You are the one who labels anyone who has the gall to point out Watson's flaws are misogynistic. Oh wait I forgot. Disagree with Watson and you're a misogynist (according to you). Maybe you should actually try proving that? Might be a change actually using evidence rather than inbecilic rants.
How about you prove those assertions? Right fucking now would be good. Prove that I claim disagreement with Watson automatically makes one misogynist. Prove that I would call anyone pointing out Watson's flaws misogynist, rather than actual misogynist stances.
Sounds like to me and anyone else who didn't drink the Watson kool-aid you're projecting buddy.
So what was that line about psychic powers?
Because if any disagrees with what Watson says, it becomes disagreeing with letting her speak her mind.
Which is of course not what I said in the first place. But you do seem to be used to lying, so I suppose I should hardly expect you to stop now.
As far as rhetoric goes, that is pretty kindergarten stuff. But since your mind reading powers seem to be have rendered ineffective by the brain damage you received drinking the Watson kool aid I will throw you a bone. If you read my post, you would know I first heard about it after I had already read what Dawkins had said. Which was followed by surprise that Dawkins could have sunk so low. Until I found out he did just ask her for coffee. At that point was it was just a good laugh. Sorry, the only one flying off the handle is you buddy.
Dawkins' argument was still basically fucking stupid, because the issue itself had nothing to do with the coffee which you of course full well know. It is still tremendously privileged and asinine to go "yeah, shut up, there are kids in Africa that are starving so don't you dare complain about things that I consider much less relevant than my definition of the ultimate paragon of suffering." Don't you fucking get this by now? Should I break out the crayons?
mr friendly guy wrote:You kind of missed the point, that even though I argue your statistics card isn't as rock solid as you think it is,
It's not, unless you use statistics that would actually apply to the situation. I did. You, not so much.
mr friendly guy wrote:the main point was that any situation can suddenly be portrayed as ridiculously sinister no matter how innocent.
As soon as someone places themselves in a situation that is clearly inappropriate, yes. Following someone at night has connotations. You may not believe in those connotations, but they do exist.
mr friendly guy wrote:What's worse is after Dawkins dismissed her "woe is me" story, it suddenly changed from just a guy being creepy to being a potential rapist. Since you are a little slow, let me join the dots for you. This means that suddenly Dawkins becomes someone who dismisses rape, like how a misogynist behaves EVEN THOUGH THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT COULD BE BOILED DOWN TO ONLY BEING CREEPY. Even a braindead fuckwit like you can see how dishonest this is.
Did it change, though? And did it change because of Dawkins, and not the rape threats, the guy saying he would totally feel her up if they were alone in an elevator, and acknowledging the fact that until such a situation is resolved,
the woman does not know when that man would decide to stop.
But these questions imply you wouldn't have already decided which interpretation you would like. It just so happens to be the worst one you could come up with. I see no reason for doing so other than your personal inclination.
Stef McGraw, just like yourself, ignored the actual context of the person creating a coercive and threatening context, and did point to what her preferred answer should be. Skepchick's labeling of that rhetorical tack as being misogynistic may stand for her, but I don't think it must be dishonest, and I do take slight issue with any attempt to frame the situation in terms of what
she should do to defuse a situation. Not enough to lambaste McGraw for it, however.
Well since you ask nicely, it would most probably a combination of cranial nerve 9 and 10, because that would stop you gagging. Which kind of explains why you haven't vomited from typing this piece of shit you call an argument. Although I do think the fact someone had the gall to point out Watson's over reaction also had something to do with it.
Oh, how cute. You're actually foaming at the mouth now, aren't you? I actually have no problem acknowledging that I think Watson used imprecise terminology and should definitely have avoiding calling out Steph McGraw a second time. I can acknowledge these things because I have integrity, a concept I'll be happy to introduce you to in the next post.
I am pretty sure I addressed this Schrodinger's rapist argument with the example of Schrodinger's black mugger in the OP.
