|
We understand that this topic evokes strong feelings. In the interest of maintaining a necessary and productive discussion, we will be taking a strong stance against posters that clearly do not contribute to this aim. Dishonest and bad faith arguments, victim blaming, and attacks on other users, will be strictly moderated. A post which only serves to muddy the waters and dishonestly portray the nature of assault and harassment (and corresponding accusations) is also unwelcome. |
On July 14 2020 14:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2020 14:07 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 13:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 14 2020 13:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 13:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 14 2020 13:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On July 14 2020 07:43 BasetradeTV wrote:
I don't know who I need to speak to about this, but I'd appreciate if my name wasn't included in this considering the post made on reddit was full of straight up lies with zero proof to back up the false allegations against me (Rifkin)
It's not a secret, but it's also not something heavily publicized by me, but I'm asexual, so the idea that they accused me of asking them back to my hotel room is just absurd. Furthered made ridiculous by the fact that every time I've ever attended an event it's been sharing a room with zombiegrub, or feardragon, or panicswitched, or allaryce etc. I removed it for you. You deserve an equal opportunity to stand up for yourself. If something new comes to light that is substantiated then we will make sure to be thorough about whether it should be in the OP or not. However, I must call some BS on your statement. I'm not sure there is a man or woman of any orientation out there who can resist feardragon. Agreed, especially the Feardragon part. But in seriousness I think that’s the right mod call, the reddit OP was deleted for whatever reason so at least to someone who didn’t see it initially there is little I can glean from it/it appears to have been retracted in some form or another. Help me understand why this doesn't conform to the 'always believe the accuser' rule? I thought that rule was a matter of principle. I'm not trying to use a gotcha argument or argue in bad faith, i'm genuinely curious. There’s nothing to believe, or disbelieve. The reddit post OP doesn’t contain anything now. So if you’re like me and didn’t see it until relatively recently and you go in there’s nothing there in terms of allegations, just a ‘this post has been deleted’. With the other posts there are allegations with details of said allegations, with Rifkin being in the OP there is... nothing. Bar responses to the allegations. I feel it’s unfair to lump in Rifkin with other allegations that have tons of detail behind their allegations, corroboration etc when the allegations against him don’t even have an existing post. I really am a complete Reddit noob though, just use it to steal Starcraft builds, I’m unsure if the person who made the post deleted it, or mods deleted it. I assumed the former but then again, Reddit noob. TL lets you know if a mod has nuked a post or a user has edited it or w/e. It’s not that I want to not believe an accusation, I just don’t even know what is being alleged in this particular incident so to have it lumped in with the other accusations outlined in this thread seems a bit off to me. The Starcraft 2 subreddit has a 'no accusations' rule i think and it was deleted by mods (as I understand it). The accusation wasn't really one of sexual harrassment or anything. The user said that rifkin was generally sleazy and invited her and other women back to her flat and things like 'his only tweets are to women saying they have a nice bum' and stuff like that. I don't think they were trying to get him fired, just throwing a bunch of kinda vague accusations his way that he's a pretty sleazy guy. I'll admit I don't know what to think of it. Thanks for the clarification, was not aware of that rule. Made it appear to me that the person had retracted their accusation. I mean I don’t really know what to make of it either. Rifkin’s defence in this thread is that he’s asexual so these things are silly to accuse him of, and also that he tends to room with Zombiegrub and others when on work duty so can’t exactly invite people back to his room unnoticed. I’m pretty ignorant of how asexuality manifests itself and I’m sure it differs amongst individuals from not really having any concept of the thing to being familiar but not being particularly bothered. It does seem rather contradictory to claim to be assexual but letting people know they have a nice arse on Twitter, but as I say I’m ignorant of this domain. It feels kind of awkward talking about it knowing rifkin is in the thread and maybe reading. That awkwardness highlights how challenging this stuff is for everyone involved, but I think it makes it even more important to be open and thorough in our discussion of where our lines are drawn. I find it really difficult to stick to the 'always believe the accuser' thing. I'm not saying its wrong, i'm saying I find it very hard not to take the accused's side at times. Rifkin here is one of those cases. I want to believe him because my brain says to believe him, but at the same time i know i should believe the victim because of all the things about victims being marginalized by an uncaring indifferent system. Then again the victim in this case isn't really a 'victim' in the normal sense of the word but again i don't know if that's my man brain doing what man brains do. Its like I'm all twisted up by the ideology and that is distracting me from the details of the case, but simultaneously i'm all twisted up by the details of the case and that is distracting me from the wider political point.
