women's march

Watch this flameout as I offend everyone involved...

Why are y'all doing this? Kit's a good guy - posting history shows this, for the most part...

He's just not necessarily the sharpest knife in this drawer - a fairly high bar, amongst you three - T, Bells and Parmalee. Who else? Ice? Oh yeah, he seems to be relegated to the "other" side in this debate...

I mean, really? Kit, in his own way, and just IMHO, is trying to point out that there are "lesser" and "greater" grievances - some offenses are worse than others. Murder is murder but we distinguish between Murder 1, Felony murder, Manslaughter, etcetera. This does not mean taking a life is acceptable, rather that the punishment should fit the crime.

If you review, it seems self evident that an initial, relatively innocent attempt to classify Franken's behavior as a lesser offense compared to... say, Roy Moore's, escalated and blurred. To the point that we denigrate him for the apparent failure to fully grasp the "Trolley problem" and its place in"consequentialist and deontological approach[es]". Really? Can we say elitist here? There are any number of ways Kit may have encountered that ethical dilemma in today's internet age without necessarily being exposed to the broad philosophical underpinning you three were apparently fortunate (or diligent) enough to claim.

Give the guy a break - heed Hanlon's razor here...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*shrug* Every time I've seen this ethical question posed, it has been as a thought experiment of which choice is the lesser of two evils. That reads, to me, as a no good option scenario, a "no win". If reducing it down as such somehow makes me "stupid", then so be it.

Granted, it probably doesn't help me much that I really can't work up enough fucks to give to put much effort into dealing with certain folks anymore, what with the schoolyard insults and double standards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And he has spent the better part of two months trying to get you (and your faction - in a much, much more limited sense - you and T, plus lately parmalee) to understand exactly what he is trying to say.

Put simply, a "good guy" does not:

• Embrace rape culture.
• Attack rape victims.
• Invent reasons and arguments to attack rape victims.
• Go out of his way to cast doubt on victims (repeatedly) for the sake of politics.
• Partake in slandering others in the invention of accusing others of 'killing babies'.
• Detail how and why women's rights is not that important (trolley cart example and Animal Farm comparisons fits here somewhere) because 'politics'.
• Go out of his way and troll threads (got so bad I had to remove his posts from the thread and start a new thread with his posts in it) to try to shut the discussion down.
• Etc..

And from his POV, he hasn't. Don't believe me? Ask him....

When he says "I don't embrace rape culture" - you will say... He lies...
When he says "I have not attacked rape victims" - you will say... You have...

And so forth.

To what end? I defy you to prove malice. What and where would you ascribe maliciousness over ignorance? How so? This is the substance of "Good guy" - he means well. No? Do you - really - as in really and actually - believe Kit means harm to rape victims? Blames them? Slanders them?

I'll buy the late trolling, perhaps he knows no other way to respond to the unexpected attacks (from his POV) but not actual, real, down and dirty, rape supporting thoughts. This isn't Syne, after all - it's Kitta. I mean, for real? He's just lost, not monstrous...

 

It's alright Randwolf - I figured out months ago (long before this particular farce) that Bells had decided I was Evil Incarnate and nothing I did would sway that opinion. Attempting to voice the concern that a piecemeal solution would likely fail, as well as concerns about the potential long term ramifications of having it fall to the whims of things like social media to bring justice for sexual assaults/harassments and the like, rather than fixing the legal system... Well, apparently, wanting our legal system to be capable of handling these matters makes me a rape advocate and worse, according to her.

Bringing up points related to the discussion (such as showing why many fear the GOP is incapable and/or unwilling to implement potential fixes for these issues) is labeled as "changing the subject" or "trolling"... oh, as well as being told to shut up because the 'women were talking' and that, apparently, as a member of the male gender, I had no business being part of the discussion at all.

Yet I'm the supposed troll. It would be funny if not for the fact that it was, literally, two thirds of our active moderation staff actively demonizing anyone who has the gal to state that simply saying "it has to stop" isn't a solution and won't produce the required results.

Then again, it's very similar to the delusions embraced by some Trump supporters - he said he would "make America great again", so that must be a great plan... Even though, when asked, he had no plan.

Ultimately, their whinging and attacking others will accomplish nothing. It is sitting down with a level head and fixing the multitude of issues that have brought us to this point that has the chance tosser results... and thus far they don't seem capable of doing that.

It's why I've decided to once again, simply ignore them entirely. There's no point arguing with someone who doesn't want to debate in good faith and prefers ad him and fallacy over fact and rationality. No doubt they will continue to slander me, even when I do not engage them... But that would be their right it seems.

 

And where precisely did you encounter it, where you received such a partial non-explanation?

Did it not strike you as odd that someone would even bother with making such an obvious point in the first place?

"Life's hard. Sometimes you have to make difficult choices."

Oh, for fuck's sake. You truly are an idiot.

Now show me precisely where I said that.

