The Future of Social Issues

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Future of Social Issues

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

-Troika- posted:

While the government has tried placing the burden on the accused via Title IX (which has led to a string of widely publicized shitshows at assorted college campuses across the country), the courts generally have not been terribly sympathic to the view that we should punish people merely for being accused of rape.

There's something disturbing about pivoting to the law when asked a question about decent, consensual sexual conduct.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 17:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 09:29

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Every time I see a conversation like this all I can think about is an autistic person writing down a list of rules about how and when to make eye contact.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 17:50

Pedro De Heredia: May 30, 2006

Effectronica posted:

What does that have to do with anything he said? Do you have any moral objections, or are you a kind of inhuman monster that only concerns yourself with what The Law says?

It is clear from his post that there is a moral objection to the idea of 'punishing people merely for being accused of rape'.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 17:55

Oakland Martini: Feb 14, 2008; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE APARTHEID ACADEMIC

It's important that institutions never take a stance like "genocide is bad". Now get out there and crack some of my students' skulls.

Pedro De Heredia posted:

It is clear from his post that there is a moral objection to the idea of 'punishing people merely for being accused of rape'.

Right. Last page someone asked

Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

what is wrong with a person who can't prove consent being prosecuted?

I think it's pretty obvious why inability to prove affirmative consent should not be sufficient to find someone guilty of sexual assault in a court of law. I admit it's a stickier issue as to whether such inability should be sufficient to expel someone from a university (particularly a public one). But the term "prosecuted" here suggests legal, rather than civil, punishment.

Oakland Martini fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Nov 10, 2015

# ? Nov 10, 2015 18:03

DAD LOST MY IPOD: Feb 3, 2012; Fats Dominar is on the case

Affirmative consent is great culturally and something we should encourage colleges and sex ed programs to propagate. It is a great standard and we should try to make it the norm.

That said colleges are incredibly ill-suited to investigating, trying and punishing crimes, since it's completely off mission for them. Four separate male students have recently won multi million dollar settlements after being thrown out by their schools after terribly half-assed "prosecutions" for rape.

Affirmative consent laws should be drafted in a way that is harmonious with the principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty. I have enough faith in sexual-assault-prevention advocates that we can do this. The halfway method of drafting blatantly unConstitutional rules and sloppily enforcing them, then getting slapped down in court, is the worst of both worlds.

DAD LOST MY IPOD fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Nov 10, 2015

# ? Nov 10, 2015 18:09

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:

Affirmative consent is great culturally and something we should encourage colleges and sex ed programs to propagate. It is a great standard and we should try to make it the norm.

That said colleges are incredibly ill-suited to investigating, trying and punishing crimes, since it's completely off mission for them. Four separate male students have recently won multi million dollar settlements after being thrown out by their schools after terribly half-assed "prosecutions" for rape.

Affirmative consent laws should be drafted in a way that is harmonious with the principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty. I have enough faith in sexual-assault-prevention advocates that we can do this. The halfway method of drafting blatantly unConstitutional rules and sloppily enforcing them, then getting slapped down in court, is the worst of both worlds.

Affirmative consent is a nonsensical crock of poo poo. Even the people pushing for laws and regulations requiring it have admitted that they have no idea how it is possible to comply with them.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 18:43

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

-Troika- posted:

Affirmative consent is a nonsensical crock of poo poo. Even the people pushing for laws and regulations requiring it have admitted that they have no idea how it is possible to comply with them.

Stop worrying about the law for a second. Do you think it's a bad thing to try, in your personal relationships?

# ? Nov 10, 2015 18:49

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

SedanChair posted:

Stop worrying about the law for a second. Do you think it's a bad thing to try, in your personal relationships?

That depends how you define it, it's not exactly clear cut. Affirmative consent "is a knowing, voluntary and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity." Does that mean making sure that your partner is interested in a certain sexual act before initiating it? That's something people already did before anyone came up with the term "affirmative consent." Does it mean literally asking for permission to kiss someone or take off their clothes? That's just dumb and weird and doesn't need to be practiced by anyone.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 19:12

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

MaxxBot posted:

That depends how you define it, it's not exactly clear cut. Affirmative consent "is a knowing, voluntary and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity." Does that mean making sure that your partner is interested in a certain sexual act before initiating it? That's something people already did before anyone came up with the term "affirmative consent."

Some of them did. That's the problem.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 19:13

Phyzzle: Jan 26, 2008

-Blackadder- posted:

It was the idea of it that prompted me wonder what future social issues would look like. To try to imagine something that would be a cultural blindside in the same way past social issues, which now seem obvious to us in our modern culture, did to past generations.