You don't have to immediately jump onto believing or not believing the accuser. While fake accusations are a minority, they still exist. And you can be supportive and thoughtful without picking sides.
|
On July 14 2020 14:38 serendipitous wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2020 14:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 14 2020 14:07 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 13:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 14 2020 13:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 13:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 14 2020 13:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On July 14 2020 07:43 BasetradeTV wrote:
I don't know who I need to speak to about this, but I'd appreciate if my name wasn't included in this considering the post made on reddit was full of straight up lies with zero proof to back up the false allegations against me (Rifkin)
It's not a secret, but it's also not something heavily publicized by me, but I'm asexual, so the idea that they accused me of asking them back to my hotel room is just absurd. Furthered made ridiculous by the fact that every time I've ever attended an event it's been sharing a room with zombiegrub, or feardragon, or panicswitched, or allaryce etc. I removed it for you. You deserve an equal opportunity to stand up for yourself. If something new comes to light that is substantiated then we will make sure to be thorough about whether it should be in the OP or not. However, I must call some BS on your statement. I'm not sure there is a man or woman of any orientation out there who can resist feardragon. Agreed, especially the Feardragon part. But in seriousness I think that’s the right mod call, the reddit OP was deleted for whatever reason so at least to someone who didn’t see it initially there is little I can glean from it/it appears to have been retracted in some form or another. Help me understand why this doesn't conform to the 'always believe the accuser' rule? I thought that rule was a matter of principle. I'm not trying to use a gotcha argument or argue in bad faith, i'm genuinely curious. There’s nothing to believe, or disbelieve. The reddit post OP doesn’t contain anything now. So if you’re like me and didn’t see it until relatively recently and you go in there’s nothing there in terms of allegations, just a ‘this post has been deleted’. With the other posts there are allegations with details of said allegations, with Rifkin being in the OP there is... nothing. Bar responses to the allegations. I feel it’s unfair to lump in Rifkin with other allegations that have tons of detail behind their allegations, corroboration etc when the allegations against him don’t even have an existing post. I really am a complete Reddit noob though, just use it to steal Starcraft builds, I’m unsure if the person who made the post deleted it, or mods deleted it. I assumed the former but then again, Reddit noob. TL lets you know if a mod has nuked a post or a user has edited it or w/e. It’s not that I want to not believe an accusation, I just don’t even know what is being alleged in this particular incident so to have it lumped in with the other accusations outlined in this thread seems a bit off to me. The Starcraft 2 subreddit has a 'no accusations' rule i think and it was deleted by mods (as I understand it). The accusation wasn't really one of sexual harrassment or anything. The user said that rifkin was generally sleazy and invited her and other women back to her flat and things like 'his only tweets are to women saying they have a nice bum' and stuff like that. I don't think they were trying to get him fired, just throwing a bunch of kinda vague accusations his way that he's a pretty sleazy guy. I'll admit I don't know what to think of it. Thanks for the clarification, was not aware of that rule. Made it appear to me that the person had retracted their accusation. I mean I don’t really know what to make of it either. Rifkin’s defence in this thread is that he’s asexual so these things are silly to accuse him of, and also that he tends to room with Zombiegrub and others when on work duty so can’t exactly invite people back to his room unnoticed. I’m pretty ignorant of how asexuality manifests itself and I’m sure it differs amongst individuals from not really having any concept of the thing to being familiar but not being particularly bothered. It does seem rather contradictory to claim to be assexual but letting people know they have a nice arse on Twitter, but as I say I’m ignorant of this domain. It feels kind of awkward talking about it knowing rifkin is in the thread and maybe reading. That awkwardness highlights how challenging this stuff is for everyone involved, but I think it makes it even more important to be open and thorough in our discussion of where our lines are drawn. I find it really difficult to stick to the 'always believe the accuser' thing. I'm not saying its wrong, i'm saying I find it very hard not to take the accused's side at times. Rifkin here is one of those cases. I want to believe him because my brain says to believe him, but at the same time i know i should believe the victim because of all the things about victims being marginalized by an uncaring indifferent system. Then again the victim in this case isn't really a 'victim' in the normal sense of the word but again i don't know if that's my man brain doing what man brains do. Its like I'm all twisted up by the ideology and that is distracting me from the details of the case, but simultaneously i'm all twisted up by the details of the case and that is distracting me from the wider political point. You don't have to immediately jump onto believing or not believing the accuser. While fake accusations are a minority, they still exist. And you can be supportive and thoughtful without picking sides.