The Schrödinger's Rapist argument is not a bad one per se, but it ignores a vital component:
Men, on the whole, are more privileged than women. Whereas black people, on the whole, are less privileged than white people. Racism is bad, among other things, because it is an expression and an exercise of those power dynamics. Plus, this ignores the whole issue of entering into a confined space
and then trying to persuade a person caught in that confined space with you to do things, in a context well-known for escalating in a way dangerous to your well-being.
Well I am pretty sure I addressed this type of "could" argument in the OP. But lets have fun since you want to go down there. He could have been anyone. He could have been someone who missed her giving that portion of her talk. See how stupid it is when you allow yourself to use the "could have been anyone" argument.
No, you're simply missing the point, intentionally or not. He could have been anyone, which means the onus is placed on her to potentially defend herself, and this is a situation that only came about because he wanted to solicit her. Which was kinda creepy and inappropriate, since he could have done it in any number of ways but chose this one.
mr friendly guy wrote:This was addressed in the OP. Saying someone could allows us to justify anything, vilify anyone on the grounds that "he could." You however will only apply this to Watson's case and YOU know it. This amounts to special pleading rendering the argument invalid.
Wait. So are you actually saying that no matter how much I invade your personal space, no matter if I follow you around at night, no matter
what happens as soon as I don't actually commit an assault... then it's okay because after all it's only a matter of "he could". Nobody has a right to complain and this is in fact vilifying the person. Okay then. I think I know all I need about your position and what you consider "special pleading."
Also a bit of a relief I must admit that it turns out Dawkins didn't actually downplay a really serious crime.
I never said he did, if you recall. I just said his dismissal of her concerns was and is disgusting.
However when he suddenly metamorphed into a potential rapist and those who disagreed with her become misogynist, thats when I
I still say this is a complete demonisation of what actually happens, and I will
keep saying it until you acknowledge that it's been said.
But I totally went apeshit because she called the guy creepy. Which you....obviously knew from your mind reading powers. Hey can I borrow you for party tricks?
Sure, just put me in contact with your personal assistant.
I offered evidence those I considered had legitimate criticism were labelled misogynist. Even if they made a mistake in interpreting what Watson meant, it doesn't follow they are a misogynists. So yeah, no strawmen there in my accusations. I also posted Watson's description of what she taught of Dawkins, so no strawmen there.
I completely agree with her when it comes to Dawkins: the whole "oppression olympics" assertion revealed a staggering ignorance of privilege and basically set Dawkins up as judge over what was valid oppression and what was not. Even his use of an invented Muslim woman as some sort of prop was shameful. I do not agree with her whne it comes to Stef McGraw, but I do feel McGraw ignored the actual issue.
Eleas wrote:Fuck you. In a dangerous situation, it would be, and this is the point. You may snigger about how it's not a technically impossibly exposed position, but that doesn't make it less exposed.
This again relies on the "could have" argument. I already explained why I thought this was flawed.
You did. I don't agree with your reasons, but I do retract the insult.
mr friendly guy wrote:Eleas wrote:Again, this is why she said it was merely creepy, and asked guys not to do that because surprise! some of the guys who would like to do so would also like to go further into assault.
You know if you're going to insinuate I am one of these guys, just have the courage to say it.
Seriously no. No way. Where the fuck did that even come from? Why the fuck would I do that? I'm talking about convention realities; when pushy behavior is considered normal, the true assholes will do more than just push.
<snip>
Eleas wrote:You may think so, but you have no case. The salient point was the position he placed her in, at a feminist convention. It is what you want to ignore or belittle, but never truly face.
Er its an atheist convention as I mentioned in the OP.
So it was. My mistake.
That's your argument. Fine. Watson has labelled several of her opponents misogynists for what I feel is very weak grounds.
A better argument to my mind, and not one that I completely disagree with. I feel her choice to resume an attack on Stef McGraw was perhaps the worst choice, as it effectively meant using a bully pulpit to snipe.
Eleas wrote:This is not a strawman. It is what happened. If you purposefully enter a space where you will be alone with a person and want to ensure she's not able to leave, that means you've prevented her from retreating during the situation you've engineered.
