|
Mr. Belding posted:Hey, this guy has thoughtful stuff to say. You don't have any room to talk because you busted out the whole "tribalism" meme in your post, which has zero informational content, is contemptuous to literally every single person unfortunate enough to read it, and actually pretends to be friendly, unlike telling someone to shut the gently caress up.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Food for thought, maybe if communities keep telling you to gently caress off even though you happen to regard yourself as "well-liked," you aren't actually as well-liked as you thought and if this keeps happening maybe the issue lies with you and not them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You don't have any room to talk because you busted out the whole "tribalism" meme in your post, which has zero informational content, is contemptuous to literally every single person unfortunate enough to read it, and actually pretends to be friendly, unlike telling someone to shut the gently caress up. This is completely uncharitable and precisely what I was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Hey, this guy has thoughtful stuff to say. And you do? "I'm concerned with the details of how exactly she was sexually harassed. Please, only the facts for Mr. Belding. Can't have victims misremember because of ~reasons~" Gimme a loving break. But hey, let's talk about the actual poo poo that you post. Mr. Belding posted:The long and short of this story is that if I disagree or disbelieve any account of potential sexual assault or harassment or often anything written by feminist writers or bloggers in general, then I failed the test and can be inarticulately insulted. I've been banned from communities where I was an active and seemingly well liked participant for months for calling an article "lovely". I agreed with the sentiment of the article. But it was not well done, and I said so. Therefore, I'm not a part of the tribe and I get a mean PM and told to go away. And that's fine. If I'm not welcome, then I'm not welcome, but I feel like the (let's go with this term) "new left" is very hostile to deviation from a set of quasi-religious rules, and if you aren't 100% on board then you've opened yourself up to lame insults and abuse for basically no reason. Nah son, you opened yourself up to insults because you're being a real loving morlock. If you're sitting around critiquing the way that a story about a person's sexual assault/harassment is written (by the victim, no less), that's pretty hosed up. What is there to gain from calling her a liar? How is that at all a productive thing to do? You're trying to discredit the author's experiences because you personally find them unbelievable. You can talk out the side of your mouth about how you agree with what she's driving at but all you're really doing is trying to undermine her point. So it's just more tone policing that is harming the cause rather than helping it. And lol at the "new left" thing. This is the same weepy bullshit that liberal olds have been passing around for a few years now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Food for thought, maybe if communities keep telling you to gently caress off even though you happen to regard yourself as "well-liked," you aren't actually as well-liked as you thought and if this keeps happening maybe the issue lies with you and not them. This happened in "a" community. Sorry (genuinely) that I scuffed the golden calf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:This is completely uncharitable and precisely what I was talking about. No, it's actually really charitable, because I didn't talk about the part where you got offended that someone would think saying "this account of sexual abuse sounds like a dream" was in poor taste. I just said that you used a bad idea, which you definitely did. Mr. Belding posted:This happened in "a" community. Sorry (genuinely) that I scuffed the golden calf. Maybe if you could refrain from sneering and saying "you people are a cult" people wouldn't find you repellent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:This happened in "a" community. Sorry (genuinely) that I scuffed the golden calf. I've helpfully bolded the part which betrays the fact that you are not genuine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:This happened in "a" community. Sorry (genuinely) that I scuffed the golden calf. You aren't actually sorry is the thing. You even admitted that you're basically posting poo poo you know is going to piss people off to "prove" that they're just a bunch of new left dogpilers, so you can hoist yourself up onto the cross of being some sort of internet martyr. You're not even doing anything new by this point because the exact same thing has happened something like three times in this thread since this discussion began by people looking at this and deciding that the important thing to focus on is playing Sherlock Holmes and trying to deduce the truth quotient behind every sentence this person wrote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Unless you are actively on a jury you should shut the gently caress up and trust the person claiming abused and not pick holes in it
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
