#metoo and the impact of rape culture

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > #metoo and the impact of rape culture

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

I want to ask the following:

If you believe that Biden raped Reade, what would it take for you to change your belief? Are you even open to changing it?

If you don't believe that Biden raped Reade, what would it take for you to change your belief? Are you even open to changing it?

# ¿ Feb 7, 2021 23:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 16:05

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Cloaked posted:

I'd like to try to tackle what I see as the core world view difference that comes up when discussing Reade and Biden.

For the sake of this, assume that the rapist in question is unrepentant; rehabilitation is a separate topic. And no debate around the validity of any particular accusation; we base this on your personal take of what you think has occurred. I don't understand the people that genuinely don't believe Reade, but they at least don't have the dissonance that I'm going to attempt to describe.

For each of these, we ask ourselves whether the 'you' is supporting rape and/or rape culture. I really hate treating this topic this coldly, but I don't know of another way to convey this.

If you knowingly provide material support (transportation, shelter, etc) that you believe directly enables a rape.

If you believe you observe someone providing material support that enables a rape and you do nothing.

If you socially (words/etc) directly encourage a rape.

If you believe you observe someone directly encouraging a rape and do nothing.

If you provide material support to someone you believe is a rapist.

If you continue to socially associate with someone you believe is a rapist.

If you socially advocate for someone you believe is a rapist to continue to belong to a particular social group or organization.

If you singularly oversee an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

If you "middle manage" in an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

If you labor and/or otherwise routinely materially support an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

If you advocate for and encourage positive social evaluations of an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

If you choose to interact in a self-beneficial way with an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

I'd say that last one is voting for Biden, if you believe Reade and you believe Biden becoming president benefits you and the world. Somewhere along this chain of indirection, some people decide that the action is diffuse enough such that it no longer contributes to rape culture. I don't understand where that can happen.

I know that our actions against or for large systems are small motes of dust in the wind, but those actions still have tiny consequences and meaning. Most people when you start talking like that can acknowledge these tiny consequences and make cost/benefit trade offs. If you're a leftist, that's what you're doing every day when you choose to go to work or buy a thing in capitalism. But the people that assert that they are not even making that calculus and that they can do self-beneficial transactions with a bad individual or organization and round any small negative impact they cause to the world down to zero (usually because they ideally would not want to cause it) are the ones that are most frustrating to interact with.

I haven't spoken at all about intention here, only actions; that is another potential worldview difference worth noting, since folks taking these actions often don't intend for the bad impact to occur. I don't really care about intentions though, since they don't affect the world and humans are hardwired to fill those in after their actions are already taken anyways.

Well, since you put in the effort to make this post (which I appreciate), allow me to respond. Regarding item 12, suppose you work for an organization and the CEO is one day accused of having raped someone. Do you quit immediately and on the spot, knowing that every minute of your continual employment will benefit the organization, and by proxy, the CEO? What if it's not just the CEO who is an accused rapist, but a significant portion of leadership? What if you're someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and you and your family's survival depends on you remaining employed?

You might wonder how that applies to the Biden vs. Reade situation. You might say, "well, TWT, surely you did have a choice, which was to not vote for Biden, and that it wasn't a matter of literal survival?" And you're right: for me personally, it wasn't. I can't say the same about my social circle however. For example, I have multiple friends who are DACA recipients, and I knew that their status would continue to be in question if Trump won another term. Another friend is undergoing leukemia therapy, and Trump had tried, and would continue to try, to take away her healthcare. Yet another friend is Yemeni, and her family, back in Yemen, is being crushed by the Saudis, whom Trump supported unequivocally. And more broadly, I genuinely did not think that the country would survive another four years of Trump. So I held my nose and voted for Biden in the general, despite knowing that there is a non-zero chance he sexually assaulted someone in the past. Similarly, no one I know was happy to have to decide between Biden and Trump (and no, don't give me the "you could have voted for Howie" talk), but at the end of the day they did what they thought was right within the larger calculus of their circumstances and that of their social circles.