Of course you are right, and being supportive and thoughtful without picking sides is certainly the non controversial option. But this is a controversial topic for a reason, which is that not picking sides is essentially an endorsement of the status quo (why do I feel like this is GH's words coming out of my mouth?).
Is picking sides not what metoo is about? Its a movement saying 'hold up a minute, who's on the victim's side here, if the system is rigged against them?'
I'm going back and forth on this. Earlier in the thread I was giving out sentiments similar to you and wombat here, that supporting the victim doesn't necessarily entail punishing the accused. I'm wondering though whether that's enough. I don't know tbh. It feels like an unbreakable cognitive dissonance of some kind.
|
Well if its true that he told a girl she had a nice ass and invited her to his hotel room, thats some insane sexual harassment right there. Call the fbi
User was warned for this post
|
What in the actual fuck is this.
I can't even fathom to understand how or why you would act like this. What in the actual fuck can people do this...
And reading through this it gets WORSE. what in the actual fuck. Yes i wrote it 3 times. Because... WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCKS.
|
On July 14 2020 16:45 Timebon3s wrote:
Well if its true that he told a girl she had a nice ass and invited her to his hotel room, thats some insane sexual harassment right there. Call the fbi
This is literally how it begins. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Regardless of whether or not Rifkin did anything (the comments seemed to have been removed), do you really think this is the right thread to make sarcastic jokes that trivialize the subject, when there are tons of other released stories that incorporate harassment, assault, and rape, to say nothing of an unknown number of additional silent survivors? Do you have any idea how many people (especially women) are similarly harassed every day with superficial, sexualized comments and catcalling? It's not okay. If it turned out that a member of the community was notorious for making inappropriate, objectifying remarks about/towards other people, we should be discussing that too. The behavior doesn't have to be literally illegal for us to decide "hey, maybe we shouldn't look the other way when that happens, because things can escalate and some jokes or comments really aren't appropriate".
|
Bisutopia19219 Posts
On July 14 2020 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2020 16:45 Timebon3s wrote:
Well if its true that he told a girl she had a nice ass and invited her to his hotel room, thats some insane sexual harassment right there. Call the fbi This is literally how it begins. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Regardless of whether or not Rifkin did anything (the comments seemed to have been removed), do you really think this is the right thread to make sarcastic jokes that trivialize the subject, when there are tons of other released stories that incorporate harassment, assault, and rape, to say nothing of an unknown number of additional silent survivors? Do you have any idea how many people (especially women) are similarly harassed every day with superficial, sexualized comments and catcalling? It's not okay. If it turned out that a member of the community was notorious for making inappropriate, objectifying remarks about/towards other people, we should be discussing that too. The behavior doesn't have to be literally illegal for us to decide "hey, maybe we shouldn't look the other way when that happens, because things can escalate and some jokes or comments really aren't appropriate".