When someone posts that Games Workshop is charging $65 for a box with five miniatures in it, do you immediately click over to GW's store, just to verify that it's true? When someone claims that they met Ryan Dancey once, do you post in the thread pointing out that their story is really just hearsay and not verifiable? Here, here's a totally random post from this very thread, maybe five or six pages back: Dr. Quarex posted:I went to a throwback cafe-pub-arcade a couple of weeks ago, and was excited to see Smash TV, since the last time I played it was when it came out and I was too young and awful at games to be any good at it. So I played it, and even now that I am half-way good at "enemies/bullets everywhere" games I died multiple times before finishing the first major area. It was then that it hit me that ALL OF THESE GAMES ARE AWFUL and I now retroactively hate all arcades. In this post, Dr. Quarex claims to have been somewhere a couple weeks back and seen a thing, Smash TV, and then he expresses opinions about it. Why didn't you immediately respond to point out that Dr. Quarex's account seems a bit hazy, and you know, maybe it wasn't actually Smash TV he saw, or maybe he misunderstood what was going on, and really, that doesn't mean you disagree that Smash TV is bad, but <wrings hands> you know, that doesn't mean we have to take Dr. Quarex's word as the literal truth? Why? Why are you holding someone reporting that they've been sexually harassed and even raped, up to this sort of scrutiny, when you don't hold every other account you read to the same level of scrutiny? Folks here are concluding that it's because you actually have an axe to grind re: feminism, women reporting sexual harassment and assault, etc. because this is exactly the tactic adopted by other people who want to undermine the credibility of anyone who challenges their world-view; you know, the one in which the only reason a woman should be tolerated within their male-dominated hobby is if she's sexually available to them. Any other bitch who comes in is just being disruptive, or attention-seeking, or actively trying to ruin the hobby! You haven't expressed those views, but you are using their tactics. If you don't have specific counterfactual evidence about this particular woman's experience - for example you were there in the room 20 years ago - then all you are doing is "just asking questions" when there is no loving reason to just ask questions. If you'll take me at my word that I played Warhammer, you should take a woman at her word that she was sexually harassed. Neither claim is extraordinary or unusual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:This happened in "a" community. Sorry (genuinely) that I scuffed the golden calf. Hence you're missing the forest for the trees. Again, Latining isn't being malicious here, and her argument is essentially correct. Quibbling over trifles just bogs down the discussion in a useless quagmire. It doesn't move things forward to entice change, but instead is effectively a lesser form of victim-blaming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out exactly what her motivation for lying here would even be. Like is this some convoluted scheme for attention where she decides that the key to e-fame is tarring and feathering a tabletop miniatures company in the court of public opinion? I mean usually when someone suggests that a person like this is lying they're ready to provide what they think the actual reason is...oh she just wants a bunch of lawsuit money, she's mad at her boyfriend and so this is how she plans to make him suffer, whatever...but nobody here who thinks this woman is lying/exaggerating/crazy has yet to put forth what they think the actual story here is, it's just a bunch of the usual "I'm just asking questions!" stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Random Blogger: "While I was out watching a movie, someone broke into my apartment. drat, they cleaned me out - got absolutely everything. Even lost my grandmother's wedding ring, which has been something of a family heirloom. What a lovely day." Giant Shitlord: "Excuse me, sir, but do you really mean to say that they got everything? I highly doubt any burglars would bother with your couch or your bed. Come now, let's not engage in hyperbole. And I'd hardly call a wedding ring that's only been passed down for two generations a family heirloom, engaging in hyperbole won't help anyone. In fact, in previous blog posts you've explicitly stated that your apartment is located in a good part of town. Doesn't seem that a burglary would be likely if that were true. Can I please see any evidence that this even happened at all? Look, I'm as anti-theft as the next person, but there are things here that just don't add up."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I'm having deep moral questions about whether it makes sense to respond to any of this, because I don't honestly feel at this point that any of the discussion being directed at me is about things that I've actually said. If I initially thought that I could convince anyone that the type of response I've received is an ideological purity test and a bad idea, suffice it to say, I've been dissuaded. But I'm going to try and interpret all of this, including the insulting language and straw men as charitably as I can. Serf posted:Nah son, you opened yourself up to insults because you're being a real loving morlock. If you're sitting around critiquing the way that a story about a person's sexual assault/harassment is written (by the victim, no less), that's pretty hosed up. What is there to gain from calling her a liar? How is that at all a productive thing to do? You're trying to discredit the author's experiences because you personally find them unbelievable. You can talk out the side of your mouth about how you agree with what she's driving at but all you're really doing is trying to undermine her point. So it's just more tone policing that is harming the cause rather than helping it. I didn't claim that anyone lied. I don't know what "discrediting the author's experience" means. If