Speaking more broadly, these situations are rarely black and white. It is not "support rape culture vs. don't support rape culture." The vast majority of the time, people have to operate in murky gray areas, with imperfect information and conflicting priorities, and have to make the choice that they think is the most optimal one, either for themselves or their communities or both. Demanding that they instead put their foot town and make major sacrifices by picking a side and radically changing their behaviors based on that decision will only make you frustrated, because they won't do it. And labeling them "such-and-such apologist" and vehemently arguing that their behaviors are contributing to such-and-such culture will only make it harder for you to win them over � and you absolutely do need to win them over if you want to actually make actual progress.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 04:50

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

joepinetree posted:

Hey,
it's been almost a year.
Can you point to a single charge of perjury that she has received or a single legal case that has been reopened because of her "perjury?" You don't even have to point to an appeal decision, just a filed appeal will do. And if you can't, at what point do you think that maybe what you are doing is gross?

Not sure why you put the word perjury in scare quotes. You should preferably not do bullshit like that, because lying under oath is lying under oath, and it is a serious crime.

Anyway, since you asked:

https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca...z5SUCAgCg%3D%3D

The defendant is Jennifer Vasquez from this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/tara-reade-s-qualifications-expert-witness-come-under-fire-n1212516

Reade's perjurious testimony contributed to the defendant being sentenced to life in prison.

Also discussed here: https://www.montereycountyweekly.co...76b2cd779e.html

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 18:42

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Yinlock posted:

Why is this relevant in the first place though

silicone thrills posted:

Because character assassination is the number one way to silence sexual assault victims?

I mean, joepinetree asked, and I provided.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 18:54

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

joepinetree posted:

This response here is a great example of precisely what I am talking about. So let's start with the appeal that you linked, perhaps hoping that no one would click on it.

So whatever this was, it wasn't because of revelations that happened in 2020.

Next, you link two stories about how they COULD be challenged. Stories that are close to 1 year old.

You have yet to provide a single example of Tara Reade ACTUALLY being charged with perjury. Much like you did not provide any evidence of any appeals being filed AFTER the story broke.

Now, I don't think that story is relevant at all to the case. But since people like you love to bring up the "perjury" at all times, how long without charges being filed against Reade do you think is enough to consider that maybe the whole thing was just a PR strategy thought up by the same people who advised Harvey Weinstein and not "perjury?" How long without a legal case being actually overturned for "perjury" for you to think "hey, maybe there was nothing there?"

No, you didn't. You provided nearly year old stories about how she totally could be charged. And a link to an appeal filed in 2019 without any linking documents or even Tara Reade's name attached at all.

Apologies, I posted the wrong link! I blame lack of coffee.

https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca...zhSICAgCg%3D%3D

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on 8/7/2020. I'm not a California attorney so I don't have access to the case filing system, but maybe someone else does and can tell us if it is related to Reade. No reason to think it isn't though, considering the defendant.

I don't have anything else to respond with, aside from pointing out that your hyper-aggressive tone is why I didn't engage in the previous iteration of this thread, and why I hesitated in engaging with this one. You use phrases like "people like you" to paint me as some sort of enemy. If you're gonna do that, then I think you and I are done here.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 19:10

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Insanite posted:

What is the point of any of this? Tara Reade could've shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, but it still wouldn't have any bearing on the subject of this thread.

The point is that he/she asked. :shrug:

joepinetree posted:

Can you point to a single charge of perjury that she has received or a single legal case that has been reopened because of her "perjury?" You don't even have to point to an appeal decision, just a filed appeal will do. And if you can't, at what point do you think that maybe what you are doing is gross?

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 19:16

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

joepinetree posted:

" No reason to think it isn't though" isn't how things work, especially with regards to smearing rape victims.

You asked if there is even a single appeal filed within the last year to reopen a case due to Reade's perjury. I linked what I thought might be one such appeal, and the reason I thought it might be related to Reade is because the defendant is someone who was convicted in part due to her testimony, and also the timing of the petition. I apologize that this doesn't meet your standards.

If you don't believe Reade committed perjury at all, and that it was a political smear, then that is your prerogative, and it does explain why you use scare quotes. The other posters seem to think it is irrelevant either way though, so we should probably drop it.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 19:41

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

DoomTrainPhD posted:

And I am telling you that it is for me. Being a decent human being and not sexually assaulting people is a shallow bar to cross. It's not just a line in the sand for me, and it's a gigantic wall.

