It doesn't fucking matter. I wish both of them would shut up.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458459]Not everyone is aware of it already. Look at seed eater, he's saying that you shouldn't mind your safety. [/QUOTE]
No he's not.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42456286']Is he right? [B]Yea, sure, minimizing your factors to getting raped is fine. This is the "lowest fix".[/B]
But [I]teaching them not to rape[/I] is the fundamentally best solution. Creating conditions that eliminate the chances of rapists being rapists is the ultimate method.[/QUOTE]
The point people are making is that with the constant focus on "minding your safety", the most important part of the issue is lost, which is addressing the causes of rape (i.e. nothing to do with what the victim is doing/wearing) and stopping rapists from trying to rape people in the first place. Thunderf00t says no, we should ignore all that, and instead keep relentlessly telling women to take precautions/act like wasps/not be too flirty if they don't want somebody to rape them. Because apparently he's a lot more knowledgeable about the issue than people who have to deal with it every day, because I don't know, a mountain lion almost ate him once?
[editline]8th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=nehkz;42458546]It doesn't fucking matter. I wish both of them would shut up.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure rape is a serious issue that does matter.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;42458506]My kingdom for a bad reading rating.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tweevle;42458570]No he's not.[/QUOTE]
How is this bad reading?
This is what he posted
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42456877']I'd rather not have to limit my personal freedoms and have to make choices as to whether where I want to go, dress like, and ultimately just plain do will get me sexually assaulted, or assaulted period.
This is not something that a healthy functional society does. If someone wants to run around mostly naked in a way that otherwise wouldn't offend people they should be able to without fear of being raped. We can't have both, because either we have a situation where women can walk around dressing like "sluts" and not getting raped, or we have a culture where they would and would have to act more conservatively. Pick one- either we need to fear rape or we don't need to fear rape.[/QUOTE]
He said that limiting your personal freedoms due to the danger of getting hurt is not something that a healthy functional society does, and that he'd rather not do it. Hence it shouldn't be done. And he said that you have to pick one, either take precautions, or address the real issue. So since we have to address the real issue we shouldn't be taking precautions. What am I missing here?
[QUOTE=Tweevle;42458570]The point people are making is that with the constant focus on "minding your safety", the most important part of the issue is lost, which is addressing the causes of rape (i.e. nothing to do with what the victim is doing/wearing) and stopping rapists from trying to rape people in the first place. Thunderf00t says no, we should ignore all that, and instead keep relentlessly telling women to take precautions/act like wasps/not be too flirty if they don't want somebody to rape them. Because apparently he's a lot more knowledgeable about the issue than people who have to deal with it every day, because I don't know, a mountain lion almost ate him once?[/QUOTE]
But he said that you can still be raped even if you take all precautions. It's not a fix to the problem nor the focus. It's just something that everyone should do automatically (while the real issue is focused on).
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458459]Not everyone is aware of it already. Look at seed eater, he's saying that you shouldn't mind your safety.[/QUOTE]
The only "precautions" people here are saying that you shouldn't give a fuck about are the kind of precautions that are mentioned in the video in the OP.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42458678]The only "precautions" people here are saying that you shouldn't give a fuck about are the kind of precautions that are mentioned in the video in the OP.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42456877']I'd rather not have to limit my personal freedoms and have to make choices as to whether where I want to go, dress like, and ultimately just plain do will get me sexually assaulted, or assaulted period.[/QUOTE]
?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458709]?[/QUOTE]
What exactly about that is he saying that is supposively rejecting an effective precaution?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42458767]What exactly about that is he saying that is supposively rejecting an effective precaution?[/QUOTE]
He said he's not going to change where he goes, how he dresses like or acts to reduce the changes of getting sexually assaulted, or assaulted? That that's not what healthy society does? That you can either do that or fight the real problem?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458642]How is this bad reading?