Except she did leave, so this "ensure she's not able to leave," is hyperbole on your part.
The context was "ensure she'll not be able to leave if and when assault occurs," which is why I feel it's not hyperbole.
Persecuting? Falsely accusing if what I am stating.
Fair enough. I don't agree that it's a false accusation to say that such situations (when men ignore boundaries and isolate themselves with you in order to solicit you) are threatening in themselves.
Not harming someone leads no physical evidence of harm. Imagine that.
Exactly.
mr friendly guy wrote:Oh really? More of your mind reading powers. I thought a troll posted to get a rise out of people. Got any evidence to back that up? Or am I correct in that people who disagree are now trolls.
Your original post used deliberately provocative language and sweeping generalizations in order to tell the tale of a feminist who went all crazy because she was the one with privilege, and who thought that just because she liked to sexualize herself could possibly object to other people sexualizing her as if she had
agency.
I saw it as inflammatory. If it wasn't intended as such, then I was in the wrong. But it did seem rather trollish to my view.
mr friendly guy wrote:It might have been something to do with the fact you then ALSO point out Dawkins is wrong based on his being privileged. Just saying.
I am not. I'm pointing out that Dawkins is wrong to dismiss her simply by referring to his own definition of real suffering. It's barely more than arguing out of emotion on his part.
But since we are going down this moderator route, you can ask Thanas whether he thinks I am a misogynist based on my debate in a thread where India is to execute rapists. No doubt you will somehow spin it that I am only a misogynist x percentage of the time.
That's not how it works, and even had you espoused KKK views in earlier threads, that would (technically, at least) give me no grounds for attacking you on that basis in this thread; it might in fact be construed as a vendetta. Now I'm the first to admit I've not always adhered to the spirit of the No Vendettas rule -- in fact, I have been warned once for it I think -- but no, my description of you as a misogynist was in poor taste and wrong to boot. I think the original post echoed some misogynistic sentiments, but I don't think it was deliberate.
Say what? WTF are you smoking? Are you even trying to debate the matter, or are you just trying to make the atmosphere so toxic people go away.
No. Watson described an issue where she felt uncomfortable. Dawkins dismissed it because he felt that her oppression didn't measure up to his ideal of how real suffering for women must be like. He was trivializing Watson for no reason other than that he could. Dawkins, meanwhile, is at the top of his food chain and far more privileged than Watson.
You were at once defending Dawkins by saying he isn't privileged due to bein an atheist, while at the same time saying that she's not "suffering" so it doesn't matter. That's trying to have it both ways.
Actually it was more "feminist" in the context of how Watson utilises the term. Because frankly I can't see how McGraw statement is misogynistic, especially if "she misunderstood Watson's original statement." But don't let that detail stop you.
Actually... no. I agree with you there. I furthermore retract the accusation of misogyny. It's incorrect and it was stupid of me to make it by reading more into your statement on Watson's followers than I should have. I'm sorry.
Since we are onto the inaccuracies, can you sort of provide evidence that I believe in a feminist conspiracy,
I cannot. I mistook your intent regarding Watson and her followers. Once again, I apologize for that.
or I am angry purely because Watson spoke her mind and I can't hack even though I never objected to her right to say it. You talk the talk, now walk the walk.
This, I do feel is slightly true. I thought (and sort of still do) that you're angry not because she spoke her mind, but because she considers men at creepy for actions that we're used to not have to consider. Like getting into an elevator alone with a woman in order to ask her out after the doors have closed.
I am glad you at least admit both sides had elements of wrong. I condemned some of those who made threats against her. As far as I am concern, those are the villains in this piece, not Dawkins or those who criticised her like McGraw. She does a diservice to those people and should be criticised. You obviously don't like how I do it. Too bad.
Yeah, to put it mildly I could have stood to be a bit more nuanced in my criticism. And yes, this basically is closer to my own stance as well. I still feel Dawkins was a douche in this regard however. No matter how trivial one thinks an issue is, saying "this poor benighted person that I just invented has it so much worse so shut the fuck up" is the absolute worst way to do it, IMO.