So you'd like some examples future social issues that could have us looking like ignoramuses . . .

I would speculate that targeted personality changes with psycho-pharmaceuticals will become a social issue that will weird people out within a century. If a person wants to take maternity leave, maybe they'll end up taking whatever oxytocin-based drug cocktail makes it easier and more enjoyable. You're grandchildren will have to get used to their friends choosing to adopt markedly different personalities in a fairly short amount of time as they want to move between careers or life stages. Will they ostracize people who change the core of their personality too often, the way that the transgendered get ostracized today?

We tend to think of the Terry Schiavo life support fiasco as an example of conservative cavemen pushing their primitive beliefs where they're aren't wanted. Will we someday be faced with mulling over the right to die for people with less severe, but still debilitating and incurable, problems? Quadraplegics who can breathe without machines? Schizophrenics? We might someday seem to be a bit reactionary for denying them what they want when it's easily possible to give it too them.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 19:17

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Pedro De Heredia posted:

It is clear from his post that there is a moral objection to the idea of 'punishing people merely for being accused of rape'.

It only is clear if you're less in touch with humanity than a psychopath. Because "the courts said" is not, in any way, shape, or form, a moral objection for normal people. If he wanted to talk about the problems in a moral dimension, he shouldn't have made of himself the sort of inhuman entity that demands to be slain for the safety of the people around him.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 19:44

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

SedanChair posted:

Some of them did. That's the problem.

Doesn't it seem like you're trying to solve the wrong problem? Problem: not everyone is establishing consent. Solution: fundamentally change the concept of consent to include a bizarre verbal contract. At some point a notion was formed that we needed strict laws that could be written down about human interaction and unsurprisingly that doesn't actually pan out in an organic way.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:07

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

I'm not sure that "Give me that cock" or "Sit your rear end on this" is really a bizarre verbal contract in the act of sex, both of which would be considered affirmative consent by any definition.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:18

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Salt Fish posted:

Doesn't it seem like you're trying to solve the wrong problem? Problem: not everyone is establishing consent. Solution: fundamentally change the concept of consent to include a bizarre verbal contract. At some point a notion was formed that we needed strict laws that could be written down about human interaction and unsurprisingly that doesn't actually pan out in an organic way.

This is a ridiculous strawman and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it, even moreso if you actually think it's true. Forcing consent advocates to explain time and time again that nonverbal communication is part of consent is a very effective way of making sure they never get to string two sentences together about how consent actually works, thus ensuring that you and your nagging self-doubts never run the risk of even one microsecond of introspection about your own communication skills in sexual situations.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:22

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

Bro Dad posted:

I think we should continue gaslighting the OP and pretending like we have no idea what he's talking about. Because these people are on my team so all the stupid poo poo they do is forgivable or part of a conspiratorial misinformation campaign.

Also remember that MRA fedorabros exist and are bad too. I only brought that up so I can accuse you of supporting them when you disagree with me.

2 pages later, and this post is still exactly correct. I'm glad that we're focusing on trying to bait someone into saying something very slightly wrong so he can be declared persona non grata instead of actually addressing the very clear points that were made.

-Troika- posted:

It's worth taking a look at Yale right now, where a certain segment of the students are freaking out about literally nothing.

DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:

It's not even the costumes; it's an incredibly intolerable, inflammatory email from a professor that included such racist hate speech as
"I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

...

Obviously, the students reacted properly to such a vile, hateful message, by demanding that the professor be fired, calling her "disgusting," and spitting on other students who took her up on her invitation to discuss these issues over dinner. They also correctly identified the evil race traitors in their midst who broke bread with this succubus and yelled "traitor" at them as they left the dinner.

Oh, this is interesting. Let's see what it was that upset these Yale students so badly:

quote:

Dear Sillimanders:

Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to the student body about appropriate Halloween�wear. I�ve always found Halloween an interesting embodiment of more general adult worries about young people. As some of you may be aware, I teach a class on �The Concept of the Problem Child,� and I was speaking with some of my students yesterday about the ways in which Halloween � traditionally a day of subversion for children and young people � is also an occasion for adults to exert their control.

When I was young, adults were freaked out by the specter of Halloween candy poisoned by lunatics, or spiked with razor blades (despite the absence of a single recorded case of such an event). Now, we�ve grown to fear the sugary candy itself. And this year, we seem afraid that college students are unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween.

I don�t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue �signalling.� But I wanted to share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood.

