Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A Respectful Conversation about Rape Culture
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 23, 24, 25  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2431

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
Was your friend victim-blaming? Yeah, it kind of sounds like it. But it also sounds like he's doing so without being aware of it.

No one accused the friend of intentionally victim-blaming. They are trying to make him aware of the issues, so that next time he can intentionally avoid victim-blaming.

bitflipper wrote:
have you asked him if he finds that costume to be a little over-the-top and a touch too provocative?

The very word "provocative" is troublesome. Examine the word. By using it you are exactly saying she provoked the bad behaviour. Using that word is blaming the victim (yes, unintentionally, just as with BK's "Dude Friend"), and it is not okay.

bitflipper wrote:
That's o-kay; sticks-in-the-mud help keep society from going overboard and exercising "freedoms" that actually impinge upon the freedoms of others.

I don't think this is true, but even if it were, perceived lack of decorum is never an excuse for victim-blaming.

bitflipper wrote:
That much said, there is also the matter of exercising some sense. I would certainly not expect Mandy to wear that costume late on a Friday night in a bad part of town. Doing so would just be inviting trouble.

No. It is unacceptable to say she is inviting trouble. That is victim-blaming. Again, examine the word you are using: "inviting". That puts the onus on the victim, and that is wrong, period.

bitflipper wrote:
Tease the animals, and you're gonna get bit.

No. It is unacceptable to refer to the behaviour as "teasing". That word puts the onus on the victim, and that is wrong, period.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tekii



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 184

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
That's o-kay; sticks-in-the-mud help keep society from going overboard and exercising "freedoms" that actually impinge upon the freedoms of others.


Can you give some examples of the "freedoms" that sticks-in-the-muds prevent and make society a supposed better place because of?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 4550
Location: No.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say the "freedom to not be offended" but it seems to me that sticks-in-the-muds try to pull that shit just as often as any other group.
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silent Dissonance



Joined: 19 Mar 2013
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silent Dissonance



Joined: 19 Mar 2013
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arkhron



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silent Dissonance wrote:
...


.... .. .. -.-. .- -. - .- .-.. -.- .. -. -- --- .-. ... . -.-. --- -.. . - --- ---
_________________
Be mellow

Be compassionate
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1085
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkhron wrote:
Silent Dissonance wrote:
...


.... .. .. -.-. .- -. - .- .-.. -.- .. -. -- --- .-. ... . -.-. --- -.. . - --- ---


... --- .... .. .--. ... - . .-. .-- . ... .--. . .- -.- .. -. -- --- .-. ... . -.-. --- -.. .
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arkhron



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ahahahahah, yeah! Because letters are too mainstream!
_________________
Be mellow

Be compassionate
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Black Kitty



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 704
Location: Under your bed.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Sojobo - that summed up a lot of what I was going to say to Mr. bit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tekii wrote:
bitflipper wrote:
That's o-kay; sticks-in-the-mud help keep society from going overboard and exercising "freedoms" that actually impinge upon the freedoms of others.


Can you give some examples of the "freedoms" that sticks-in-the-muds prevent and make society a supposed better place because of?

Heretical Rants wrote:
I'd say the "freedom to not be offended" but it seems to me that sticks-in-the-muds try to pull that shit just as often as any other group.

Yeah... I'd like to hear more about this myself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I haven't had another response from Dude Friend, but I thought about it a bit longer, and added this:

BlackKitty wrote:
Hm... Maybe this analogy works?

I'm an interviewer at a glam rock/metal convention (sure why not, ha ha). I see a guy in an awesome Freddie Mercury costume, complete with spandex pants. I ask him for an interview about the con, and as we set up, a crowd of women of all shapes and ages gather around us. I mistakenly assume that he dressed up in what I think is a sexy outfit to receive sexual advances, and ask him to tell us all the length of his penis. He says that's none of my business. At this point, he's made it clear that he doesn't want to talk about this, but I say, "Oh, that must mean he's 8 inches!" He tries to make a weird joke to dismiss the question, but instead I turn to the female crowd and ask how long they think his junk is. The crowd of complete strangers starts assessing his package and calling out guesses about his intimate bits. He gets upset by this, tells me I'm unprofessional, and walks away.

