|
Samurai Sanders posted:Concerning the path of sympathy and stuff, is there any risk that that could assist in the normalization of their thinking, just the same as hanging out in isolated community does? Like "oh, this guy doesn't find it THAT disgusting, maybe it's not as bad as I thought!" or something? That's what I'm worried about. If you're addressing those people as-a-whole don't hold back. Mock them, inform them that they're pathetic and wrong and whatever. Marginalize the gently caress out of those movements. Make sure it's crystal clear that they're filth and society wants no part of them. If you can manage to get a MRA or whatever into a 1-on-1 keep in mind that derision and the like is just going to make them dig in their heels, so if you're even remotely interested in actually changing their minds it might behoove you to at least put on a calm voice and expression as you explain to them why they're disgusting and wrong. Usage of those words optional. If they don't show any signs of changing then I guess cut loose or whatever? Hodgepodge posted:Not much different from the rest. You seem to have confused yourself for a professor of rhetoric and this thread for your students. Cool, the passive aggressiveness still going I guess. Sorry for expecting people to actually reason things out in Debate and Discussion instead of fling out smug one-liners and contortions to try their hardest to prove themselves as Most Correct in a thread where 95% of the respondents agree with each other!
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
There's not a whole lot to debate or discuss if everyone agrees on 95%.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Yeah, for sure. This blog post defines it nicely: Alright, I think I understand it now. Tone argument is basically an informal logical fallacy relating to presentation. To clarify my own position, I wasn't saying that confrontation is more or less valid than any other approach. poo poo, I think confrontation, as a form of communication, is one of the best ways to fix things you take issue with. I was trying to point out the thought process of these types of people and why a certain approach might not work. What I was saying, from my totally non-professional psychological, evaluative perspective, is that when someone expresses their views and is met with hostility, they will reflexively move away from the source of that hostility - they become less receptive to anything challenging their views. Their mind is not on a train of thought that is assessing the validity of your argument based on its own merits, but rather is assessing its validity based on their relationship to the person proposing that argument. Basically, I'm saying that most of the people who hold these illogical beliefs hold them, in spite of evidence to the contrary, precisely because the opposite viewpoint has never been given to them in a way that can work its way past their defenses and into their illogical minds.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:There's not a whole lot to debate or discuss if everyone agrees on 95%. I don't think this is the case, though. There was lots of debate over whether misogyny played a role in what happened, then I think that was pretty much established, then it moved on to what role extremist men's groups played. I think there was a lot of value in bringing to light what they were saying about this shooting, and what they were saying before it happened. Now it seems like the conversation is trying to be about "What is to be done" which obviously has no one right answer. SealHammer posted:Basically, I'm saying that most of the people who hold these illogical beliefs hold them, in spite of evidence to the contrary, precisely because the opposite viewpoint has never been given to them in a way that can work its way past their defenses and into their illogical minds. That's one of the reasons I appreciate the guys saying "Hey, I used to be like this" speaking up, because it's hard to wrap your head around some of this stuff unless you've been in a similar position, I guess. I'd rather hold a dialogue with them then with the people currently espousing it, at any rate. Besides, they're going to discount anything said by a woman. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 22:57 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
I think the best thing that could come out of all of this (reasonably, anyway) is that Western culture begins viewing MRAs as members of an active hate group on the level of neo-Nazis instead of an amusing and ineffectual backlash to feminist progress. With all the exposes going on right now, and all the material that Rodger left on the Internet between his manifesto and his forum posts, there's definitely a lot more sunlight being shined on them. I just wonder how much attention will need to be paid to this over time to discredit MRAs. One week's worth? Four? How much did the media focus on the Unabomber and dissect him?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:"Women should be raped" Hey now, let's not mis-represent what that guy said. He didn't say women should be raped or want to be raped. He said they were begging to be raped.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Here's a post that includes a bunch of misogyny and MRA dogwhistles. Nah, I was more worried about the process. If someone rapes someone then they should be arrested and charged in an open court of law, using the agreed upon adversarial process. The university tribunal, on the other hand, doesn't allow the accused to face the accuser, isn't allowed to see all the evidence, and sometimes isn't even told what he is accused of or by whom. Sure #notallmen have to worry about these types of things, but those that do have zero recourse and so they will post on the internet about it. I'm glad you have the decency to call it a dog-whistle instead of outright misogyny, but you can see why many feminists would have a conflict of interest when it comes to treating the accused fairly.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