This is what he posted
He said that limiting your personal freedoms due to the danger of getting hurt is not something that a healthy functional society does, and that he'd rather not do it. Hence it shouldn't be done. And he said that you have to pick one, either take precautions, or address the real issue. So since we have to address the real issue we shouldn't be taking precautions. What am I missing here?[/QUOTE]
Our society shouldn't exist in a way that such precautions need to be made =/= people shouldn't take those precautions in the society we have.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458642]But he said that you can still be raped even if you take all precautions. It's not a fix to the problem nor the focus. It's just something that everyone should do automatically (while the real issue is focused on).[/QUOTE]
If it's not the focus then why was his entire video about it? Why is he taking a dismissive attitude to campaigns that attempt to shift the focus of education from the potential victim to the potential rapist? Why isn't he bringing his attention to the real issue and doing something about it instead of taking snipes at feminists?
Like Jeep-Eep said, I think you're overestimating Thunderf00t here.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458810]He said he's not going to change where he goes, how he dresses like or acts to reduce the changes of getting sexually assaulted, or assaulted? That that's not what healthy society does? That you can either do that or fight the real problem, the people who commit those crimes?[/QUOTE]
What is he going to change anyway, what kind of precautions are we talking about that actually work? I can imagine he probably rarely goes into dangerous areas anyway and not because he's scared of getting raped?
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
He never said that you should go into dark places, all he said was you shouldn't change the way you live your life because you're afraid of getting raped.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
How you dress or act? I'm not even going to adress that because that's dumb. It doesn't have any effect on your chances of getting raped.
[QUOTE=Tweevle;42458824]Our society shouldn't exist in a way that such precautions need to be made =/= people shouldn't take those precautions in the society we have.[/QUOTE]
But he said you can't have both?
[QUOTE=Tweevle;42458824]If it's not the focus then why was his entire video about it? Why is he taking a dismissive attitude to campaigns that attempt to shift the focus of education from the potential victim to the potential rapist? Why isn't he bringing his attention to the real issue and doing something about it instead of taking snipes at feminists?
Like Jeep-Eep said, I think you're overestimating Thunderf00t here.[/QUOTE]
This particular vid is about treating telling people to follow common sense and mind their personal safety as victim blaming. I don't know what else he does beyond this vid. If he does what you're saying he is, then I disagree with him on that completely.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458915]But he said you can't have both?[/QUOTE]
Because if people start making decisions based on how it will affect the chances of them getting raped those people are taking responsibilities that they shouldn't take. I know that sounds vague and strange, but really there is no way around that.
It's like telling nerdy kids that they might get bullied because of their glasses and their interests, so it might be smart of them to take precautions and change the way they dress and act and what interests they have, it's dumb, it's putting responsiblity where it doesn't belong.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42458936]Because if people start making decisions based on how it will affect the chances of them getting raped those people are taking responsibilities that they shouldn't take. I know that sounds vague and strange, but really there is no way around that.[/QUOTE]
But you said yourself that you shouldn't go to a dangerous part of town at night. What else is it than making decisions based on how it will affect the chances of you getting assaulted?
And how does that even work in your head that if you fail to defend yourself you are responsible for getting hurt? Is a guy beaten up because he was in a dangerous part of town responsible for being beaten up? Is someone who didn't lock their house responsible for having it robbed?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42458936]It's like telling nerdy kids that they might get bullied because of their glasses and their interests, so it might be smart of them to take precautions and change the way they dress and act and what interests they have, it's dumb, it's putting responsiblity where it doesn't belong.[/QUOTE]
No it's not. You get bullied for your lifestyle/looks. There is no reasonable way to avoid this. There is a reasonable way to reduce the chances of getting assaulted or sexually assaulted in certain situations. You know, something you called common sense.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42458840]What is he going to change anyway, what kind of precautions are we talking about that actually work? I can imagine he probably rarely goes into dangerous areas anyway and not because he's scared of getting raped?
He never said that you should go into dark places, all he said was you shouldn't change the way you live your life because you're afraid of getting raped.