anything I thought (and think) that particular vignette is tied to what the author is experiencing presently. Questioning my motives makes it impossible for us to have a discussion. I think that what is being done here is harmful. That is my motive. To express why and how it's harmful. You don't have to accept it. I would agree that it's entirely unproductive. I wish it hadn't been. Brainiac Five posted:Maybe if you could refrain from sneering and saying "you people are a cult" people wouldn't find you repellent. At this point, I should have just picked the most uncharitable reading of anything I wrote and assumed people would assume it's what I meant. What I was saying is that I touched something sacred to the community and the response was to be expected. I thought it would create productive dialog. It has done anything but. Just hurt some peoples' feelings. Captain Foo posted:Unless you are actively on a jury you should shut the gently caress up and trust the person claiming abused and not pick holes in it "Should" doesn't mean anything absent an intended outcome. Nevertheless you are right because the outcome I was looking for was a productive conversation and that didn't happen at all. Leperflesh posted:Folks here are concluding that it's because you actually have an axe to grind re: feminism, women reporting sexual harassment and assault, etc. because this is exactly the tactic adopted by other people who want to undermine the credibility of anyone who challenges their world-view; you know, the one in which the only reason a woman should be tolerated within their male-dominated hobby is if she's sexually available to them. Any other bitch who comes in is just being disruptive, or attention-seeking, or actively trying to ruin the hobby! I agree that this is the crux of why people are reacting as they are. The reason I feel that it is harmful is because any scrutiny, even the most genuine, casual, and non-invasive is reacted to in this way. All analysis is treated as attack, which is actually a trait I associate with the unfortunate movement of video game players who dislike Anita Sarkeesian videos so much. I think that all facts are friendly facts. Analysis and criticism are useful and valuable in and of themselves, and I don't think they should need to be defended. Knee jerk defenses feel anti-intellectual, and against the values of liberalism as I see them. quote:Why? Why are you holding someone reporting that they've been sexually harassed and even raped, up to this sort of scrutiny, when you don't hold every other account you read to the same level of scrutiny? If I heard something I felt was unlikely I would say "That is unlikely. " This isn't a particularly high level of scrutiny. And certainly if the account was written in a format intended to be consumed by others and I was discussing it with a group I might go a good deal deeper. If it seemed like a surreal dream sequence, I may even call it Lynchian! I don't save this level of "scrutiny" if we can even call it that only for sexual assault or harassment cases, and I don't make the claim that she wasn't sexually assaulted. The only claim I made is that opening vignettes had a dream like quality and dramatization that I would imagine is the result of years between the events and the writing of the story, and that the first one I feel is unlikely true to the literal word. NGDBSS posted:Here's the thing - regardless of how the passage of time may change memories, the core of Latining's stories and arguments about how the hobby has massive problems with marginalizing folks who aren't white men. This is not in dispute; you have agreed with this yourself. Any mistakes on her part are almost certainly not malicious, but instead are quite likely the effects of trauma. In turn this means that if a detail about something bad happening is wrong, it's quite likely that something different that's also bad occurred. Okay, so this is another situation where analysis is being perceived as attack. I did not say that she lied. I do believe that the hobby has a massive problem with marginalizing people who aren't white men. I had serious concerns running a one shot for my twelve year old niece and my brothers (one of which is obviously her father) because I am somewhat concerned that making her interested in the hobby could bring her in contact with people I don't want her around, and I'm certainly not talking about minorities and women. I am missing no, forest for the trees. I see the forest. I've been living in the forest. And if my eyes weren't opened to it before they have been for well over a year now. I make no accusation of malice, and the fact that one is presumed, and I am treated as if it existed when it never did is where I have the problem. Frankly, sometimes I convince myself that telling people what they want to hear isn't the way to go about things, and that it's better to talk things through. Reality usually tugs my leash real hard at that point. Thanks for being part of that reality. It's an important reminder. Kai Tave posted:You aren't actually sorry is the thing. You even admitted that you're basically posting poo poo you know is going to piss people off to "prove" that they're just a bunch of new left dogpilers, so you can hoist yourself up onto the cross of being some sort of internet martyr. You're not even doing anything new by this point because the exact same thing has happened something like three times in this thread since this discussion began by people looking at this and deciding that the important thing to focus on is playing Sherlock Holmes and trying to deduce the truth quotient behind every sentence this person wrote. Once more, this