I think a good thing has already come out of this. Because of yesallwomen, there has been a lot of discussion online and in person about things we face just for being women. I've heard from several good friends how they have been raped or assaulted. I'm glad they feel like they finally have a way to speak out about it. I'm not there yet, but I think I may be soon.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:That's one of the reasons I appreciate the guys saying "Hey, I used to be like this" speaking up, because it's hard to wrap your head around some of this stuff unless you've been in a similar position, I guess. I'd rather hold a dialogue with them then with the people currently espousing it, at any rate. Besides, they're going to discount anything said by a woman. Yeah, I do appreciate people who use to be more-or-less misogynists giving their piece on why they thought that way and what changed their minds. I don't necessarily agree that a woman couldn't change a misogynist's beliefs. Certainly it would be a long and concerted effort on her part, but it seems to me that it should all be down to positive conditioning. But, again, not a psychologist.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:I was not being disingenuous. No it's mostly because SA has become overrun with ironic shitposters ever since the GBSpocapypse and I can never tell. Samurai Sanders posted:While I understand all of this, what can we do if they've deliberately shut themselves off from nurturing, supportive people in favor of other people like themselves? I mean, I don't see how they could have gotten like this if they had even a single friend with their head screwed on right. Or, heaven forbid, a female friend. It wasn't as direct as that, more just discussing the issues I was having and what I thought about them with my parents and what few friends I had at the time, and them being all like "waaaaitaminute that sounds a bit off, could you elaborate?" and myself then talking through it, eventually talking myself into an awkward corner, and spending the next few days trying to resolve the resulting dissonance in a way that made sense. Eventually I went into therapy for depression and anxiety issues, and a lot of what was left crumbled naturally as a side effect of the whole cognitive-behavioral awareness mindset. Meditation and drugs also contributed somewhat. Nessus posted:To share the contrary view: Why should we, the pro-woman, or at least non-anti-woman side, have to be - again - the ones who are gentle and sweet and forbearing and accepting and nurturing? Why is it necessary that we be the "bigger men" (so to speak); why is it vital that we be the ones who are civil, while the frothing MRAs receive both the privilege of getting to fulminate about HB9s and also the privilege of being coddled to? That's not at all what I'm trying to suggest. It's not about tolerance and excessive politeness, it's about setting a standard for discussion through leading by example, with the goal of fostering mutual respect, and creating an environment where these issues can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. I think if we as a society can get better at treating one another with respect and opening ourselves to understanding in general, people would have a harder time getting so deep into that warped kind of mindset in the first place. I realize this is in the realm of what some people would write off as holistic BS, and some would call it downright unmanly, but I'm sticking with it. Anosmoman posted:You have to have a very particular mindset to think that people are deliberately trying to hurt you if you have trouble forming social bonds. It's not a reasonable conclusion. If you can't find a job you typically wouldn't think companies are out to get you. There's some narcissism, inflated ego and lack of self-reflection in it. So why do so many men seemingly have that problem? I will assert here that the lack of social support structures in American culture breeds depression, anxiety, egocentrism and narcissism. In particular, the prevailing ideal of Manliness calls for absolute self-sufficiency, bootstraps, and the emotional gamut of a brick, which means if you are having issues, it's up to you alone to figure them out. For most normal people, these goals are unattainable without making emotional and mental sacrifices, and the dissonance resulting from the failure to fulfill the ideal can cause a great deal of turbulence on its own. I am proposing that we do everything possible to break that vicious cycle. To me that mostly means appreciating and emphasizing that this kind of thing is part of being human, and that talking it out is just part of the process. Where's the kickstarter to bring back Mr. Rogers? snorch fucked around with this message at 23:26 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Nah, I was more worried about the process. If someone rapes someone then they should be arrested and charged in an open court of law, using the agreed upon adversarial process. The university tribunal, on the other hand, doesn't allow the accused to face the accuser, isn't allowed to see all the evidence, and sometimes isn't even told what he is accused of or by whom. Sure #notallmen have to worry about these types of things, but those that do have zero recourse and so they will post on the internet about it. Lmao did you also cry when Donald Sterling violated a code of conduct and got banned from the NBA?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:I think a good thing has already come out of this. Because of yesallwomen, there has been a lot of discussion online and in person about things we face just for being women. I've heard from several good friends how they have been raped or assaulted. I'm glad they feel like they finally have a way to speak out about it. I'm not there yet, but I think I may be soon. Yeah really. I don't think most people understand how difficult it can be to talk about this stuff, much less in public, where you're likely to have a chorus of guys mocking you, calling you a liar, or otherwise trying to silence or ignore you. I think a lot of the men taking a "who cares, it doesn't affect me" attitude would be shocked if they heard honest stories that their female family members or friends had to tell. But it's something that has to happen, and the women that do it are brave as hell.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I'm glad you have the decency to call it a dog-whistle instead of outright misogyny, but you can see why many feminists would have a conflict of interest when it comes to treating the accused fairly. I don't. Please enlighten me 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:There's not a whole lot to debate or discuss if everyone agrees on 95%. We could always spend more time making fun of that glen beck video.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Lmao did you also cry when Donald Sterling violated a code of conduct and got banned from the NBA? A huge part of the reason accusers aren't allowed to confront the victim in the process he highlighted is simply because that was one of the major reasons people did not come foward.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Judakel posted:A huge part of the reason accusers aren't allowed to confront the victim in the process he highlighted is simply because that was one of the major reasons people did not come foward. I suppose putting it like that implies a presumption of guilt. Rather: Why should you necessarily have the potential opportunity to silence your accuser in such a way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