It can be a simple issue for you, but you should also be able to understand it it isn't for everyone, or even for most people. Attacking them underhandedly with statements like "don't vote for rapists is an incredibly low bar to clear", which implies that voting for Biden is some sort of moral failing, is how you lose your audience.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 20:57

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

DoomTrainPhD posted:

Anybody could have voted 3rd party. Nobody was forcing them to vote for Biden.

I mean, I already posted about this a few pages back:

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

You might wonder how that applies to the Biden vs. Reade situation. You might say, "well, TWT, surely you did have a choice, which was to not vote for Biden, and that it wasn't a matter of literal survival?" And you're right: for me personally, it wasn't. I can't say the same about my social circle however. For example, I have multiple friends who are DACA recipients, and I knew that their status would continue to be in question if Trump won another term. Another friend is undergoing leukemia therapy, and Trump had tried, and would continue to try, to take away her healthcare. Yet another friend is Yemeni, and her family, back in Yemen, is being crushed by the Saudis, whom Trump supported unequivocally. And more broadly, I genuinely did not think that the country would survive another four years of Trump. So I held my nose and voted for Biden in the general, despite knowing that there is a non-zero chance he sexually assaulted someone in the past. Similarly, no one I know was happy to have to decide between Biden and Trump (and no, don't give me the "you could have voted for Howie" talk), but at the end of the day they did what they thought was right within the larger calculus of their circumstances and that of their social circles.

Speaking more broadly, these situations are rarely black and white. It is not "support rape culture vs. don't support rape culture." The vast majority of the time, people have to operate in murky gray areas, with imperfect information and conflicting priorities, and have to make the choice that they think is the most optimal one, either for themselves or their communities or both. Demanding that they instead put their foot town and make major sacrifices by picking a side and radically changing their behaviors based on that decision will only make you frustrated, because they won't do it. And labeling them "such-and-such apologist" and vehemently arguing that their behaviors are contributing to such-and-such culture will only make it harder for you to win them over � and you absolutely do need to win them over if you want to actually make actual progress.

The bottom line is that everyone's moral calculus is different. For you, Reade's accusations were sufficient to not vote for Biden. For many others, including people who themselves are victims, it wasn't. If you want to treat that as a character flaw, that's your prerogative, but don't be surprised when you get pushback for it.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 21:12

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

DoomTrainPhD posted:

By accepting them and voting for Biden I feel as if survivors of sexual assault are being ignored "for the greater good."

What about Biden voters who themselves are survivors?

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 21:30

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

DoomTrainPhD posted:

As discussed earlier, the DNC should not have put them in that position to begin with.

I get that, I'm asking in response to your statement that you feel as if voting for Biden means survivors of sexual assault are being ignored. What about survivors themselves? Were they ignoring their own experiences when voting for Biden, when they could simply have voted third party, or not voted at all?

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 21:34

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Lester Shy posted:

This is my view as well. Part of being a Dem should be saying "we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard even if that means we lose sometimes." It is not enough to simply be less bad than the GOP.

(And given the eventual margins of the election I think electability arguments kind of fall flat in hindsight)

The question of moral culpability of various parties is interesting.

I'm not sure what to think, to be honest. However, it seems that if it is possible for an individual, even a sexual assault survivor, to have done the moral calculus and decided that voting for Biden was worth it for the greater good, it is also possible for the Democratic Party to have done the same calculus about nominating him if they thought that he had the best chance of giving Trump the boot. And if you are of the opinion that it is not reasonable to blame individuals for their decision to vote for Biden, then is it not the consistent stance that blaming the party for nominating him is also unreasonable? After all, the party's job is to nominate the person they think has the best chance of winning the general election based on who they think those voters will vote for. Right?

Now, I think what can be successfully argued is that Biden didn't actually have the best chance of winning, but the Democratic Party carefully crafted the narrative that he did, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. If that is the case, then holding the party morally responsible is reasonable. But I'm not sure if we can get into that here since it would probably be off-topic.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 22:08

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

The "context" is Tara Reade. It definitely isn't stimulus checks, or student loan forgiveness, or any other perceived or real failing of Biden and his policies.

If someone has started a derail, try to not contribute to it with your hot takes.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2021 20:10

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

So I came across this in my Twitter feed and it seems very very bizarre.

The tweet author is a staff writer for The Atlantic.

https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1374367075863556101

There's a bit more in the tweet chain, but... what the hell? Any chance she might be forced to say these things? Should we be worried about Reade's safety or anything?