is uncharitable and not what I said. The dog pile was already happening/had happened. I thought that I could productively have a discussion about that subject. I must have overestimated my ability to articulate those positions given the strange and very non-literal interpretations of them many have taken. Yourself included. I'm sure it was an accident. I am not trying to deduce the truth quotient of every sentence. I didn't examine every sentence. Hyperbole in this situation isn't only unhelpful it's borderline dishonest. Point being that I thought I could have a useful discussion. It failed. Therefore I'm sorry I tried because the hassle wasn't worth it, and all I did was piss people off who are probably mostly well meaning and disillusion myself that I can find common ground enough to make common cause with people I agree with on probably 99% of things. So yes, I am very sorry. Kai Tave posted:I'm trying to figure out exactly what her motivation for lying here would even be. Like is this some convoluted scheme for attention where she decides that the key to e-fame is tarring and feathering a tabletop miniatures company in the court of public opinion? I mean usually when someone suggests that a person like this is lying they're ready to provide what they think the actual reason is...oh she just wants a bunch of lawsuit money, she's mad at her boyfriend and so this is how she plans to make him suffer, whatever...but nobody here who thinks this woman is lying/exaggerating/crazy has yet to put forth what they think the actual story here is, it's just a bunch of the usual "I'm just asking questions!" stuff. Once more, I never accused her of lying, trying to achieve e-fame, or any similar such thing. Saying straightforwardly that a sequence is dreamlike or Lynchian isn't even a question. It's a subjective judgment about the nature of the art. I get that if you think I'm saying that she's lying then that's a reason to be upset. I also get that me telling you I never said that, and that I'm not saying that (even going so far as to me pointing out that I was talking specifically about the nature of memory and it being notoriously unreliable) that you will not believe me. But there it is. Honestly I think this isn't doing anyone any good. This isn't a parting shot, I'll discuss it further if anyone wants to, but I think I know where you all stand, and anyone who was genuinely interested in my position can just read what I wrote at face value without assuming any weird intentions and get the picture. These ideological purity tests are harmful to this cause and push people away who are or should be allies. Consider my nose slapped. Tail between my legs in the corner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:I'm having deep moral questions about whether it makes sense to respond to any of this, because I don't honestly feel at this point that any of the discussion being directed at me is about things that I've actually said. If I initially thought that I could convince anyone that the type of response I've received is an ideological purity test and a bad idea, suffice it to say, I've been dissuaded. This is 1,090 words of you crying that people are being unfair and not taking your calling them idol-worshippers as a compliment. I feel that there's a lot of flab to cut out here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Zak S is that you
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Oh hey, did you guys ever substantiate any of those accusations? No? Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
K Prime posted:Some of the facts in this matter are easily verifiable, as well- the case against her employer she mentions is documented and can be found in the news here: While I know you're a disingenuous poo poo who doesn't actually care, just gonna post that again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
server stutter double post
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Zak S is that you Nah, the grammar is too good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
You are trying to have "useful discussions" and "analysis" of poo poo that is ruining people's lives. The reason people are posses is because, for the people this effects, this is not academic. Treating it as an abstract concept to be debated and analyzed is dehumanizing as gently caress. People have laid this out over and over in this thread, and your response has been to double down on your "I thought it would be productive." It's not productive. What's productive is supporting people who have the courage to talk about their experiences even though they know it's going to open them up to even more poo poo. What's productive is calling out toxic behavior and changing the culture that picks apart and analyzes survivors' stories like they're a frog in freshman biology class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