The worst was that group in Vancouver who put up flyers around campus encouraging women to not report rape, because what if your silly lady brain is confused and it wasn't really rape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Judakel posted:A huge part of the reason accusers aren't allowed to confront the victim in the process he highlighted is simply because that was one of the major reasons people did not come foward. The fundamental right of due process has a cost, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I suppose putting it like that implies a presumption of guilt. Rather: Why should you necessarily have the potential opportunity to silence your accuser in such a way? Because then it would be easier for the perpetrator to bully the victim into not testifying against them. Might makes right I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:The worst was that group in Vancouver who put up flyers around campus encouraging women to not report rape, because what if your silly lady brain is confused and it wasn't really rape. And in Vancouver of all places? I hope they got a stern talking-to at the least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:The fundamental right of due process has a cost, yeah. Funnily enough, the state seems more than willing to toss due process out when the stakes are high enough-- see the Gitmo kangaroo justice that as signed off on. But it's more than good enough when it involves dragging women through the dirt and getting rapist scum off of course. And I'm not sure what exactly we get out of doing things that way. Justice is already a joke, and seems more based on subjective bullshit than actual objective evidence. I have no confidence in the answer being arrived at actually lining up with reality, just that we've gone through whatever legal checks and come to an answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:The fundamental right of due process has a cost, yeah. Apparently it is not so fundamental.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Apparently it is not so fundamental. I am pretty sure that is a different thing to due process anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I am pretty sure that is a different thing to due process anyway. Thankfully I am not a lawyer so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:The fundamental right of due process has a cost, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Thankfully I am not a lawyer so... Well my point is conflating the two is kind of disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Funnily enough, the state seems more than willing to toss due process out when the stakes are high enough-- see the Gitmo kangaroo justice that as signed off on. But it's more than good enough when it involves dragging women through the dirt and getting rapist scum off of course. Bad things do not actually justify other bad things, sorry! http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/sexual-harassment-and-the-loneliness-of-the-civil-libertarian-feminist/236887/ quote:And I'm not sure what exactly we get out of doing things that way. Justice is already a joke, and seems more based on subjective bullshit than actual objective evidence. I have no confidence in the answer being arrived at actually lining up with reality, just that we've gone through whatever legal checks and come to an answer. ok CharlestheHammer posted:I am pretty sure that is a different thing to due process anyway. That depends. quote:Returning to the issue at hand, the Court notes that "[t]he right to cross-examine witnesses has not been considered an essential requirement of due process in school disciplinary proceedings." Winnick v. Manning, 460 F.2d 545, 549 (2d Cir.1972); see also Dixon v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150, 159 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193 (1961). However, if a case is essentially one of credibility, the "cross-examination of witnesses might [be] essential to a fair hearing." Winnick, 460 F.2d at 550. In the instant case, the disciplinary hearing became a test of the credibility of plaintiff's testimony versus the testimony of defendant Scott. From the record, it appears that the only evidence that was before the panel came in the form of Scott's two statements alleging sexual misconduct and the plaintiff's two statements denying the same. Indeed, the record reveals that the panel was reticent about even permitting plaintiff the opportunity to make a second statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, did you guys ever come to a conclusion about whether affluenza made him more or less crazy? Since with the money he didn't need to work or study so we can't use those life skills to determine how mentally ill he was, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:What....? There's a group called Vancouver Men's Rights Activism that, in response to a police department campaign to reduce rape, put up a bunch of flyers discouraging women from reporting it. http://jezebel.com/5941876/mens-rights-activists-shocked-that-their-misogynistic-posters-are-being-torn-down The leader of Vancouver Men's Rights Activism, and yes, that's the group's name, said: quote:I'm not suggesting every woman you meet is a loose cannon, but every woman you meet has the potential to be one, because for those few who are nutty, there's no disincentive for them to go, oh, I was late for work. I know, I'll just say I got raped." And if someone has to think about why that's stupid, they should listen to more women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