# ¿ Mar 23, 2021 18:34

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Kalit posted:

She's been an outspoken fan of Putin for at least a few years. In that tweet thread, you can see Isaac-Dovere link to a Salon article talking about it. In that article, it even says that Isaac-Dovere has used that line to try to discredit Reade

Yeah, I guess in that context it makes a bit more sense. Still weird as hell, but as 'How are u' said, she's free to stan for whoever she wants.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2021 18:50

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

To be clear, I didn't say or suggest she's lying. If you think I did, perhaps you read too much into what I posted. If you feel so inclined, you can search my previous dozen or so posts in this thread and see that not only have I outlined my stance on this topic clearly, but also that said stance does not include "Reade lied about Biden."

# ¿ Mar 23, 2021 19:36

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

The thread is presumably about Tara Reade. If she mysteriously fell out a window tomorrow, I think we would be discussing that as well, even though it wouldn't be directly relevant to her allegations about Biden.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2021 20:51

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Jay-V posted:

Tara will get a second look if multiple accusers come forward regardless of her going on RT.

More importantly, this (very common) line of thinking substitutes the sheer number of accusations for substantial investigation and vetting of claims, which is obviously as wrong as assassinating the character of a sexual assault survivor. I don’t blame Tara for assuming the u.s. media treats important establishment Dem politicians as “too big to investigate” without multiple accusers.

The US media had no issues taking an aggressive stance against Sen. Franken, who was very popular and well-liked at the time, because he had nine accusers, and has no issues giving Cuomo's accusers plenty of coverage either (because he also has... what, seven accusers now?). The latter is particularly remarkable since he was treated as a hero for the better part of last year and enjoyed all kinds of positive coverage, to the point where he was told to have started to think about his own presidential run at some point, which won't be happening anymore because of these stories.

With Biden though, there frankly wasn't a lot to go off of, from a media coverage perspective, other than (afaik) a few people in Reade's circle confirming that she (may have?) mentioned/complained about the issue to them back when she said it happened. So it really came down to a he said vs she said situation, and the media realized there wasn't enough actual substance to base a story on, at least beyond what a few outlets initially reported. Seriously, not even the craziest right-wing outlets seized it, despite the fact that it would have been a wonderful opportunity for them to bash Biden.

That is to say, blaming the US media for not giving it coverage because Biden is an "important establishment Dem" is pretty silly. In fact, forget politics: there isn't any evidence that being just rich and powerful is sufficient protection from media scrutiny, as we saw with Harvey Weinstein. On the contrary, it makes stories potentially juicier and makes it more likely that journos who want to make a name for themselves go digging.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2021 21:59

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

I think the idea is that, outside of threads that have specifically been designated as chat/media threads, one is generally expected to put effort into their posts in D&D. Sharing an article or a tweet? Great, tell us who the author is and why their opinion matters and should be listened to. Disagree with someone? Meet effort with effort. Etcetera. These standards aren't new. They have already been established.

I've been away from this thread for a while and been trying to catch up, and the last page seems to be mostly tweet dumps and snarky hot takes, along with a healthy dose of mod sass. So I don't think there's anything wrong with moving the thread to CSPAM if y'all want posts to be in those shapes and forms � after all, we can continue posting in it there, right?

Anyway, I find myself agreeing with some of the pessimistic views expressed earlier: it really doesn't look like much of anything will happen to Cuomo despite numerous credible allegations. But perhaps if he falls from grace due to other reasons...

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1402040050246815749

quote:

Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed material related to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo�s recent memoir as part of their probe into Covid-19 deaths in the state�s nursing homes, people familiar with the matter said.

Prosecutors working for the U.S. Attorney�s Office for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn asked for communications related to Mr. Cuomo�s October 2020 book, �American Crisis,� including contracts and materials used to pitch the book to publishers, the people said. They said the subpoenas indicated prosecutors are interested in nursing-home issues in the book, which more broadly recounted the governor�s response to the pandemic.

The demands were included in subpoenas sent last month to individuals who were involved in editing early versions of the book, the people said, including state officials.