Actually, nevermind.

Just get back to me when you learn how to read. And, I don't know, maybe you should try something other than science fiction shit. Or maybe you should read some fucking Cliff Notes, or something. Fuck.

 

Fair point. I realized that after awhile, though I admit that it first struck me ass odd simply because he referred to it as the trolley problem. But "broad philosophical underpinnings"? C'mon. Consequentialism is a pretty straightforward concept. Moreover, that, arguably, could at least be said to be slightly relevant to the conversation.

Moreover, my initial take was that--in the Moore thread--he was misusing the problem deliberately. But, even if he wasn't, I urge you to take a look at the original again--a little fucked up, no?

But don't you see what my problem is now? Look at this:

Seriously, the guy can't fucking read. And that's sufficiently annoying already for a lot of reasons, but when I somehow get caught up in it, well...

Edit: Yeah, that's... petty. (Though it is fucking annoying when it's you who happens to get caught up in someone's cycle of misreading.)

But I can justify my pettiness there when the offending party, more pertinently, embraces misogyny.

 

It's also the manner in which Kitt has done this which I find particularly problematic--very much like Mr. "Should we hire women?": prefacing an odious statement with something like, "It hurts me to say this..." Oh, phleaassse. That shit is soooo toxic. Frankly, that's the tactic of an abuser. "This hurts me more than it's gonna hurt you." Right.

And this is where (seemingly wilful) misreading factors bigly: how saying that a grope is unacceptable is somehow the same as saying that rape and a grope are equal offenses is utterly beyond me.

 

To demonstrate for your cause. To be with people of like mind. To show other people how many people believe in your cause.

 

We might consider two points:

(1) Between then and now, as such, there is a bit more to it.

(2) While stupid is as stupid does, what if stupid is also dangerous?​

Neither are those quite so simple; in either point an old bit I do about the difference 'twixt sinister and stupid applies; not only can their effects overlap, but the sinister requires some aspect of stupidity insofar as even the great evil geniuses of history and legend were always missing some basic thing that everyone else could grasp. And it cracks me up, in a way, that Bells↑ managed to find that pathway merging an old accusation people used to fling at special education, that the impaired students were smart enough to calculate the rules about punishing them, and its more recent application to American decadence, also known as affluenza.

It is possible you might be overlooking the proposition of basic personal malice. Ask yourself what other women in these people's lives they think they can talk to this way. I can tell you a long story about mansplanation and what I've learned over the years, but even if I might go back and split a certain hair when Bells walked into the Roy Moore thread, I wouldn't. The thing is there is a record here, and a few possibilities about reviewing it in whatever detail: To what degree does anyone want to? To what degree does it matter?

Think about the figure you used, the better part of two months. Yes: Simmering, seething anger. Trying to get who to understand what? Seriously, when he says vague things and we might ask↗—(repeatedly↗)—it's not like he is going to specify.

Rorschach? Stream of consciousness? Try it this way:

It's more that he is so self-righteously pissed off he doesn't give a damn what damage he does. I'm not joking about who else they can talk to this way. And that's the thing; this daily seething is unhealthy, and, well, the present sounds kinda sorta like a little over a month ago↗, and look at the response↗ if we put any manner of evidence before him.

It was actually quite clear what he was trying to say, even then. Nor was the message unclear this month when, being for whatever reasons unable to explain his "due process" concerns, he settled into the demonstrative discussion of electoral politics looking back, as I noted↑, some eight months.

You seem to be looking for a large, broadly-empowered malice, but you already know a bit about how it works, generally, and this is a personal malice we witness. The question of incompetence does not rule out malice; as I suggested last week↗, the reason he's not actually gaslighting is that he's not good enough at it. If the effects of his belligerence harms rape survivors, can you identify the threshold 'twixt he doesn't care and it's for her own good, such as the effect becomes?

Yes, something about "lost". That was clear enough a little over a month ago, when, I mean, it would be effing hilarious except at that point it required either effort or actual dysfunction, neither of which is significant of health or safety. The back and forth bits about priorities, and telling people what they think do fulfill the principle theatric that comedy is cruelty. And say what we will about making excuses for being a dick, but why do men make their dicks into insult? I mean, seriously, heterosexual men need to deal with the fact that so damn many of them think of sex as him sticking his insult into her insult.

It starts small, and escalates; you already know that. Meanwhile, I suspect you're also already aware of behavioral thematics insofar as, okay, a dose of stupid and some personal obsession, but at some point the nature and focus stands out. And I think you also know that in the moment it is indeed possible to achieve "really and actually". And spending the better part of two months pointedly not giving a damn eventually qualifies as really and actually; in that question, it's a matter of how much farther out in the desert before being lost becomes significant in the manner you would ward off?