In this scenario, am I unprofessional/invasive? Did he overreact? Does he not have a sense of humor? Glam rock is a pretty sexualized genre, after all.

Really, genuinely thinking this through, I'm still of the opinion that you shouldn't assume people want your sexual attention. If you do broach the subject, even jokingly, and the person you're talking to shows that they are uncomfortable, stop talking about it. People deserve respect and common courtesy, regardless of the context.


Last edited by Black Kitty on Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
I'd say the "freedom to not be offended" but it seems to me that sticks-in-the-muds try to pull that shit just as often as any other group.

Yes, but when you get several such groups each vying to exercise their own freedoms as fully as they can get away with, along with demanding their own "freedom not to be offended" be respected, then you achieve a balance--a rather dynamic, changing balance, it must be said, but a balance, nonetheless--which prevents any single group from over-running everyone else's freedoms with their own.

At least, that's the theory; our society still has a long way to go before everyone's on equal-enough footing for that dynamic to work well.

In the meantime, the sticks-in-the-mud serve as a brake on the engine of social progress. Change can happen too quickly, with a host of societal and psychological problems resulting from it, such as excessive strife as those overrun by the change or left behind by it struggle to regain their lost advantages, and such as future shock to the individual. Change that comes slowly enough that people can adjust to it, accept it, and assimilate it, is healthy, both for people and for societies. Change that comes too rapidly, though, overwhelms people, and they reject it, feeling it is being forced upon them instead of growing with them. The "brakes"--those conservative, prudish sticks-in-the-mud--help the change come at a pace that can be accepted and, therefore, lasting, and with minimal strife after.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tekii



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 184

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see any examples of "freedoms" that sticks in the mud prevent in your answer that make society a better place. So I ask again can you give some examples, please?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 4550
Location: No.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

.... . / .-- --- -. .----. - / --. .. ...- . / .- -. / . -..- .- -- .--. .-.. . / -... . -.-. .- ..- ... . / - .... . .-. . / .. ... / -. --- / --. --- --- -.. / . -..- .- -- .--. .-.. .

dang commies
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's the best I can offer, right now; I might have a better answer, tomorrow, but I'm too tired to think coherentlt, right now
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tekii



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 184

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
That's the best I can offer, right now; I might have a better answer, tomorrow, but I'm too tired to think coherentlt, right now


Have you had enough time to think up some examples?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me start by clarifying my original statement: what I meant by enclosing "freedoms" that are prevented in quotes was to say that there are abuses that are commonly defended as freedoms but truly aren't because such freedoms impinge on the freedoms of others. One classic example: I am free to say whatever I like, right? Well, no, in actuality, I'm not. Even setting aside matters such as hate speech, which, in some countries, is actually illegal, there is the matter of simple decency. If I stand on the street corner screaming obscenities, I can expect to be shunned by others, and even told by police officers to moderate my tone. If I fail to obey those officers, I can--even in the U.S.--be arrested and jailed. The charge would be creating a public disturbance. And, no matter how much I cry "First Amendment," I would stay in jail until I'm arraigned, after which I can post bond, and I will be fined for creating a public disturbance. A person's right to free speech does not grant free license to disrupt other people's rights to a peaceable existence.

Let's consider, also, a matter more relevant to the article Black Kitty posted: am I free to wear whatever, even as little as I like, anywhere I like? Nope. There are statutes regarding public indecency just about everywhere. So, if I go around with my genitals exposed anywhere other than in designated clothing optional areas, I can again expect to see the inside of a jail cell, and the charge will indeed stick.

Laws such as public disturbance and public indecency typically are proposed, passed, and enforced by the conservative elements of a society. We may consider such laws as prudish, even a little absurd. But, they exist to prevent individuals from exercising their rights to such extreme extents that they impinge upon other rights of the community as a whole. HR might call this "freedom not to be offended," and even classify it as "shit people pull." He may even be right. But the fact is that those conservative laws exist and that they do serve a purpose in protecting the rights of many by restricting the "freedoms"--unreasonable over-extensions of freedoms, to be more accurate--of the few who wish to push things to extremes unacceptable to the communities in which they live.

edit: Made the free speech paragraph a little less U.S.-specific.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 23, 24, 25  Next
Page 2 of 25

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group