As a former preschool teacher, for example, it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably �appropriative� about a blonde�haired child�s wanting to be Mulan for a day. Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks, and it seems to me that we want to be in the business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it. I suppose we could agree that there is a difference between fantasizing about an individual character vs. appropriating a culture, wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick. But, then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if you aren�t a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don�t know the answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain that I, for one, prefer not to cross.

Which is my point. I don�t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others. I can�t defend them anymore than you could defend yours. Why do we dress up on Halloween, anyway? Should we start explaining that too? I�ve always been a good mimic and I enjoy accents. I love to travel, too, and have been to every continent but Antarctica. When I lived in Bangladesh, I bought a sari because it was beautiful, even though I looked stupid in it and never wore it once. Am I fetishizing and appropriating others� cultural experiences? Probably. But I really, really like them too.

Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense � and I�ll note that no one around campus seems overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin�revealing costumes � I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious� a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience;increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition. And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity � in your capacity � to exercise self�censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you? We tend to view this shift from individual to institutional agency as a tradeoff between libertarian vs. liberal values (�liberal� in the American, not European sense of the word).

Nicholas says, if you don�t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.

But � again, speaking as a child development specialist � I think there might be something missing in our discourse about the exercise of free speech (including how we dress ourselves) on campus, and it is this: What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their strength and judgment?

In other words: Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It's not mine, I know that.

Happy Halloween.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:30

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

Effectronica posted:

It only is clear if you're less in touch with humanity than a psychopath. Because "the courts said" is not, in any way, shape, or form, a moral objection for normal people. If he wanted to talk about the problems in a moral dimension, he shouldn't have made of himself the sort of inhuman entity that demands to be slain for the safety of the people around him.

Yes or No question: Should a person be punished based on an accusation not proven in the court of law? If so, why?

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:30

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

This is a ridiculous strawman and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it, even moreso if you actually think it's true. Forcing consent advocates to explain time and time again that nonverbal communication is part of consent is a very effective way of making sure they never get to string two sentences together about how consent actually works, thus ensuring that you and your nagging self-doubts never run the risk of even one microsecond of introspection about your own communication skills in sexual situations.

Noooo you caught me! I was rubbing my hands together and laughing about all the people I was going to rape later once I had worn out the posters in this thread by making them explain their exhausting semantics.

Ddraig posted:

I'm not sure that "Give me that cock" or "Sit your rear end on this" is really a bizarre verbal contract in the act of sex, both of which would be considered affirmative consent by any definition.

As I understand it this is just ordinary consent because you've only determined consent for 1 stage of the sexual progression and you've only verbally affirmed it from 1 of the 2 or more people involved.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:31

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

You could strap a steering wheel to your cock, wear an eye patch and do your best Robert Newton impression while proclaiming "Arr, this be driving me nuts, can I board your vessel and spill my dubloons?" at which point you could either dock with impunity or be told "Not tonight, Henry"

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:35

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Salt Fish posted:

Noooo you caught me! I was rubbing my hands together and laughing about all the people I was going to rape later once I had worn out the posters in this thread by making them explain their exhausting semantics.

As I understand it this is just ordinary consent because you've only determined consent for 1 stage of the sexual progression and you've only verbally affirmed it from 1 of the 2 or more people involved.

I'm not calling you a rapist, I'm calling you a shrieking reactionary twit who gets hysterical when confronted with an idea that might compel him to think about his behavior. You know what normal healthy people do when they hear about affirmative consent? They think back and go "Hey, I did that already! Great!" or "Oh poo poo I can think of a time I wasn't great about that, I should do better." They don't revise the entire concept to be some Kafkaesque fiction just so they can feel morally superior rejecting it.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:36

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

I'm not calling you a rapist, I'm calling you a shrieking reactionary twit who gets hysterical when confronted with an idea that might compel him to think about his behavior. You know what normal healthy people do when they hear about affirmative consent? They think back and go "Hey, I did that already! Great!" or "Oh poo poo I can think of a time I wasn't great about that, I should do better." They don't revise the entire concept to be some Kafkaesque fiction just so they can feel morally superior rejecting it.