I get where you are coming from and maybe this thread isn't the best place for light hearted jokes. But, I burn out super easily on a discussion when people are so vehemently serious that they jump down the throat of anyone who says anything off color. Its okay for people to take a subject seriously and have a light moment periodically. My reaction to that post was a light chuckle and then internal thought of "okay, nice distraction, let's get back on key now." I think if we let this moment go instead of turning it into a heated debate that will derail the thread over such a simple post. I don't think any amount of pages of discussion will change that person's mind, and that's okay.
|
On July 14 2020 14:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2020 14:38 serendipitous wrote:On July 14 2020 14:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 14 2020 14:07 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 13:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 14 2020 13:29 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 13:16 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 14 2020 13:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 14 2020 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On July 14 2020 07:43 BasetradeTV wrote:
I don't know who I need to speak to about this, but I'd appreciate if my name wasn't included in this considering the post made on reddit was full of straight up lies with zero proof to back up the false allegations against me (Rifkin)
It's not a secret, but it's also not something heavily publicized by me, but I'm asexual, so the idea that they accused me of asking them back to my hotel room is just absurd. Furthered made ridiculous by the fact that every time I've ever attended an event it's been sharing a room with zombiegrub, or feardragon, or panicswitched, or allaryce etc. I removed it for you. You deserve an equal opportunity to stand up for yourself. If something new comes to light that is substantiated then we will make sure to be thorough about whether it should be in the OP or not. However, I must call some BS on your statement. I'm not sure there is a man or woman of any orientation out there who can resist feardragon. Agreed, especially the Feardragon part. But in seriousness I think that’s the right mod call, the reddit OP was deleted for whatever reason so at least to someone who didn’t see it initially there is little I can glean from it/it appears to have been retracted in some form or another. Help me understand why this doesn't conform to the 'always believe the accuser' rule? I thought that rule was a matter of principle. I'm not trying to use a gotcha argument or argue in bad faith, i'm genuinely curious. There’s nothing to believe, or disbelieve. The reddit post OP doesn’t contain anything now. So if you’re like me and didn’t see it until relatively recently and you go in there’s nothing there in terms of allegations, just a ‘this post has been deleted’. With the other posts there are allegations with details of said allegations, with Rifkin being in the OP there is... nothing. Bar responses to the allegations. I feel it’s unfair to lump in Rifkin with other allegations that have tons of detail behind their allegations, corroboration etc when the allegations against him don’t even have an existing post. I really am a complete Reddit noob though, just use it to steal Starcraft builds, I’m unsure if the person who made the post deleted it, or mods deleted it. I assumed the former but then again, Reddit noob. TL lets you know if a mod has nuked a post or a user has edited it or w/e. It’s not that I want to not believe an accusation, I just don’t even know what is being alleged in this particular incident so to have it lumped in with the other accusations outlined in this thread seems a bit off to me. The Starcraft 2 subreddit has a 'no accusations' rule i think and it was deleted by mods (as I understand it). The accusation wasn't really one of sexual harrassment or anything. The user said that rifkin was generally sleazy and invited her and other women back to her flat and things like 'his only tweets are to women saying they have a nice bum' and stuff like that. I don't think they were trying to get him fired, just throwing a bunch of kinda vague accusations his way that he's a pretty sleazy guy. I'll admit I don't know what to think of it. Thanks for the clarification, was not aware of that rule. Made it appear to me that the person had retracted their accusation. I mean I don’t really know what to make of it either. Rifkin’s defence in this thread is that he’s asexual so these things are silly to accuse him of, and also that he tends to room with Zombiegrub and others when on work duty so can’t exactly invite people back to his room unnoticed. I’m pretty ignorant of how asexuality manifests itself and I’m sure it differs amongst individuals from not really having any concept of the thing to being familiar but not being particularly bothered. It does seem rather contradictory to claim to be assexual but letting people know they have a nice arse on Twitter, but as I say I’m ignorant of this domain. It feels kind of awkward talking about it knowing rifkin is in the thread and maybe reading. That awkwardness highlights how challenging this stuff is for everyone involved, but I think it makes it even more important