The subpoenas show the criminal probe is continuing to widen beyond its initial request for data on when and where nursing-home residents died during the pandemic. Republican and some Democratic lawmakers have said the governor undercounted the number of Covid-19 deaths attributed to nursing homes as he sought to deflect criticism of his handling of the pandemic's spread in long-term-care facilities.

The rest of the article is paywalled but if his dumb book ends up being the beginning of his downfall it will be even better.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2021 06:33

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

socialsecurity posted:

I don't think that's allowed? Their weird stalking threads are a one way street.

Yeah I would very much prefer if this place did not turn into... that place.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2021 07:39

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Pentecoastal Elites posted:

I was given a sixer for shitposting because I wasn't "meeting effort with effort" but what I want to point out is how Democrat/liberal defense of their rapists is built on "being reasonable" and pedantry about legal and bureaucratic processes -- not the Democrats-as-a-political-party but self-identified Democrats. The party just uses whatever means is at hand to defend their rapists to ensure they remain in the positions they want to be in and/or within the good graces of their donor base. The liberal, or more specifically, Democrat voter, uses the empty dogshit rhetoric about "proper procedure" and "you don't want the democrats to turn into t-t-t-TRUMP, do you?" because their ideological position (and self-image) is compromised if they become willing to admit the "good guy" they voted for and his administration is protecting the bad guy they hate from any consequences whatsoever from his rape of a woman.

This is important and germane to the thread because it should illustrate how the defense of sexual predators is something done by the structures of power, not one of the mickey mouse political teams that we want to tag as "good guys" and "bad guys", and it's important to understand that because it should orient everything we, at any level, can or should do to try and fix things. You can't just vote for the blue team. There's no better side. Until people recognize that the folks handing you your BELIEVE WOMEN yard signs are happily defending powerful rapists on both sides of the aisle literally nothing can happen to make anything better.

This is, in my opinion, even more important on a personal level because it influences how we, the dumbasses posting here, propagate rape culture even though we think we're being woke allies or #resistance fighters or whatever the gently caress. I mean check this out:

Joe Biden, himself a rapist, is in charge of an administration that is protecting Donald Trump, a rapist, from being punished for a rape he committed. That's it! There's no nuance here; that's what's happening, and it is very bad. If being the president means anything, Biden shoulders at least a portion of the responsibility for this.

But, see, it's not actually Joe Biden's fault! It's all very unfair to president ~~Donald Trump~~ Joe Biden because really this is all the fault of ~~Obama~~ Trump loyalists in the Deep State! The nasty lying news media is trying to smear our beautiful boy!

I'm astounded that people around here don't seem to recognize the exact same Trumpworld rhetoric that was floating around in 2016-2017 (whoaa a friggin million years ago XD XD XD everything happens so much!!!!), before the administration and their pundits recognized that Trump voters only cared about the slop and didn't need the big brain reason and logic poo poo: this isn't his fault, he's being unfairly portrayed, he's actually trying to do the right thing! It's not his fault, Obama set this in motion before he left office and his guys are trying to stop Trump from doing what's right! This didn't actually happen, this is a smear campaign by people who are feeding off the news' outrage cycle! etc. etc. etc.

It defends rapists in a national-political sense and also propagates rape culture in a personal, individual sense to let any aspect of this slide because of circumstances/bureaucracy/The Process/whatever the gently caress.

It's bad. gently caress Joe Biden for being a rapist. gently caress Donald Trump for being a rapist. gently caress Joe Biden again for defending and protecting Donald Trump.

"Oh actually the Biden administration hates that the DOJ is doing that and it makes them very sad". Are you kidding me? How have you gotten this far without immediately recognizing the emptiest of empty gestures from a politician. gently caress off.

Please note how I haven't actually made any new points that weren't clear in my "shitposting", but if "good posting" is synonymous with "word count" there you go I guess

I'm gonna quote myself from several months ago. You can click through for context but here's the bit relevant to what you posted:

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Speaking more broadly, these situations are rarely black and white. It is not "support rape culture vs. don't support rape culture." The vast majority of the time, people have to operate in murky gray areas, with imperfect information and conflicting priorities, and have to make the choice that they think is the most optimal one, either for themselves or their communities or both. Demanding that they instead put their foot town and make major sacrifices by picking a side and radically changing their behaviors based on that decision will only make you frustrated, because they won't do it. And labeling them "such-and-such apologist" and vehemently arguing that their behaviors are contributing to such-and-such culture will only make it harder for you to win them over � and you absolutely do need to win them over if you want to actually make actual progress.