I invented a new phrase its called "Preliminary Affirmative Consent". From now on you have to seek Preliminary Affirmative Consent in order to morally engage in sexual activity. Preliminary Affirmative Consent is exactly the same as affirmative consent except that the name means it has to happen BEFORE sex. Note: If you use the phrase affirmative consent without using the full phrase Preliminary Affirmative Consent I will get mad at you and accuse you of being amoral. Similarly I will insist that everyone endorse Preliminary Affirmative Consent as the only way that we can progress as a society when it comes to having sex with each other.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:40

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Salt Fish posted:

I invented a new phrase its called "Preliminary Affirmative Consent". From now on you have to seek Preliminary Affirmative Consent in order to morally engage in sexual activity. Preliminary Affirmative Consent is exactly the same as affirmative consent except that the name means it has to happen BEFORE sex. Note: If you use the phrase affirmative consent without using the full phrase Preliminary Affirmative Consent I will get mad at you and accuse you of being amoral. Similarly I will insist that everyone endorse Preliminary Affirmative Consent as the only way that we can progress as a society when it comes to having sex with each other.

Yes keep sobbing and flinging poo poo everywhere, that will keep the Bad Thoughts away.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:41

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Yes keep sobbing and flinging poo poo everywhere, that will keep the Bad Thoughts away.

Tell me how what I wrote is different from the change between consent and affirmative consent.

edit: blackadder I'm sorry about your thread but I'm really interested in this right now

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:49

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Salt Fish posted:

Tell me how what I wrote is different from the change between consent and affirmative consent.

edit: blackadder I'm sorry about your thread but I'm really interested in this right now

Own up to your ridiculous strawman bullshit you loving crybaby.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:50

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

I think that this "conversation" is actually a very informative demonstration of the problem that progressives are having right now. Here we have 2 posters who both agree that sex requires 2 consenting parties and that you need to work with your partner to establish mutually understood boundaries, and yet the discourse has totally dissolved into a slap fight centered around trivial semantic details. We can actually watch the total breakdown of productive discussion into an interaction that would make any normal person feel embarrassed just to read it.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:07

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

"Hey Darlin', I know you asked me to ride you like a rodeo clown and I'm more than happy to do that but I need to get you to sign this in triplicate and send off a copy to my congressman so he can apply for the proper permit - let me know in 6 months time if you change your mind, 'k?"

This is what a crazy person believes affirmative consent is.

I don't think these people should be allowed to have sex since they clearly lack the mental capacity to make any sort of choice about anything, let alone do something that could potentially change the lives of everyone involved irreversibly.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:08

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Salt Fish posted:

I think that this "conversation" is actually a very informative demonstration of the problem that progressives are having right now. Here we have 2 posters who both agree that sex requires 2 consenting parties and that you need to work with your partner to establish mutually understood boundaries, and yet the discourse has totally dissolved into a slap fight centered around trivial semantic details. We can actually watch the total breakdown of productive discussion into an interaction that would make any normal person feel embarrassed just to read it.

Own up to your ridiculous strawman bullshit you loving crybaby.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:10

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

Salt Fish posted:

I think that this "conversation" is actually a very informative demonstration of the problem that progressives are having right now. Here we have 2 posters who both agree that sex requires 2 consenting parties and that you need to work with your partner to establish mutually understood boundaries, and yet the discourse has totally dissolved into a slap fight centered around trivial semantic details. We can actually watch the total breakdown of productive discussion into an interaction that would make any normal person feel embarrassed just to read it.

Dude you are melting down hardcore in public. Don't embarrass yourself.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:14

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Own up to your ridiculous strawman bullshit you loving crybaby.

I don't think he's the one crying here :frog:

Ddraig posted:

"Hey Darlin', I know you asked me to ride you like a rodeo clown and I'm more than happy to do that but I need to get you to sign this in triplicate and send off a copy to my congressman so he can apply for the proper permit - let me know in 6 months time if you change your mind, 'k?"

This is what a crazy person believes affirmative consent is.

I don't think these people should be allowed to have sex since they clearly lack the mental capacity to make any sort of choice about anything, let alone do something that could potentially change the lives of everyone involved irreversibly.

Some of the legislators who are behind the California affirmative action laws have said that the law requires you to literally ask permission to do each individual action while loving.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:18

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Amgard posted:

Yes or No question: Should a person be punished based on an accusation not proven in the court of law? If so, why?

Yes. If I discern someone to be lying, I should not have to clog up the courts further by being required to have a judge and jury sign off on me calling them a liar, and refusing to do business with them. Now, perhaps you can rephrase your rigged question better, so I can't run around it so easily, lardass.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:22

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

-Troika- posted:

Some of the legislators who are behind the California affirmative action laws have said that the law requires you to literally ask permission to do each individual action while loving.

Gosh, legislators? Really? The internet must be full of citations for that then, right?