to be open and thorough in our discussion of where our lines are drawn. I find it really difficult to stick to the 'always believe the accuser' thing. I'm not saying its wrong, i'm saying I find it very hard not to take the accused's side at times. Rifkin here is one of those cases. I want to believe him because my brain says to believe him, but at the same time i know i should believe the victim because of all the things about victims being marginalized by an uncaring indifferent system. Then again the victim in this case isn't really a 'victim' in the normal sense of the word but again i don't know if that's my man brain doing what man brains do. Its like I'm all twisted up by the ideology and that is distracting me from the details of the case, but simultaneously i'm all twisted up by the details of the case and that is distracting me from the wider political point. You don't have to immediately jump onto believing or not believing the accuser. While fake accusations are a minority, they still exist. And you can be supportive and thoughtful without picking sides. Of course you are right, and being supportive and thoughtful without picking sides is certainly the non controversial option. But this is a controversial topic for a reason, which is that not picking sides is essentially an endorsement of the status quo (why do I feel like this is GH's words coming out of my mouth?). Is picking sides not what metoo is about? Its a movement saying 'hold up a minute, who's on the victim's side here, if the system is rigged against them?' I'm going back and forth on this. Earlier in the thread I was giving out sentiments similar to you and wombat here, that supporting the victim doesn't necessarily entail punishing the accused. I'm wondering though whether that's enough. I don't know tbh. It feels like an unbreakable cognitive dissonance of some kind.
What is there to support the victim about in this case? If they come back out with their case then we can hear them out and sympathize with them, and decide for ourselves on the merits of the case whether or not we believe them. As of right now we should remain aware that there was an accusation but that we have literally no details about what the accusation was or who it was made by(I think). Therefore, the most we can do is sympathize with the assumed victim and refrain from making any judgement.
The more details that come out the easier it is to decide whether or not you believe a case. In a case where there are very few details it is a good idea to withhold judgement. Unfortunately, this has historically led to rape cases being undertried, but that's a great discussion to have about how our legal systems should be viewing these sorts of crimes and allegations.
@BisuDagger I get the desire to joke sometimes, and there have been some in this thread that I've found funny, but in a topic like this it's harder to cross the offensive-funny line, so it generally has to be a good joke to be worth it, and it always risks diminishing the conversation.
I'm not going to hate on Timebon3s for not being a professional comedian but this is a weak "joke" we've heard plenty of times before that really just serves to diminish the conversation. It's also mildly offensive to me because it's trying to act as if calling that sort of action sexual harassment is overblown when it can easily actually be sexual harassment.
|
On July 14 2020 21:21 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2020 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2020 16:45 Timebon3s wrote:
Well if its true that he told a girl she had a nice ass and invited her to his hotel room, thats some insane sexual harassment right there. Call the fbi This is literally how it begins. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Regardless of whether or not Rifkin did anything (the comments seemed to have been removed), do you really think this is the right thread to make sarcastic jokes that trivialize the subject, when there are tons of other released stories that incorporate harassment, assault, and rape, to say nothing of an unknown number of additional silent survivors? Do you have any idea how many people (especially women) are similarly harassed every day with superficial, sexualized comments and catcalling? It's not okay. If it turned out that a member of the community was notorious for making inappropriate, objectifying remarks about/towards other people, we should be discussing that too. The behavior doesn't have to be literally illegal for us to decide "hey, maybe we shouldn't look the other way when that happens, because things can escalate and some jokes or comments really aren't appropriate". I get where you are coming from and maybe this thread isn't the best place for light hearted jokes. But, I burn out super easily on a discussion when people are so vehemently serious that they jump down the throat of anyone who says anything off color. Its okay for people to take a subject seriously and have a light moment periodically. My reaction to that post was a light chuckle and then internal thought of "okay, nice distraction, let's get back on key now." I think if we let this moment go instead of turning it into a heated debate that will derail the thread over such a simple post. I don't think any amount of pages of discussion will change that person's mind, and that's okay.