JENNY YOURE A LOOSE CANNON YOURE OFF THE FORCE
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Funnily enough, the state seems more than willing to toss due process out when the stakes are high enough-- see the Gitmo kangaroo justice that as signed off on. But it's more than good enough when it involves dragging women through the dirt and getting rapist scum off of course. "You don't have the right to due process if I really don't like it or if 100 rapists escape before we punish one guy who didn't do anything." --someone who is complaining about subjective bullshit in the justice system
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 04:50
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Ernie Muppari posted:JENNY YOURE A LOOSE CANNON YOURE OFF THE FORCE TURN IN YOUR BADGE AND RAPE WISTLE. Seriously, though, we're all very concerned about due process in what is not, in fact, a legal process. I'm sure getting kicked out of a school is terrible if the charge is false. But that doesn't magically make a university a state, nor its procedures a matter of criminal law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:"You don't have the right to due process if I really don't like it or if 100 rapists escape before we punish one guy who didn't do anything." --someone who is complaining about subjective bullshit in the justice system A university tribunal isn't part of the justice system fyi
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:"You don't have the right to due process if I really don't like it or if 100 rapists escape before we punish one guy who didn't do anything." --someone who is complaining about subjective bullshit in the justice system My point is we've tossed out rights when they're "too hard" (i.e. when it starts to get in the way of powerful people or helps minorities) and continue to do it on a regular basis. Try to salute the flagpole when it involves loving over women seems pointless at this point, well except to gently caress over women. We need something better as a justice system, because two dramatic speakers trying their best to spin stuff and introduce unspoken bias into a truth-determining process doesn't exactly come off as useful or productive. Hell, I'm still utterly shocked we allow eye-witness testimony, considering how poor it is factually and how much it is altered (i.e. coached) ahead of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:We need something better as a justice system, because two dramatic speakers trying their best to spin stuff and introduce unspoken bias into a truth-determining process doesn't exactly come off as useful or productive. What alternative system do you propose? Not specifically for rape. Imagine a crime that isn't politically charged in any way, say two guys get into a bar fight, one of them dies and it's necessary for the system to determine whether or not the killing was accidental so we know what the consequences should be. How should we do that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Why is it necessary for due process for you to be physically present at the same time as your accuser? I actually don't mean this sarcastically and am addressing this to others. Obviously you should know who is accusing you, but what specific aspect of justice is served by the requirement of simultaneous physical presence? Is it so that you can bellow "LIES" or possibly glare threateningly at them? It's so you or your lawyer or whoever can question your accuser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
It might help to be clear if we're talking about how to fix how the actual criminal justice system handles rape, or if we're talking about extra-legal systems (such as those at universities) in which talk about rights is misleading. Otherwise the issue becomes obscured very quickly. Also, I've personally seen police officers decide that an incident was not rape without a trial, preventing the issue from having a day in court at all. In Victoria, BC, a town so far to the left that the NDP (socialist) and Green parties regularly split the vote. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Torka posted:What alternative system do you propose? Not specifically for rape. Imagine a crime that isn't politically charged in any way, say two guys get into a bar fight, one of them dies and it's necessary for the system to determine whether or not the killing was accidental so we know what the consequences should be. How should we do that? I'm not sure accidental matters. There was an assault (a fairly standard criminal matter) and a man dead in your hypothetical case. Assuming that the physical evidence shows that the accused did it, the matter seems simple. Of course, with our current justice system we constantly engage biases, so the conviction currently rests on all kinds of non-evidence (how "good" a person each individual is, how the lawyers on each side argue the case, ect.) rather than the actual facts of the incident. And that doesn't include the idea that prosecutors and police both have their own biases that allow for cases to be pushed forward or not on less than factual grounds. EDIT: And never mind that our final decider on the issue is a group of old lawyers who come up with a decision and then create a justification for it in law afterwards. The whole thing is rotten from the roots up. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Assuming that the physical evidence shows that the accused did it, the matter seems simple.  lovely as it is, I think I'll take the system we've got over one where factors that are tricky to determine but incredibly important, like intent, are considered irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
Torka posted:
Intent is not possible to determine. You can't sit inside someone's head and figure out what they were thinking. What you're doing is engaging a bunch of your biases to figure out what you think the person might have been thinking. And guess what, that systematically fucks over minorities, while giving the benefit of the doubt to people on the basis of less than the facts. It's partially why we have a system so stilted toward the police and so unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to PoCs, women, or other minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 13:51
|
|