The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[TNF]

Yeah, this, too. (I admittedly don't care as much about #4 as many folks here, but I recognize that it is an inconsistency.  The best news on that particular front, sadly, has been sequestration.)  Point #3, in particular, is why I take more of a moderate hero position when it comes to many public sector labor issues- I would rather, just for example, the MTA do what's in the best interest of its millions upon millions of straphangers than do exactly what the TWU wants, which can at times be inefficient and misguided.  

Emphasis mine. Can't let those silly unions fight for the rights of what it is their members want/need. Better just to leave their care to the enlightened bureaucrats! UNLESS YOU HATE THE POOR THAT IS!!!1111one1

[traininthedistance]

Yeah, this, too. (I admittedly don't care as much about #4 as many folks here, but I recognize that it is an inconsistency.  The best news on that particular front, sadly, has been sequestration.)  Point #3, in particular, is why I take more of a moderate hero position when it comes to many public sector labor issues- I would rather, just for example, the MTA do what's in the best interest of its millions upon millions of straphangers than do exactly what the TWU wants, which can at times be inefficient and misguided.  

Emphasis mine. Can't let those silly unions fight for the rights of what it is their members want/need. Better just to leave their care to the enlightened bureaucrats! UNLESS YOU HATE THE POOR THAT IS!!!1111one1

Nowhere did I say that they should not fight for their members; I fully support collective bargaining rights.  What I do not support is the idea of unconditional solidarity: there are some ideas that are just demonstrably terrible, and if implemented would absolutely hurt poor people- people who rely on public services to live their lives.  Your nuance-free temper tantrum here is a perfect example of what Averroes was talking about in that thread- there is a serious internal contradiction in your thinking, one that could be resolved by admitting even just a couple shades of gray.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Does locking one's doors mean that we think burglary is ok?

Heaven forbid your house get broken into, are you gonna blame yourself for not having military grade protection on your house or the robber for breaking into your house?

Humans are expected to have self control. It is common knowledge that we are not supposed to commit rape, murder or burglaries. However, when someone decides to commit a rape for instance, it happens because a man does not have a grip on his self control. When a woman goes out wearing a bikini, it is expected of men not to f[inks]ing rape her but instead say "oh that's an attractive woman" and go on about their day. When a man decides to rape a woman, it is not because of what she's wearing, it's because men can't control their urges.

And vice versa when women rape men.

[TNF]

Yeah, this, too. (I admittedly don't care as much about #4 as many folks here, but I recognize that it is an inconsistency.  The best news on that particular front, sadly, has been sequestration.)  Point #3, in particular, is why I take more of a moderate hero position when it comes to many public sector labor issues- I would rather, just for example, the MTA do what's in the best interest of its millions upon millions of straphangers than do exactly what the TWU wants, which can at times be inefficient and misguided.  

Emphasis mine. Can't let those silly unions fight for the rights of what it is their members want/need. Better just to leave their care to the enlightened bureaucrats! UNLESS YOU HATE THE POOR THAT IS!!!1111one1

Nowhere did I say that they should not fight for their members; I fully support collective bargaining rights.  What I do not support is the idea of unconditional solidarity: there are some ideas that are just demonstrably terrible, and if implemented would absolutely hurt poor people- people who rely on public services to live their lives.  Your nuance-free temper tantrum here is a perfect example of what Averroes was talking about in that thread- there is a serious internal contradiction in your thinking, one that could be resolved by admitting even just a couple shades of gray.

Conditional solidarity is not solidarity. It's as if you're telling your telling your husband or your wife that you'll stay true to them, unless of course they're just plain wrong about something. Good grief.

[traininthedistance]

Yeah, this, too. (I admittedly don't care as much about #4 as many folks here, but I recognize that it is an inconsistency.  The best news on that particular front, sadly, has been sequestration.)  Point #3, in particular, is why I take more of a moderate hero position when it comes to many public sector labor issues- I would rather, just for example, the MTA do what's in the best interest of its millions upon millions of straphangers than do exactly what the TWU wants, which can at times be inefficient and misguided.  

Emphasis mine. Can't let those silly unions fight for the rights of what it is their members want/need. Better just to leave their care to the enlightened bureaucrats! UNLESS YOU HATE THE POOR THAT IS!!!1111one1

Nowhere did I say that they should not fight for their members; I fully support collective bargaining rights.  What I do not support is the idea of unconditional solidarity: there are some ideas that are just demonstrably terrible, and if implemented would absolutely hurt poor people- people who rely on public services to live their lives.  Your nuance-free temper tantrum here is a perfect example of what Averroes was talking about in that thread- there is a serious internal contradiction in your thinking, one that could be resolved by admitting even just a couple shades of gray.

Conditional solidarity is not solidarity. It's as if you're telling your telling your husband or your wife that you'll stay true to them, unless of course they're just plain wrong about something. Good grief.