How you dress or act? I'm not even going to adress that because that's dumb. It doesn't have any effect on your chances of getting raped.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458810]He said he's not going to change where he goes, how he dresses like or acts to reduce the changes of getting sexually assaulted, [B]or assaulted[/B]? That that's not what healthy society does? That you can either do that or fight the real problem?[/QUOTE]
It was a very general statement. It wasn't just about what the vid in OP said.
And if he doesn't go into dangerous areas because he's afraid of being assaulted he's limiting his personal freedoms? Which he said he's not gonna do?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458965]But you said yourself that you shouldn't go to a dangerous part of town at night. What else is it than making decisions based on how it will affect the chances of you getting assaulted?
And how does that even work in your head that if you fail to defend yourself you are responsible for getting hurt? Is a guy beaten up because he was in a dangerous part of town responsible for being beaten up? Is someone who didn't lock their house responsible for having it robbed?
It was a very general statement. It wasn't just about what the vid in OP said.
And if he doesn't go into dangerous areas because he's afraid of being assaulted he's limiting his personal freedoms? Which he said he's not gonna do?[/QUOTE]
No I'm saying he probably doesn't go into dangerous areas cause he has no reason to, if he has a reason to then he probably will because it's dumb to think "I got something I need to do but because I might get raped if I go through here I'll just not do it".
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42458980]No I'm saying he probably doesn't go into dangerous areas cause he has no reason to, if he has a reason to then he probably will because it's dumb to think "I got something I need to do but because I might get raped if I go through here I'll just not do it".[/QUOTE]
Christ. I'll make it easy for you. How about this. You're going somewhere there is a longer safe way, and a shortcut through a dangerous neighborhood.
If you decide that you're gonna go the longer way because the shorter way is too dangerous you are "limiting your freedoms", "making decisions based on how it will affect the chances of you getting assaulted" and "taking responsibilities that you shouldn't take".
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42459027]Christ. I'll make it easy for you. How about this. You're going somewhere there is a longer safe way, and a shortcut through a dangerous neighborhood.
If you decide that you're gonna go the longer way because the shorter way is too dangerous you are "limiting your freedoms", "making decisions based on how it will affect the chances of you getting assaulted" and "taking responsibilities that you shouldn't take".[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're right in a way but I just feel like you're blowing it up so much out of proportion, taking what Seed Eater said so literally when really he is just implying that "precautions" have no fucking relevence to fighting rape, at all.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
The only reason we're having this argument, you and me, is because people are saying that we should teach women to take precautions - which I am arguing against, and you make it sound like you're taking that side against me, I don't know if you are but you're certainly arguing against the my side.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42459091]Yeah you're right in a way but I just feel like you're blowing it up so much out of proportion, taking what Seed Eater said so literally when really he is just implying that "precautions" have no fucking relevence to fighting rape, at all.[/QUOTE]
That's not what he said in the post we were just talking about. He literally said that you either mind your safety or you fight the real problem and that you can't have both.
And I agree "precautions" have no fucking relevance to fighting rape. They aren't supposed to. It's just something that everyone should do automatically and there shouldn't be any discussion about this because it's obvious. Sadly some people oppose this.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42459091]The only reason we're having this argument, you and me, is because people are saying that we should teach women to take precautions - which I am arguing against, and you make it sound like you're taking that side against me, I don't know if you are but you're certainly arguing against the my side.[/QUOTE]
"Teach women to take precautions" sounds like something you do instead of addressing the real problem. For like the 100th time, that's not what I'm saying.
Hmm, fine then. I guess it comes down to the fact that we read what Seed Eater said differently, I agree with everything he said.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
Precautions like the video in the op are bullshit, that's all I'm saying and that's all Seed Eater is saying in my opinion.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;42459435]Hmm, fine then. I guess it comes down to the fact that we read what Seed Eater said differently, I agree with everything he said.