K Prime posted:While I know you're a disingenuous poo poo who doesn't actually care, just gonna post that again. quote:Garland was awarded $7,750, a record amount that took into account "the young age of the complainant in this case, the shocking and ongoing lewdness of the conduct and comments that she had to endure and the special vulnerability of a young worker whose employer failed to protect her against the abhorrent inappropriateness of a middle-aged customer. Crazy low amount, given that she lost her job over this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Crazy low amount, given that she lost her job over this. Again ignoring previously discussed idiocy, you don't actually know how the legal system works. That is likely 1-3 months of wages, I'd guess 2. That's usually what you get awarded in cases of wrongful termination. The huge payouts you want don't exist for the little worker. You get paid for what you lost, in this case, several months of job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:~*WORDS*~ If you have logorrhea you might want to go to the Book Barn and post in the Rothfuss thread. I really don't see what's unbelievable about a bunch of nerds who finally, finally got the chance to bust out a quote when there's someone who it applies to in their presence. Many nerds live for that poo poo and don't give a gently caress about anything but getting to spout pop culture. I have no problem believing some gently caress thought "13 YEAR OLD GIRL FINALLY I GET TO QUOTE THE DWARVES!!!!!!!!!" Evil Mastermind posted:fake edit: I know it's not the same at all, but this situation reminds me of the time I had to kick a guy from my organized play table because it turned out he was a registered sex offender, and the store owner got mad at me because how dare I do that without checking with him first. Just the whole "yeah, I know this is a HUGE loving PROBLEM but we need to look at it from all angles first" mindset. Reminds me of how a considerable portion of Magic players online rallied around convicted rapist Zach Jesse when he was banned from professional play by Wizards. The weird thing is, when I asked around right afterwards at my local store, most players I talked to either unequivocally agreed with the ban, or agreed that he shouldn't play but wanted Wizards to issue a clear policy. Obviously, this is anecdotal but it really did not mesh with the generally apoplectic reaction over at, for example, the Magic subreddit. The store I play at has some women involved in the management. Is this a factor, I wonder? If I had asked at the Android's Dungeon, would I have gotten a rant about how WotC aren't vigilantes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Well, lemme cut myself off a nice thick slice of Mr. Belding's bullshit.Mr. Belding posted:I'm having deep moral questions about whether it makes sense to respond to any of this, because I don't honestly feel at this point that any of the discussion being directed at me is about things that I've actually said. If I initially thought that I could convince anyone that the type of response I've received is an ideological purity test and a bad idea, suffice it to say, I've been dissuaded. You'll notice that people are quoting you and responding to your words. And boy howdy is there a lot to talk about in the massive walls of text you're posting. Also, this "ideological purity test" you're currently pissing yourself over is completely imaginary. It's called "being a decent loving human being." Mr. Belding posted:I didn't claim that anyone lied. I don't know what "discrediting the author's experience" means. If anything I thought (and think) that particular vignette is tied to what the author is experiencing presently. I'll help you out. The part where you called her story "unlikely" is where you begin attempting to discredit her. And you say your motive is because this is "harmful." How? Harmful to whom and in what way? What skin do you have in this game? Mr. Belding posted:At this point, I should have just picked the most uncharitable reading of anything I wrote and assumed people would assume it's what I meant. What I was saying is that I touched something sacred to the community and the response was to be expected. I thought it would create productive dialog. It has done anything but. Just hurt some peoples' feelings. Nobody's feelings are hurt, actually. The fact that you perceive all these folks making GBS threads on you for saying some truly dumb poo poo just speaks to how you're not really arguing in good faith. I can't figure out if you're just an idiot or trolling, but I'm sure if we keep digging we'll find the very lovely buried treasures that are your posts. Mr. Belding posted:If I heard something I felt was unlikely I would say "That is unlikely. " This is both robotic and chilling, given that it is currently in reference to an instance of sexual harassment. Are you a robot? If so, you need to download some updates my man because you are doing a bad job of passing as a human being. Mr. Belding posted:Honestly I think this isn't doing anyone any good. This isn't a parting shot, I'll discuss it further if anyone wants to, but I think I know where you all stand, and anyone who was genuinely interested in my position can just read what I wrote at face value without assuming any weird intentions and get the picture. These ideological purity tests are harmful to this cause and push people away who are or should be allies. Consider my nose slapped. Tail between my legs in the corner.  "I could be an ~ally~ if only you wouldn't be so mean to me! All I wanted to do was question the degree to which she was harassed and get to the facts! Obviously this is important, really I'm just trying to help!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:You are trying to have "useful discussions" and "analysis" of poo poo that is ruining people's lives. The reason people are posses is because, for the people this effects, this is not academic. Treating it as an abstract concept to be debated and analyzed is dehumanizing as gently caress. People have laid this out over and over in this thread, and your response has been to double down on your "I thought it would be productive." Can you draw me a line from A to Z here where reading what someone wrote, thinking about the things they said, and then having an opinion on those things is dehumanizing? Generally I would say that not considering what someone has said is dehumanizing. I get that I failed to follow the outrage ritual (despite being outraged, especially at her employer's negligence). But you're using dehumanizing as a blanket term for something, and I don't know quite what it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