If a person is burnt out from discussing heavy, serious topics like sexual abuse, the solution is to take a short break and temporarily remove themselves from the conversation, not to start making sarcastic comments at the expense of potential victims - especially the "it's no big deal" remarks that echo what harassers and abusers actually think and say, when they get called out for being inappropriate, regardless of where on the spectrum they land. I don't understand why a thread containing serious stories about harassment and assault would be a reasonable place for someone to make a "light hearted joke" about anything even remotely related to trivializing inappropriate behavior. I'm more than happy to move on though.
|
edit: ban prevention edit
|
On July 14 2020 23:45 castleeMg wrote:
honestly this is the most beta white knight shit ive ever read in my life. men can flirt and they are not wrong to flirt. would i tell a woman she has a nice ass and invite her to my hotel room? no its too brash and direct, do i think its sexual harassment and this man should be burned at the stake and have his life ruined on the internet for aggressively flirting? absolutely not. i seriously doubt any woman would deal with "trauma" if some cringy guy came up to her and said this, most of them would probably say "uh... no" and then have a good laugh with their friends about it. most women are strong minded people who are not going to mentality deteriorate cause some horny nerd wants sex and doesnt know how to flirt
I'm not really interested in having a conversation with people who strawman scenarios and don't want to discuss things in good faith, sorry. People aren't asking to burn offenders at the stake just because of an inappropriate pick-up line. This is part of a broader, systemic context that you don't seem to be aware of, but it's been extensively talked about throughout this thread. I don't really care if you call it "beta white knight shit", and I'm not sure what the aim of your response was, but it's certainly not going to be persuasive to me.
|
On July 15 2020 00:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2020 23:45 castleeMg wrote:
honestly this is the most beta white knight shit ive ever read in my life. men can flirt and they are not wrong to flirt. would i tell a woman she has a nice ass and invite her to my hotel room? no its too brash and direct, do i think its sexual harassment and this man should be burned at the stake and have his life ruined on the internet for aggressively flirting? absolutely not. i seriously doubt any woman would deal with "trauma" if some cringy guy came up to her and said this, most of them would probably say "uh... no" and then have a good laugh with their friends about it. most women are strong minded people who are not going to mentality deteriorate cause some horny nerd wants sex and doesnt know how to flirt I'm not really interested in having a conversation with people who strawman scenarios and don't want to discuss things in good faith, sorry. People aren't asking to burn offenders at the stake just because of an inappropriate pick-up line. This is part of a broader, systemic context that you don't seem to be aware of, but it's been extensively talked about throughout this thread. I don't really care if you call it "beta white knight shit", and I'm not sure what the aim of your response was, but it's certainly not going to be persuasive to me.
Gotta agree with castle there. Also, whats with people resorting to "strawman" counterarguments when it doesn't even make sense to use that as a counterargument? What he said couldn't even be considered "strawman" rofl. Seen this a few times on this forum already. It must be some sort of last resort defense mechanism when they don't know how to handle when their logic is challenged. "crap, how do i spin this around to make it look like i'm not wrong!?" lol. My dudes, it's stupid crap like this that kills views and interest in ANY scene. Just remember, disney screwed up so hard by pushing the sjw narrative they gotta go back and re-write starwars just to save the entire franchise ROFL. Hell, half of the people crying metoo in the "abuses" linked instances don't even know what constitutes as harassment. A person telling another person they have a nice ass and inviting them back to a hotel room, them being turned down and never mentioning it again......does not constitute as harassment. If she had said no leave me alone and he kept doing it, well then it would be harassment. Literally, look up the definition. Castle is right, rational thinker he is.
When people attack your grammar after you make a serious point, you know their logic has been challenged, they are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
|
Yes, I'm sure the person focused on SJWism and with a complete lack of grammar is going to school us on logical fallacies.
|
h20Fanatic's post legitimately confused me, because it's textbook strawmanning to respond to statements like "can we not make jokes that trivialize harassment, especially in this thread" and/or "making inappropriate comments is not okay" with "wtf why do you think this person should be burned at the stake!?" Regardless, the original poster of the comment, Timebon3s, was warned, so I think we should all move on.
|
On July 15 2020 02:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
h20Fanatic's post legitimately confused me, because it's textbook strawmanning to respond to statements like "can we not make jokes that trivialize harassment, especially in this thread" and/or "making inappropriate comments is not okay" with "wtf why do you think this person should be burned at the stake!?" Regardless, the original poster of the comment, Timebon3s, was warned, so I think we should all move on.