Precautions like the video in the op are bullshit, that's all I'm saying and that's all Seed Eater is saying in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I dunno man, it just seems to me like he said that you shouldn't change your behavior in any way because you are afraid you might get hurt (there's a reasonable level of this). Which is the common sense you advocated yourself. He also said that you can't have that and address the real issue at the same time. That those things are mutually exclusive. I just disagree. I think everyone should mind their safety to a reasonable extent without it being a focus or anything like that.
Well you shouldn't change your behaviour, you're already doing it.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
That's the point behind you can't have both, whatever that means, it's silly to tell someone to do something they're doing already without thinking about it becuase that will just make it worse.
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
Damnit it's hard to explain, I gotta get some sleep.
Many of the same things that women are told to do to avoid being raped (don't walk down the street at night etc) also apply to other things, such as not being hit by a drunk driver or not being shot in a random driveby
Yet they're only brought up for rape. If someone gets hit by a drunk driver at 2am they're never asked "well why were you walking down the street at night?"
The problem isn't that people are suggesting ways to be safe, the problem is that rape is basically the only crime where it seems the onus for preventing it should be on the victim first
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42454475]
Its not going to be a fight that can ever be won. It can be reduced and people can be educated, but this whole expectation that rape and murder will magically disappear if children are brought up listening to Philip Glass is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
Way to drastically oversimplify and belittle something that everybody ought to be striving to achieve.
This attitude people seem to have lately that it's pointless trying to interfere with "the natural order of things" and that rape is a part of that "natural order" is fucking sickening.
[QUOTE=nigerianprince;42454475]
And sorry but if some guy makes out with a girl and they start making moves towards the bedroom and she doesn't say an outright no then I find it hard to call that rape.[/QUOTE]
So if she's too scared to say 'no' because the man dragging her off to the bedroom is twice her size, it's not rape because it's not your definition of "outright no"?
another thing about the 'precautions' men keep suggesting women take which are in fact common sense, is that it's quite condescending
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
anything to do with how women dress is just straight up bullshit though and more ways misogynists try to control how women act & dress. clothing NEVER factors into rape and despite how often this has been proven people still seem to bring it up.
I wish there were no rapists, pedophiles, or murderers.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458126]I think his point is that advocating "commons sense and things that everyone already does" isn't victim blaming.
Hey I'd rather not limit my freedoms with locking my house and my car and insuring them against theft. I'd rather not limit my freedoms with avoiding bad parts of my town at night. There's a giant difference between what things should be and what they actually are. Thinking that you can just ignore the danger, because "it shouldn't be that" way is just childish and irresponsible.
Does locking your car and house at night mean that the society is okay with theft? Do you oppose theft or do you lock your doors? Pick one.[/QUOTE]
Funny, the exact ways we deal with theft are active opposition like what I've been describing. If you want to deal with crime, increasing enforcement and being defensive in your actions does nothing and often only continues to increase the problem because it creates a state of "acceptance" and "normalization" of crime, and an enforced dynamic of predator-victim. Yet when we take this same approach with rape, suddenly it's bullshit.
I think it's clear your understandings of sociology and crime amount to watching COPS. Want to eliminate crime? Change SES. Want to eliminate rape? Change SES.
Is that to say that it's wise to not lock your doors? No, of course not, but we shouldn't enforce the position that it's normal, natural, or the best method to deal with crime to be defensive. Again, like I said in my very first comment in this thread: there' nothing wrong with being defensive, but it's counter-productive to accept this is the method in dealing with the problem. Mostly because it doesn't actually deal with the problem.
[editline]8th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;42458642]How is this bad reading?
This is what he posted
He said that limiting your personal freedoms due to the danger of getting hurt is not something that a healthy functional society does, and that he'd rather not do it. Hence it shouldn't be done. And he said that you have to pick one, either take precautions, or address the real issue. So since we have to address the real issue we shouldn't be taking precautions. What am I missing here?