So the issue isn't that people continue supporting Biden despite thinking that he's a rapist � some may be like that but probably not most. Rather, the issue is that there are varying degrees of certainty, and the information they have may not be sufficient to surpass the threshold that leads to behavior change. Constantly screaming "BELIEVE WOMEN!" at them and telling them that the people they vote for are rape monsters is unlikely to help; in fact it will probably have the opposite effect. That's important to keep in mind if your goal is to make progress on this issue!

Aside from all that, I'm also wondering how you think allowing low effort posts and snarky hot takes in this thread will actually be productive.

Do you actually think that when someone posts a tweet that says "haha, tara reade is trending, which means libs are doing rape apologia again" it does anything whatsoever other than make those "libs" roll their eyes?

Do you understand that when you post things like "You can't just vote for the blue team... there's no better side... until people recognize that the folks handing you your BELIEVE WOMEN yard signs are happily defending powerful rapists on both sides of the aisle literally nothing can happen to make anything better" you simply lose your audience? Since when has "OPEN YOUR EYES!!!" been a convincing argument?

Like, this is such a basic thing: everyone has a political identity, and if you want to convince them on an issue then directly attacking that identity by telling them their side is just as bad as the other(s) is going to do the very opposite; they will simply dig in more. You understand that, right? So why the hell do you do it constantly, and then get angry when the opposite happens?

As it has been said countless times, if you want to debate various aspects of rape culture, or discuss related events and developments, do it! Nobody is stopping you. Proof of that is this 30+ page thread! But it seems there's a contingent of forum superstars who can only barely hold back their urge to be inflammatory because they loving love riling up the "libs" on this subject (or any other), and they all come out of the woodwork whenever there's a dispute. As someone who has a very personal interest in this topic and has been watching/reading this thread from the sidelines it's a very obvious and annoying trend, and it is what made me stop following it the last time.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2021 18:01

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Pentecoastal Elites posted:

only having done one reported* rape means he's objectively the good guy here and not at all like that awful evil trump who did tons of rapes who... uh... who he's defending... for some reason... even though he hates doing it oooh that trump is just so bad!

* please disregard that Tara Reade has been dragged through the mud, sent death threats, etc. for the last few years by every Democrat and Democrat voter. That's not relevant at all and doesn't suggest anything. Everyone knows that there's lots of times where a rapist only rapes once, pretty late in life, having never ever even thought about doing any rapes before.

hell yeah tone argument let's fuckin gooooooooo!!!

Once again we're smack dab in the middle of palette-swapped 2016-17 Trump voter rhetoric: "you're being intentionally inflammatory", "attacking my side is only making you look bad", "I'm the one you have to convince, actually, and you're not helping your case", "if you keep carrying on like this I'm simply not going to pay attention to your crazy screaming", "calling people an X is only going to make them ignore you... or X even harder!".

Anyway let me lay it out for you so I hit the good post word count threshold: Posting Isn't Praxis. No one posting on Something Awful, or Twitter, or anywhere, should ever be under the impression that their posts are doing something like convincing the "other side" of a point. That doesn't happen.
Sometimes, in aggregate, enough strong arguments in a particular direction may change someone's (even fundamental) positions on something in conjunction with lived experience, class status, etc. In this sense only the content of the argument matters because that's all that's ever going to be evaluated, distantly, as an afterthought. "I read a post SO GOOD it made me a communist" has never been true in the same way "Everyone was mean to me on the online and it made me become a nazi" has never been true.

I'm at least cognizant of my posting here enough to recognize that I cannot and will not convince you or anyone who is fired up enough to respond to me about how my ideas are bad and I'm a mean toxic bully, but I am posting here to refocus and interrogate my own positions and (hopefully) come out with better and stronger stances and formulations of those stances. I'm writing and arguing, ultimately, for myself -- as we all are -- in the hopes that it will make me stronger where it matters: offline, where I actually do have opportunities to convince people.
It should come as no surprise that my offline conversations about this stuff are vastly different from my online conversations because of the nature of those conversations and the relationships involved, and the fact that it does not behoove me even one single bit to be gentle and kind so the people who want to make excuses for rapists, even if they don't believe that's what they're doing.