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:23

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

-Troika- posted:

I don't think he's the one crying here

Some of the legislators who are behind the California affirmative action laws have said that the law requires you to literally ask permission to do each individual action while loving.

"Some legislators" have also said your life has value and you're not a wretched parasite on humanity as a whole. No, I can't tell you their names.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:23

DAD LOST MY IPOD: Feb 3, 2012; Fats Dominar is on the case

Amgard posted:

Dude you are melting down hardcore in public. Don't embarrass yourself.

did you quote the post you meant to quote because I don't see it

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:25

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

Effectronica posted:

Yes. If I discern someone to be lying, I should not have to clog up the courts further by being required to have a judge and jury sign off on me calling them a liar, and refusing to do business with them. Now, perhaps you can rephrase your rigged question better, so I can't run around it so easily, lardass.

Rephrase a straight question? What exactly is rigged about "an accusation not proven in the court of law"? You're incapable of genuinely answering this question, but you will try nonetheless because you are a sad, deranged human out for blood against the phantoms of ideological opposition.

quote:

did you quote the post you meant to quote because I don't see it

He's doubling down on a straw man by inventing an opponent to argue within his posts. If that's not a meltdown then color me bewildered. Once he's calmed down, he'll start with salient points.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:28

Baudolino: Apr 1, 2010; THUNDERDOME LOSER

Values change all the time, why get upset about it?
Don`t care so much about what you can`t control, focus on bettering your own life instead.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:33

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Amgard posted:

Rephrase a straight question? What exactly is rigged about "an accusation not proven in the court of law"? You're incapable of genuinely answering this question, but you will try nonetheless because you are a sad, deranged human out for blood against the phantoms of ideological opposition.

I just answered the question you actually asked. I gave an example of punishing someone for an accusation not proven in a court of law. Maybe you should ask the real question instead, and I can say that, yes, assuming they can build a gallows that will bear your weight, I do support the death penalty for your post history.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:33

ugh its Troika: May 2, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Amgard posted:

Rephrase a straight question? What exactly is rigged about "an accusation not proven in the court of law"? You're incapable of genuinely answering this question, but you will try nonetheless because you are a sad, deranged human out for blood against the phantoms of ideological opposition.

He's doubling down on a straw man by inventing an opponent to argue within his posts. If that's not a meltdown then color me bewildered. Once he's calmed down, he'll start with salient points.

It's Effectronica, what do you expect? Him and Sedanchair basically turn into happyelf after they perform the fusion dance.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Gosh, legislators? Really? The internet must be full of citations for that then, right?

It even says it right in the law I mentioned, dude. Come on now.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:34

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

-Troika- posted:

Some of the legislators who are behind the California affirmative action laws have said that the law requires you to literally ask permission to do each individual action while loving.

Good, use your words.

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:34

DAD LOST MY IPOD: Feb 3, 2012; Fats Dominar is on the case

Amgard posted:

He's doubling down on a straw man by inventing an opponent to argue within his posts. If that's not a meltdown then color me bewildered. Once he's calmed down, he'll start with salient points.

I think he's talking about tiny brontosaurus who's like the patron saint of snide, bad-faith arguments and absurd ad hominem

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:36

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

-Troika- posted:

It's Effectronica, what do you expect? Him and Sedanchair basically turn into happyelf after they perform the fusion dance.

It even says it right in the law I mentioned, dude. Come on now.

Hey, instead of being passive-aggressive in the thread where you painfully admit that getting consent would destroy your sex life, why not go back to jacking it to a cheesy spinoff of a porn game?

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 09:29

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

-Troika- posted:

Some of the legislators who are behind the California affirmative action laws have said that the law requires you to literally ask permission to do each individual action while loving.

Yeah, I feel like they've done a really bad job of marketing the policy. First of all if you're just trying to get people to have a proper understanding of consent why come up with a new term? A better way of presenting it would be "this is what consent is, if you're not doing this you're not really getting consent" which would make people conscious of failing to do something that is widely accepted, getting consent. Instead they present an entirely new concept of "affirmative consent" which is viewed as changing the standard out from under them. Secondly, they've spent too much emphasizing the verbal stuff, even calling it "yes means yes" when in reality very few people actually do that.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Own up to your ridiculous strawman bullshit you loving crybaby.

Are people like the author of this article simply wrong?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/14/adults-hate-affirmative-consent-laws-the-college-students-i-meet-love-them/

I thought it was a strawman as well but this article claims that you must have a verbal agreement.

MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 10, 2015

# ? Nov 10, 2015 21:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Future of Social Issues

«‹›4 »