But he said that you can still be raped even if you take all precautions. It's not a fix to the problem nor the focus. It's just something that everyone should do automatically (while the real issue is focused on).[/QUOTE]
Actually I said that I'd rather not do it because I'd rather not have an unhealthy society. I was pointing out that our society is not healthy in this dynamic and that I'd rather be able to run around and do what I wish and not have to worry about being assaulted or raped for it. Doesn't mean I'm going to. Just that I should and that the mindset that this is harmful behavior or dangerous behavior contributes to the mindset of victim blaming that this is only a few steps from.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42459686]Many of the same things that women are told to do to avoid being raped (don't walk down the street at night etc) also apply to other things, such as not being hit by a drunk driver or not being shot in a random driveby
Yet they're only brought up for rape. If someone gets hit by a drunk driver at 2am they're never asked "well why were you walking down the street at night?"
The problem isn't that people are suggesting ways to be safe, the problem is that rape is basically the only crime where it seems the onus for preventing it should be on the victim first[/QUOTE]
Bullshit.
I know people who have accidentally hit pedestrians while mildly intoxicated and have gotten off because the pedestrians were stupid enough to be standing in the middle of the road at night time.
I also know people who have been mugged etc and they get the same shit "why were you out that late".
Same for cars getting broken into: "Well why did you leave your laptop in plain sight?"
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;42460148]Way to drastically oversimplify and belittle something that everybody ought to be striving to achieve.
This attitude people seem to have lately that it's pointless trying to interfere with "the natural order of things" and that rape is a part of that "natural order" is fucking sickening.[/QUOTE]
Probably because rape occurs with animals too, and like so many other crimes that are shitty they will never, ever stop happening (barring something like Minority Report).
I agree with education being good up to a point, and educating people on some of the factors of consent.. But this whole idea that people who willingly (read: people who have not been drugged) consume alcohol and willingly impair their decision making processes should get a free pass is preposterous.
[QUOTE]So if she's too scared to say 'no' because the man dragging her off to the bedroom is twice her size, it's not rape because it's not your definition of "outright no"?[/QUOTE]
You may have noticed my usage of the word 'they':
[QUOTE] if some guy makes out with a girl and they start making moves towards the bedroom and she doesn't say an outright no then I find it hard to call that rape.[/QUOTE]
'They' to me says that it is two people who are consenting without having said yes.
i don't think getting raped counts as getting a free pass
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42461796]i don't think getting raped counts as getting a free pass[/QUOTE]
That's because if you have sex with someone and consent to it while willingly intoxicated it isn't rape. Yet a lot of people on this thread seem to think that that is called rape.
if someone sober takes advantage of someone who's drunk then it's rape. that's what the whole 'teach them not to rape' thing is about, teaching people that consent while someone is impaired doesn't count as consent. you know why you're not allowed to fuck people under the age of consent? because they don't have the mental state of mind to know what they're consenting to. same goes for someone who is under the influence.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42461884]if someone sober takes advantage of someone who's drunk then it's rape. that's what the whole 'teach them not to rape' thing is about, teaching people that consent while someone is impaired doesn't count as consent. you know why you're not allowed to fuck people under the age of consent? because they don't have the mental state of mind to know what they're consenting to. same goes for someone who is under the influence.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546789/Drunk-women-can-consent-to-sex-judges-rule.html"]Legally it actually does count as consent:[/URL]
[QUOTE]"However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape," he said.[/QUOTE]
Again, willingly drinking alcohol and subjecting yourself to an impaired decision making process and being around others who have an impaired decision making process doesn't entitle you to a free pass for making bad decisions.
If you can teach people to not drive while drunk then you can teach people to not even consider consenting while drunk.
okay well that judge is wrong. man the ways you're trying to justify fucking drunk chicks is pretty disgusting. how about just don't fuck drunk chicks? how about that?
[editline]9th October 2013[/editline]
you keep putting the onus on the raped rather than the rapist, and hey maybe sometimes it IS hard to tell, i agree i've been around chicks that are really drunk and get all over you once they are, so here's what you do: you control yourself and you don't fuck them. better safe than sorry.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