I think you should worry about yourself. Timebon3s making a point. A lot of this crap was nonsense. Rationally thinking adults agree.
User was warned for this post.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24637 Posts
On July 15 2020 02:41 h20Fanatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2020 00:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 14 2020 23:45 castleeMg wrote:
honestly this is the most beta white knight shit ive ever read in my life. men can flirt and they are not wrong to flirt. would i tell a woman she has a nice ass and invite her to my hotel room? no its too brash and direct, do i think its sexual harassment and this man should be burned at the stake and have his life ruined on the internet for aggressively flirting? absolutely not. i seriously doubt any woman would deal with "trauma" if some cringy guy came up to her and said this, most of them would probably say "uh... no" and then have a good laugh with their friends about it. most women are strong minded people who are not going to mentality deteriorate cause some horny nerd wants sex and doesnt know how to flirt I'm not really interested in having a conversation with people who strawman scenarios and don't want to discuss things in good faith, sorry. People aren't asking to burn offenders at the stake just because of an inappropriate pick-up line. This is part of a broader, systemic context that you don't seem to be aware of, but it's been extensively talked about throughout this thread. I don't really care if you call it "beta white knight shit", and I'm not sure what the aim of your response was, but it's certainly not going to be persuasive to me. Gotta agree with castle there. Also, whats with people resorting to "strawman" counterarguments when it doesn't even make sense to use that as a counterargument? What he said couldn't even be considered "strawman" rofl. Seen this a few times on this forum already. It must be some sort of last resort defense mechanism when they don't know how to handle when their logic is challenged. "crap, how do i spin this around to make it look like i'm not wrong!?" lol. My dudes, it's stupid crap like this that kills views and interest in ANY scene. Just remember, disney screwed up so hard by pushing the sjw narrative they gotta go back and re-write starwars just to save the entire franchise ROFL. Hell, half of the people crying metoo in the "abuses" linked instances don't even know what constitutes as harassment. A person telling another person they have a nice ass and inviting them back to a hotel room, them being turned down and never mentioning it again......does not constitute as harassment. If she had said no leave me alone and he kept doing it, well then it would be harassment. Literally, look up the definition. Castle is right, rational thinker he is. When people attack your grammar after you make a serious point, you know their logic has been challenged, they are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
The strawman is that people who want to have a serious discussion on this and surrounding issues want a world where people aren’t allowed to flirt with women or be burned at the stake or w/e.
It’s as clear an incidence of it as one can muster given posters have frequently stressed that no, this is not what it is being advocated, at all.
As for shoehorning in Star Wars I don’t really get the anger over its supposed woke politics and catering to ‘SJWs’ as I didn’t really see much of that in the actual films. They did make a fair bit of money to boot.
|
Edit:
This really didn't belong in this thread.
|
The blurry lines between what is socially awkward and uncomfortable and what is actually harassment that should be punished or might even be criminal needs to be discussed.
I generally admire how women usually absolutely nail this when dealing with men. Sure, there are exceptions, but my experience is that outgoing women are very diligent about when to flirt, hug, touch a butt, or make an aggressive move on a guy. Maybe guys are just generally worse at judging situations, or that girls who would screw up badly just do nothing and wait for the guy to make the move. I have heard "I haven't had sex in 2 years" tried as a pick-up line, which is pretty awful imo, but it far from being intrusive, and makes it very easy to express little interest in return.
We all have a duty to educate how to not cross the lines of others, but also how to hit on people in a respectful way.
|
A very close friend of mine posted a pic, to which I commented, 'OI U 'AVE A NOICE BUM"
She liked the tweet.
That should be the end of the story?
|
Yes, that's not harassment in my opinion. If you were to go up to some random woman you don't know and whisper "nice bum" in her ear it would be. It depends on the context of an action, which is part of what makes this topic so nuanced and hard for us to think about properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