No one, on any side here, should ever operate under the delusion that we're trying to convince other posters. We're here to make our arguments, and if my being sardonic or direct makes you uncomfortable that seems like a you problem, not a me problem, and might be a very strong hint that you should honestly and objectively interrogate your own positions on this stuff

I feel like your theories are flawed because people manage to convince each other on these forums all the time. Indeed, that's one of the things that draws many people to D&D: the chance to gain new insights and knowledge and to test the mettle of their arguments and opinions against those of others via debate and discourse. But the two must go together, and in order for that to happen you have to be humble and receptive to opposing viewpoints. If you're arguing with people solely to refine your own positions, with no expectation that you might convince the other side or vice versa, that's the very definition of (I hate to even use the term) bad faith because it means you are in it purely for yourself, often at the expense of not just other posters and the community (because you're being abrasive and toxic) but also the causes you purportedly support (because it will push the other side further away).

You are correct that sometimes the issues are so controversial and their implications so foundational that it's not possible to convince the other side right away, and the best that can be hoped for is gradual change. Even then though, humility and empathy go a long way. For example, you snarkily dismissed my post as "tone argument" but perhaps you shouldn't have, because tone does play a big role in argumentation. We are humans, not robots � if you are asking people to question and doubt their very identity, then you better make sure you apply not just the correct rhetorical devices but also the right tone. Viciously attacking them by blaming them of hypocrisy or double-standards and trying to guilt them is not going to work, especially not in the long term because people may forget what you said but tend to remember how you made them feel. And toxic bullying (your words, not mine) tends to induce unpleasant feelings.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2021 19:42

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

World War Mammories posted:

Debates are intrinsically public affairs. The audience is assumed; it is larger than you and one other guy each trying to convince the other - after all, this is not happening via private message. Hence why complaining about how the tone makes you personally upset is so odious. His posts are not for you; they are for anyone who reads them. If he believes that expressing his sincere anger is more likely to buttress his point among the audience, who are you to chastise him?

Moreover, this doesn't even touch on the fact that the issue we're discussing is utterly heinous. To insist people not be angry about sexual harassment and assault is absurd, as if politics doesn't have an emotional component; the personal is political. You allude to this with "humans, not robots"... and somehow conclude that the human who isn't you should just be quietly accepting framing they find utterly amoral.

I didn't say don't be angry. Like I said, I have a personal interest in this topic, and I am angry.

I said maybe don't be a toxic bully who attacks others for not sharing the same opinion.

Regarding your point about audience, there are actually two audiences here. The first consists of people who are on the "Biden is a rapist monster" camp. The second consists of everyone else, including those who may be on the fence. Anger might score a lot of points with the former, but probably not the latter. But then maybe I'm wrong, and loads of lurkers are being converted every hour and we just don't know it. :shrug:

# ¿ Jun 9, 2021 20:18

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Yossarian-22 posted:

What kind of dipshit decorum rule makes this post a moddable offense

silicone thrills posted:

Look you just can't say you hope a guy who raped 60 women dies in a tragic piano accident. It's just uncouth.

I think it's more that this isn't meant to be a low-effort chat thread, and "shitposts" like the one that got probated are probatable.

Maybe don't try to make a mountain out of every loving molehill?

# ¿ Jul 5, 2021 08:11

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

silicone thrills posted:

Seems like a lot of survivors in this thread have indicated what they wanted it to be and it's been ignored. But that's pretty par for the course with this whole subject, eh?

Edit: I don't know a single survivor who wants to write a loving dissertation to back up every opinion they hold that amounts to "rape bad, stop raping, powerful people get away with rape, it needs to change"

I understand your frustration. As someone who has contributed to this thread a fair amount, I say this with a great amount goodwill: I think there are probably more options than "shitpost" and "write a loving dissertation."

At the end of the day, a thread like this is intended to be educational and therefore benefits from a high signal to noise ratio. People might come here to read and learn about rape culture and share and discuss latest developments with regards to powerful figures getting away with sexual harassment and assault, or even share their own experiences. Posting "I hope [rapist] falls down a flight of stairs and dies!" may be satisfying but it also doesn't add much value, which is why it got probated. It's not even a useful conversation starter because probably everyone here agrees with it!

# ¿ Jul 5, 2021 08:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 16:05

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 4 days!)