K Prime posted:Again ignoring previously discussed idiocy, you don't actually know how the legal system works. Wrongful termination isn't something that really happens where I live due to a long history of eroding labor rights. Even if I had a background in law it wouldn't be Canadian. So yeah, I have no idea how Candian law works. I'm disturbed that she received a pittance after enduring such a ridiculous situation. Her employer had a responsibility to provide a safe work environment and he failed her. The judgment doesn't feel substantive enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Can you draw me a line from A to Z here where reading what someone wrote, thinking about the things they said, and then having an opinion on those things is dehumanizing? Generally I would say that not considering what someone has said is dehumanizing. I get that I failed to follow the outrage ritual (despite being outraged, especially at her employer's negligence). But you're using dehumanizing as a blanket term for something, and I don't know quite what it is. A. You read the post by forums user GimpInBlack. B. You thought about it. C. You had the opinion that saying "I get that I failed to follow the outrage ritual" was a smart thing to say. D. You posted that opinion. E. You successfully treated people as less human than yourself, them following rituals where you choose logic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
K Prime posted:Again ignoring previously discussed idiocy, you don't actually know how the legal system works. Assuming she was working minimum wage, full time (and she was probably part time) that's actually around 4 and a half months, gross, not net. Maybe more-- minimum wage has gone up since she was working at that store. This is local to me. neongrey fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:A. You read the post by forums user GimpInBlack. Ritual is human. Logic is human. In fact, both of those are exclusively human so far as we know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Human rights complaints in Canada are typically handled by provincial human rights tribunals. These are not civil courts in the usual sense, nor are they criminal courts. I read the decision referenced in the article. This was a lost wages remedy. The complaint's claims were verified by multiple witnesses, and even the alleged harasser testified, admitting that something happened, he had used inappropriate language on at least one occasion, and had made some kind of physical contact with her. It wasn't *especially* precedent-setting, but you'd be hard-pressed to claim this was an incorrect judgment. MalcolmSheppard fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Ritual is human. Logic is human. In fact, both of those are exclusively human so far as we know. Okay, so now you've decided to treat me as less than human, because you're posting pedantry in the apparent belief that it will convince me when it wouldn't convince a god drat dog.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so now you've decided to treat me as less than human, because you're posting pedantry in the apparent belief that it will convince me when it wouldn't convince a god drat dog. If I shook a bag of treats it would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Have you considered that your choice of words and.manner of writing - which is exceptionally pedantic - may have something to do with how you are being received here? That, perhaps, you might choose to express yourself in a way that doesn't make you sound like you throw error messages when Captain Kirk asks you to define the experience of love? In other words: maybe you could try to be less of an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so now you've decided to treat me as less than human, because you're posting pedantry in the apparent belief that it will convince me when it wouldn't convince a god drat dog. EDIT: The failure mode of clever is rear end in a top hat, so color me with that. I'll just rephrase to say that Mr. Belvedere is making a pretty good case for having less basic empathy than any of the pets I've ever owned. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:Here's the thing - regardless of how the passage of time may change memories, the core of Latining's stories and arguments about how the hobby has massive problems with marginalizing folks who aren't white men. This is not in dispute; you have agreed with this yourself. Any mistakes on her part are almost certainly not malicious, but instead are quite likely the effects of trauma. In turn this means that if a detail about something bad happening is wrong, it's quite likely that something different that's also bad occurred.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:If I shook a bag of treats it would. Well at least you've dropped the act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Personally this cutting commentary on rape narratives has really shattered my ability to hivethink I may have to retreat to my hugbox for at least 36 hours before I can properly articulate my feels again
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
i mean just think about it What if this woman? Isn't remembering things right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
The outrage ritual to summon the Robocop demon went wrong, and we had to sacrifice the fee-fees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:43
|
|