And it is in that context hard to precisely describe particular thresholds, but these, too, can be thematic. Like the bits about at-will employment, or due process. Not only is there a question of why Kittamaru is apparently incapable of discussing these in their proper context, but it also stands out that this is the threshold. To wit, earlier this month:

Should be what? Should be illegal? To the one, really? He really didn't know this? To the other, really? This is the threshold? This is really what moves someone to ask?

So consider, please, as regards the better part of two months trying to say something or get people to see something, that what it ends up sounding like is vapid questioning with no real relationship even to itself.

Similarly, the question of due process. To the one, okay, so we are supposed to believe he is that clueless. To the other, though, really? If we ask why, compared to all the processes that qualify as due process, he becomes so utterly blind to these alternatives in relation to this specific subject matter, it is harder to pretend accidents are so accidental without accounting for how such accidents happen.

Really and actually? I don't know, do you want a cartoonish supervillain? Then, no. What about a human being so wrapped up in his own personal issues he is willing to behave in a harmful manner, and it's left to anyone else to figure out the difference between not caring what damage he does and hoping to inflict some along the way? Because Kittamaru isn't alone in that one.

Watch Kittamaru and others try to fashion the only women who will pay attention to these things they say into objects for abuse. If we were actually standing around in a room together, instead of this distal, virtual arrangement, they would not behave like this. Someone would have called the cops, already, on EF's deviant wanker behavior; Iceaura's angry ranting would have been either forcibly walked off or else subject to another call; and Kittamaru? Well, okay, would we call the cops, or stand around pointing and laughing? The question becomes at what point this or any other spectacle becomes dangerous. Not giving a damn is inherently antisocial; giving enough of a damn to deliberately not give a damn is functionally and willfully antisocial.

The better part of two months? In your opinion, at what point, then, should we start taking him seriously?

Kittamaru's clearest and most consistent communication over the period is angry redefinition and assignation. Bells becomes a straw totem, a sosobra for scorching over and over. As with others, we might wonder who else in his life he can treat that way, and simply make the point that after the better part of two months, his priority is pretty clear. I can remember telling someone, years ago, he needed to come up for air; he never really did, and these years later it would be funny if it wasn't so focused and determined, so, yes, after these years we accept he believes the terrible things he says.

And, yes, Kittamaru needs to come up for air↑. Does he believe, really and actually? He wants us to believe this is how he sees the world; the rest is a matter of definitions.

Sympathy is an exchange, empathy a projection. Lost is lost, and search and rescue inherently hazardous. Something goes here about hazardous waters and how that flailing can drown us all, together. At some point, people need something to work with.

 

That is not accurate.
This is not the thread for it, but if you review Bells's et al language you will find that "saying a grope is unacceptable" is not a reasonable description of what Kitt et al are reacting to.

The OP appears to be an attempt to cast that in the light of peer pressure, with the "peers" the other people of like mind. To the extent peer pressure is the or a predominant factor, rather than merely a factor, that would be a legitimate viewpoint and a realistically based denigration of the entire effort. But that would require one have downgraded the seriousness - the political magnitude if you will - of the cause itself. If the cause is large enough, personal sacrifice for even small contribution cannot be denigrated on such grounds - peer pressure is outweighed.

And so the OP is objectionable. Even if peer pressure were the decisive factor, the last little push over the edge, the bulk of the matter in this case would be the cause itself by all appearances - no good reason to suggest otherwise.

 

Eye of the beholder?
There is nothing objectionable about:

fyi
These 2 women have been colleagues and friends for over 20 years and have habitually gone to similar events together. There grandchildren are the same age and have regular weekend play-dates together at our house, during which I have gone out of my way to assure to the survivors comfort. During the recent illness, my spouse has brought her friend meals and cleaned her house for her.
see post #50

Wild guess:
The survivor is feeling weak and frail, which leads to feeling insecure which led to her worry, which led my spouse to worry for her friend (or, she most likely would not have mentioned it to me).

 

The peer pressure felt by any participant is up to them. There are people who feel really badly that they can't participate in X because they really want to; there are other people who just aren't very invested in it. That's a personal decision and does not denigrate the event they feel pressure to attend, just as the person who doesn't really care does not denigrate the event.

Of course, if someone had put unreasonable pressure on them (i.e. "you're not going just because of a little cancer? And you call yourself a woman?") that would be quite different. But there's no evidence of that here.

Agreed.

 

Tone is hard to read. You have a history.

 

sculptor: I hope the march went well for your ever-lovin', and that her friend did not over-extend herself.

 

My history with women:


(lines 4 and 5)Swap out train for woman and and me for hobos you just about have it

I used to tease my spouse with: "That woman's so fast the homeboys don't mess with that woman they just stand by the track with their had in their hand and watch her rumble on down the line"
Ok-----------"and watch her rumble on down the line" was from a live performance--(I once ran a coffee house)---------not on this recording)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

um bells you did do that though. you attacked people for suggesting that there is a spectrum. by saying there isn't one you are saying there is no difference. either there is a spectrum or there isn't. not what ever suits you at the moment.