of sexual assault has anything to do with it other than it, and your bizarre defensive posturing and making the assumption I only care about
people who have been raped as some sort of abstract locus of argumentation has ruined my morning. gently caress you.

I hope I have sufficiently expressed my own extremely painful and uncomfortable history to satisfy you so you can no longer dismiss me as a rape culture enabler or whatever.

xcheopis
Jul 23, 2003


Pentecoastal Elites posted:

I have been sexually assaulted and don't think that has any bearing on what you said or what I said and I loving hate even mentioning it anywhere, much less online, and I don't think I ever have on something awful before but here we are. I, as a sexual assault victim, thought what you did was lovely and have seen those exact tactics shut down conversations before and that has when it has happened, and as it happens now, make me, a sexual assault victim, feel like poo poo. I must stress again that when you smoked on in here people immediately thought you were trolling the thread. It made me, a sexual assault victim, feel disgusted because I, again, have seen those exact tactics shut up a room because everyone gets worried that they're not using the correct language or they might get into a fight with someone because their specific words are being scrutinized instead of the content of what they're trying to say. I guess that counts as "losing my poo poo over it"! and I should have just ignored it and moved on. Boy, I've never ever, ever, heard that sentiment in response to an earnest challenge from someone who has been sexually assaulted themselves!

I think what you did was wrong even if it was done in good faith and I don't think me or you being victims of sexual assault has anything to do with it other than it, and your bizarre defensive posturing and making the assumption I only care about
people who have been raped as some sort of abstract locus of argumentation has ruined my morning. gently caress you.

I hope I have sufficiently expressed my own extremely painful and uncomfortable history to satisfy you so you can no longer dismiss me as a rape culture enabler or whatever.

And here you are critiquing my use of language. My feelings are just as valid as yours. Painting a really minor comment on the language used about and at rape victims as only being a right-wing tactic is also pretty lovely.

Like, not all of us are going to have the same reactions and triggers and you accused me of being a right-wing troll because I asked that others consider how they talk about us.

xcheopis fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Feb 20, 2021

Pentecoastal Elites
Feb 27, 2007

Is this a "critique of language"?

xcheopis posted:

Your responses have come across as "caring" about rape victims only in the abstract and not the actual human to whom you are responding.

Go gently caress yourself. I'm done.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

generic one
Oct 2, 2004

I wish I was a little bit taller
I wish I was a baller
I wish I had a wookie in a hat with a bat
And a six four Impala


Nap Ghost
edit: probably not the right place for this question. apologies.

generic one fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Feb 21, 2021

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

Pentecoastal Elites posted:

A rhetorical choice made specifically to tie a rapist to his crime within the context of specifically talking about Tara Reade -- literally in the middle of the conversation about her -- and more specifically drawing the distinction that she, Tara Reade, is merely the most public victim of said rapist by using those words is, I'm sorry, not that big of a deal in the midst of the entire democratic apparatus and, moreover, posters ITT trying to claim Reade is lying, or it doesn't matter, or it's not worth talking about.
This was my intended framing. I've seen 2 other claims of sexual assault by biden that have remained anonymous. The smearing of Reade in the predominantly democrat-aligned media and the silence of the "progressive" wing is a warning to Biden's many victims and casts a grim pall over anyone else speaking out against democrats in the future.

John_A_Tallon
Nov 22, 2000

Oh my! Check out that mitre!

Aruan posted:

to contribute: someone asked the question, "where do we go from here", and i don't think there's an easy answer - my hope is that once we eventually start moving towards the next generation of politicians they are less terrible people who care more about human dignity and rights

Part of answering "where do we go?" is figuring out "how do we go?"
There's stuff people can do, right now, today, that will make the "how" easier.

I think we should acknowledge that a significant portion of the population views these matters not as issues of individual violations but as an aggregate attempt to grab power. Strip away all the arguments about dehumanizing language, all the traumatic personal experiences, the details of every individual's struggle, and what's left is what many people with power (or aspirations of power, as the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" class) see: the use of accusations by "the woke left" as an attack instrument, an attempt by those opposed to their interests to use the powerless to shame and ostracize them for transgressions real or imagined. In the eyes of many politicians and their ilk the legitimacy of the transgressions are at best tertiary to the attempt to wrest power away from the powerful. The fallacy is that they think it's just an attempt to usurp power for the sake of gaining power.

It's not about that, of course. It's about the power to resist being raped, resist being abused, and resist living in fear. But as long as one side is framing the very act of talking about abuses as an abuse of power (which is what many powerful abusers do) then it bears restating, constantly and gently, that it's actually just about not being raped. If you believe a victim's claim, call their abuser a rapist outright. You will not find it to be a very comfortable position to be in, people hate that word being thrown around, but it is what re-frames the argument from being about trying to sabotage a powerful person and puts it back to being about stopping abuse.

It's as simple as saying, "Joe Biden, rapist," whenever you talk about him. When they say, "we are tired of hearing about that poo poo," you can say, "I am tired of the powerful raping people." When they say, "They should have gone to court with it, if they had a case they should have gone to court," you can tell them the truth: "The courts are the tools of the powerful, and the fact that #MeToo was necessary is evidence enough that the court system as it is does not ensure people are treated fairly."

It sucks doing this. But it's the only useful way I know of to keep the focus on the facts.


As for the "where" of where we go? Legal system reform is clearly needed as part of the solution, and while it's certainly not the whole solution, not even the majority of the actual solution, it's a necessary component. What would be effective there? What barriers to justice are in place right now? I'm not sure, since I'm not a lawyer or judge or legislator. The best I can manage is saying that it looks like it's not working.

Other parts of the destination include teaching people with aspirations of power ethical behavior. Discouraging, or discarding entirely, components of social behavior that encourage the casual sexual dehumanization of other people is probably another useful avenue to think about. I'm not a psychologist, but even I can see it's a bad thing to normalize stuff like "casting couch" pornography: it normalizes the idea that an abuser has a right to be abusive by virtue of having the power to make hiring decisions, and that a victim wouldn't be a victim unless they placed themselves in that situation to begin with.

There's other stuff, this is by no means exhaustive, but I feel it behooves us to tread carefully.

John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Feb 21, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

generic one
Oct 2, 2004

I wish I was a little bit taller
I wish I was a baller
I wish I had a wookie in a hat with a bat
And a six four Impala


Nap Ghost
edit: nm

generic one fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Feb 21, 2021

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply