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 

2014-03-26: Sexy Pain
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6077
Location: California

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
If we can be clear here, I was and still am playing the devil's advocate.


good to hear you're admitting defeat without having the guts to actually admit defeat
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MerchManDan



Joined: 20 Nov 2007
Posts: 2009
Location: Somewhere else.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was wondering when the Devils Advocate card was going to be played. Though to be fair, I haven't read all of OKSuns comments; for all I know, he may have already said it.
_________________
mouse wrote:
almost a shame to waste dennis' talent on him.
except it's always a pleasure to see a good dennis insult.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9551

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
And for that matter, at what point do we have to consider something as being a potential trigger, or assume there are triggerable people around us? I mean in my examples there are obviously going to be people with triggers at the sexual abuse meeting, and probably not at the leather bar, because that would be putting themselves in a potentially trigger-filled place. But walking down the street, at a local cafe, in a restaurant?

I'd assume that it'd be okay as long as you followed common courtesy - keep the volume down, other people might not want to hear?


sort of related: there's been pushback on the promulgation of trigger warnings as mandatory protocol in many spheres

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
If we can be clear here, I was and still am playing the devil's advocate.


good to hear you're admitting defeat without having the guts to actually admit defeat


It's not admitting defeat to say that I wouldn't stand in someone's face and attempt to cause them psychological trauma just so I can defend my right to walk around talking about raping someone's dog. I was making the argument that there's no great good to society being done by taking the stance of caution in public speech too far.

I took it farther than I would personally in order to properly flesh out the argument, hence the devil's advocate point. It wasn't until people started personally attributing "asshole" actions to myself that I felt it was worth reminding people that in 9 pages of comments, I haven't been attributing these specific actions to myself.

No, I would probably not be the person in the room saying something that would trigger a person. However, I would absolutely be the person in the room reminding everyone that of the two people, the person experiencing the panic attack and the person causing the panic attack, the scale must tip towards the person who caused it.

I don't like the Westboro church either, but I'm not interested or supportive of any changes that keep them from being assholes.


Last edited by OklahomanSun on Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
If you don't see anything being done to stop the conversation, it's likely the level of the conversation is not something that would rise to harm for a "reasonable person". As I said, and have continued to say, there must be a limit, a lower level.


Dude. There are kinds of harm that are more invisible than others, sometimes only visible at the time to the one experiencing it, and it is NOT the job of a person who is currently navigating triggered flashbacks of bodily violation to immediately confront and engage with the person who triggered them.

As for other people doing something to curtail the behavior outside of the moment, that's what this conversation is, and what you are resisting.

This whole conversation has been about that particular scenario. Your supposed moral distillation is so general as to be mostly useless.

Dude, you are being an asshole, and you're not only incredibly ignorant about what kinds of harms people with PTSD from sexual assault experience and how big a problem that is, but now you're falling back on the friggin' bandwagon argument. If people are visibly opposing it it's reasonably hurtful, if they're not it's nbd? That is a CRAPTASTIC moral position. How about IF IT HURTS SOMEONE IT'S HARMFUL, regardless of whether anyone is actively standing up for them or not? An asshole is an asshole regardless of whether anyone is actively standing up to them. A shitty action is a shitty action regardless whether anyone is calling it out or not.

Don't you dare try to "name-drop" Voltaire in this conversation when your own moral philosophy is so thoughtless and primative. You are the one who described a specific argument in favor of tyranny of the majority, and I was pointing it out. And Monkey is also right, that the scenario that's actually being discussed here is much more like a tyranny of the minority on the part of those who insist on swinging their triggery conversations around heedless of who it hits--and that disconnect is also from your arguments, because you're the one who argued in favor of a "free speech" tyranny of the majority in a conversation about bad behaviors that can occasionally come from people in a subset of a particular kink community.


You may want to read a few pages back before you start talking about my lack of knowledge of PTSD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Thanks for the insults. They're simultaneously productive and also indicate that I've made more points than you are willing to admit, or else there wouldn't be a reason to devolve to said insults.


No. That isn't how logic works.


I'll wait for you to show me where insults fit into a conclusive logical argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6077
Location: California

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
I took it farther than I would personally in order to properly flesh out the argument, hence the devil's advocate point.


no, you threw the devil's advocate card only once it became clear you weren't going to convince anyone or come up with any strong arguments for your position, and once people stopped dignifying your filibusters with actual effort. it's pretty predictable.

if you were really playing devil's advocate (and not just saying so after the fact in order to save face) you would've made it clear at the outset. you didn't do that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1053

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
Samsally wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Thanks for the insults. They're simultaneously productive and also indicate that I've made more points than you are willing to admit, or else there wouldn't be a reason to devolve to said insults.


No. That isn't how logic works.


I'll wait for you to show me where insults fit into a conclusive logical argument.


As the shiny red cherry on top, once you've given up on there being any value to further engagement with someone who has no idea what's actually happening in the conversation and is just talking more and more in the hope that if they verbally maunder over enough territory, they'll eventually stumble across the point and be able to claim it was deliberate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10791
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
Samsally wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Thanks for the insults. They're simultaneously productive and also indicate that I've made more points than you are willing to admit, or else there wouldn't be a reason to devolve to said insults.


No. That isn't how logic works.


I'll wait for you to show me where insults fit into a conclusive logical argument.

... moving goal post? Not being a "conclusive logical argument" isn't the same as "indicating you made more points than they were willing to admit." Even if you made the claim that they were making ad hominem arguments, that wouldn't say anything about the veracity of your arguments. So, Samsally is right, logic doesn't work that way.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10557
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune sums it up pretty well:

Rune wrote:
Geareye wrote:
Dear lord ,can someone sum up Oklahoma's point? I feel like participating in the talk, but I have zero interest in reading that page-length post. Well, to be honest right now I'm too tired for this, I'm mostly for the popcorn like monkey.

Please, more popcorn.


It's a long-form slippery-slope argument against legal censorship protecting "special interest" groups leveled against a straw-man, mostly so he could hear himself talk, and repeating a few of the general points that other people already made as if he'd thought of them himself, but without elaborating on how they might actually be applied to the case of BDSM practitioners describing their scenes and practices in public in a way that could trigger victims of sexual violation, and not caring about, or (worse) shaming anyone who is negatively affected by it.

Generally, a spiraling tangent that has nothing to do with Samsally's actual statement.



For reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
wobster109



Joined: 12 Jan 2012
Posts: 160

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, check out for one day and this thread becomes HUGE.

Just based on this last page ---

Insults have no place in an argument. If you want to have a discussion and convince people, then you do NOT call them an asshole nor question their empathy nor call them primitive. That's what you do when you want to drive them away.

@Darqcyde - Yes, I am telling people how to react. Not how to feel, but how to react. As you would do the same if there were punches being thrown. Insults, along with physical violence, are not acceptable.

---
It would be great if someone who's been in the last 5 pages could give me a summary. Where, on a scale from 1 to 10 are we now? I just need a number. I've made guesses on where people are, they might be way off. Or if you could tell me where you personally are, that would be helpful too. Non-integers are ok.

1. It is never acceptable to talk about BDSM.
2. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM in your own home.
3. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM on your personal blog.
4. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM quietly in cafes with friends.
5. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM on a context-appropriate public blog.
6. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM in public non-explicitly and with a trigger warning.
7. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM in public explicitly with a trigger warning.
8. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM in public without a trigger warning.
9. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM directly to anyone.
10. It is acceptable to talk about BDSM to anyone after they've asked you to stop. (Westboro Church is here.)

Edit: removing names
_________________
Bad Advice Wobster! Get your bad advice here!


Last edited by wobster109 on Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geareye



Joined: 21 Mar 2013
Posts: 281

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@wobster: I appreciate your desire to have a sum up of the discussion, I even asked for something similar myself and I find the attempt to define the several levels of acceptability for the topic at hand you created as something very useful for a practical grasp of the situation.

However.

I am not comfortable with the names at each level idea. It's not a personal thing, like about whether you got mine wrong or not, it's that I find it unproductive to "colour" individuals on a scale for this. And a bit distasteful.

.......


I certainly don't find it morally wrong for you to do it, though.... Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also don't think that it can be cofidied the way you've got there. Good try, though.


ALSO, OMG I HAVE NEVER SEEN SOMEONE SAY THEY ARE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE BEFORE. I AM SO SHOCKED AND AMAZED AND WILL NOW GO THINK THINKY-THOUGHTS TO MYSELF WHICH ARE SO MUCH DEEPER THAN ANYTHING I HAVE EVER HAD THE CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE. PRAISE BE TO OAKLAHOMASUN FOR THIS VERY ORIGINAL IDEA HOLY SHIT.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Geareye



Joined: 21 Mar 2013
Posts: 281

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am always confused when someone says they were playing devil's advocate. It makes no sense to me. Playing devil's advocate, as I understand it, means you're defending an opinion that you don't actually accept on a personal level and find at least a bit questionable (hence devil).

Buuuuuut.......does the person playing d.a. personally disagree with this opinion? If yes, said person must have a reason, a counter argument to said opinion in order to disagree with it (unless said person is a moron....). But if he/she disagrees with it and is aware of the counter-argument why is he/she defending it? Merely to ''test'' other discussion-participants on whether or not they can figure out the counter argument? What a shitty way to waste people's time...*

If said person genuinely can't find a counter-argument and therefore doesn't disagree with the opinion....then why the ''devil''? Why claim the opinion is morally questionable if you can pinpoint why it's mistaken?

Honestly, playing devil's advocate behind people's back is a decent (if you're good at it) attempt at trolling (see *), but to come out and say "I'm playing devil's advocate" doesn't make any sense to me...unless I'm missing something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3316

PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

People who draw out multiple pages of discussion only to go "lol devils advocate" after clearly annoying the shit out of everyone involved are assholes. Full stop.

It is a douchebaggy discussion tactic used by the lowest of internet denizens and there's really very little value in engaging those people.

It is not particularly difficult to comment on how you're taking a devils advocate position at the start of a conversation, and thereby take all the douchebaggy connotations away from the discussion tactic. Surprisingly very few people who argue from a position of devils advocate do so until they've had their argument beaten into the turf.


On the context of when it's appropriate to discuss your sex life (I don't give a crap if its vanilla, bdsm, someone tonguejacking your shitbox, or whatever) the appropriate time is, when you're talking with someone who actually gives a crap, and in a place where people going about their business which has nothing to do with you don't have to be exposed to it. It's called having a modicum of class and if you have a right to be a kinky beast in the sack, everyone around you has an equal right to be as prudish or squicked out by it as they please.

Isn't rule one of the responsible kinkster to not involve others unwittingly or unwillingly in your kinks anyway?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 9 of 13

 
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