Biden Overhauls Military Justice Code, Seeking to Curb Sexual Assault

Original link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/28/us/politics/biden-military-sexual-assault.html

This is the culmination of a law Dems passed in 2021 (spearhaded by Sen. Gillibrand) and it replaces commanders with independent military prosecutors in cases of sexual assault, rape, murder and domestic violence. Those prosecutors will in turn report to the civilian leaders of each branch.

quote:

The largest overhaul of the Uniform Code of Military Justice since its creation in 1950 removes commanders� authority over cases of sexual assault and a handful of other high-profile crimes.

---

President Biden gave final approval on Friday to the biggest reshaping in generations of the country�s Uniform Code of Military Justice, stripping commanders of their authority over cases of sexual assault, rape and murder to ensure prosecutions that are independent of the chain of command.

By signing a far-reaching executive order, Mr. Biden ushered in the most significant changes to the modern military legal system since it was created in 1950. The order follows two decades of pressure from lawmakers and advocates of sexual assault victims, who argued that victims in the military were too often denied justice, culminating in a bipartisan law mandating changes.

The White House called the changes to the military justice system �a turning point for survivors of gender-based violence in the military� and said they kept promises Mr. Biden made as a candidate.

�He�s made clear that our one truly sacred obligation as a nation is to prepare and equip those we send into harm�s way, and to care for them and their families both while they are deployed and when they return home,� the statement said. �The reforms implemented through today�s executive order do just that.�

The changes had for years been opposed by military commanders. But they were finally embraced by the Pentagon in 2021 and mandated by a law spearheaded by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York. Mr. Biden signed the landmark legislation into law two days after Christmas that year.

The law set up a two-year process for the Defense Department to create a cadre of special prosecutors to handle sexual assault and a handful of other high-profile crimes. The Offices of Special Trial Counsel, as they will be called, will be staffed by experienced military prosecutors who will report to the civilian leaders of the military�s branches.

The final step needed to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice under the law was a presidential executive order. Lawmakers directed Mr. Biden to issue it by December 2023. White House officials said Mr. Biden did so Friday, five months ahead of the deadline.

Under the rules established by Mr. Biden�s order, commanders in the military will no longer have the authority to decide whether to pursue charges in cases of sexual abuse and a handful of other serious crimes. Instead, that decision will fall to the new, specialized lawyers, White House officials said.

The decisions by those special prosecutors will be final and binding, and cannot be overridden by military commanders.

For years, advocates of sexual assault victims in the military complained that their cases were not taken seriously and were in many cases blocked by the commanders of the service members making the accusations. Over time, complaints grew � especially among young people � about the Pentagon�s tepid response to sexual assault cases.

Members of the top military brass were for years among the chief opponents of changing the code of justice for the armed forces. But that gradually changed. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, a retired Army general, endorsed the changes in 2021. Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had long opposed them, but acknowledged that same year that younger enlisted troops no longer had confidence that sexual assault cases were being taken seriously by the military�s command.

The fading of the military resistance provided the opportunity for bipartisan negotiations, eventually leading to the law in 2021 and, on Friday, Mr. Biden�s executive order.

The move to change the military justice system was also galvanized by the 2020 case of Specialist Vanessa Guillen, whose burned and mutilated body was discovered after she had tried to report instances of sexual harassment by another soldier, who the Army said killed her and later himself.

That case and others were frequently cited by Ms. Gillibrand and other female lawmakers, including former Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat of California, and Senator Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican who is a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel. Ms. Ernst said her own experience as a victim of sexual assault informed her views on the issue.

�President Biden�s executive order will give final approval to removing judicial functions and prosecutorial decisions regarding the most serious crimes from the chain of command and putting them in the hands of independent, trained professionals,� Ms. Gillibrand said in a statement. �While it will take time to see the results of these changes, these measures will instill more trust, professionalism, and confidence in the system.�

White House officials said that the military branches had already begun hiring for the Offices of Special Trial Counsel, which they expected to be fully operational by the end of the year. But they conceded that it would take years to measure how the changes affected the culture surrounding the prosecution of sexual assault and other serious crimes in the military.

Under the executive order, the special trial counsel offices will have their authority expanded in 2025 to include cases of sexual harassment.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2023 17:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > #metoo and the impact of rape culture