It's... not anything like that, at all.  Not least because it is possible, believe it or not, to disagree with someone you care about, and do so without abandoning them.  (And, of course, it needs to be possible to leave someone if they get bad enough- if I was Bernie Madoff's wife, I'd divorce him ASAP no matter what pledges I made in the past.  An extreme example, but surely you get the idea.)  And it is not just possible, but I would think required.  If you really love someone, then you need to be willing to call them out when they're making mistakes, and vice versa.

And, of course, there are also cases where unconditional solidarity is a logical impossibility.  To extend the family analogy, what if your wife makes one demand, and your parents make the exact opposite demand?  Who do you stand with?  Or, say, to bring this back to unions... let's say you have a Border Patrol union that demands no amnesty and an armed-to-the-teeth fence, while on the other hand you have a union of service workers that is heavily minority, and thus recognizes the interests of its own workers, and agitates for amnesty and a humane border regime?  No matter what position you take, it's impossible to stand with every union. 

[memphis]

Does locking one's doors mean that we think burglary is ok?

Heaven forbid your house get broken into, are you gonna blame yourself for not having military grade protection on your house or the robber for breaking into your house?

Humans are expected to have self control. It is common knowledge that we are not supposed to commit rape, murder or burglaries. However, when someone decides to commit a rape for instance, it happens because a man does not have a grip on his self control. When a woman goes out wearing a bikini, it is expected of men not to f[inks]ing rape her but instead say "oh that's an attractive woman" and go on about their day. When a man decides to rape a woman, it is not because of what she's wearing, it's because men can't control their urges.

And vice versa when women rape men.

Except that men sometimes do go out looking for target. I know a lot of you like to feel all smug about saying that a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants without it causing her any problems. And I agree she should. But that's also not reality. I live in a city with very high crime rate. It's a fact of life that you lock your doors and not have anything valuable like a purse or iphone visible in your car windows. That doesn't mean it's your fault if you're victimized. Of course, criminals are responsible for the needs. But everybody also needs to be mindful of not bringing a lot of attention to vulnerabilities. Again, it's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of common sense. A woman doesn't need a burqa, but if a woman dresses like a stripper, fair or not, people are going to treat her like a stripper. Anybody who can't grasp that point needs to leave Mayberry more often.

[DC Al Fine]

Does locking one's doors mean that we think burglary is ok?

Heaven forbid your house get broken into, are you gonna blame yourself for not having military grade protection on your house or the robber for breaking into your house?

Humans are expected to have self control. It is common knowledge that we are not supposed to commit rape, murder or burglaries. However, when someone decides to commit a rape for instance, it happens because a man does not have a grip on his self control. When a woman goes out wearing a bikini, it is expected of men not to f[inks]ing rape her but instead say "oh that's an attractive woman" and go on about their day. When a man decides to rape a woman, it is not because of what she's wearing, it's because men can't control their urges.

And vice versa when women rape men.

Except that men sometimes do go out looking for target. I know a lot of you like to feel all smug about saying that a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants without it causing her any problems. And I agree she should. But that's also not reality. I live in a city with very high crime rate. It's a fact of life that you lock your doors and not have anything valuable like a purse or iphone visible in your car windows. That doesn't mean it's your fault if you're victimized. Of course, criminals are responsible for the needs. But everybody also needs to be mindful of not bringing a lot of attention to vulnerabilities. Again, it's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of common sense. A woman doesn't need a burqa, but if a woman dresses like a stripper, fair or not, people are going to treat her like a stripper. Anybody who can't grasp that point needs to leave Mayberry more often.

This.

I question the link between slutty clothes and rape, but there are plenty of other risky behaviors that tend to go along with it like drunkenness and going out alone at night.

Again, the world is a sh**tty place, and there's a huge difference between victim blaming and and advising rational precautions.

20RP12, repeat after me.

The world is a bad place
The world is a bad place

Bad people do bad things
Bad people do bad things

Advice about avoiding bad things does not mean approving of bad things
Advice about avoiding bad things does not mean approving of bad things

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hate to get involved in the awful "discussion", but ill point out that as rape is about power and control usually instead of sex, there is probably no link between revealing clothes and rape at all. Which makes the whole insinuations even more uncomfortable.

Might I also point out that a jogging outfit of shirts and a tank top is probably more revealing than any "slutty" dress, yet is not controversial.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Hate to get involved in the awful "discussion", but ill point out that as rape is about power and control usually instead of sex, there is probably no link between revealing clothes and rape at all. Which makes the whole insinuations even more uncomfortable.

Might I also point out that a jogging outfit of shirts and a tank top is probably more revealing than any "slutty" dress, yet is not controversial.

Look at me agreeing with BRTD, everybody.

Obviously no one's going to put their iPhone on a bench in a park and walk away, expecting it to still be there in an hour. But what does that say about society? What does it say about us as humans that we can't even be entrusted not to take what isn't ours? And we believe this is a Christian nation? Please, America doesn't have the faintest clue about Christianity.

[DC Al Fine]

Hate to get involved in the awful "discussion", but ill point out that as rape is about power and control usually instead of sex, there is probably no link between revealing clothes and rape at all. Which makes the whole insinuations even more uncomfortable.

Might I also point out that a jogging outfit of shirts and a tank top is probably more revealing than any "slutty" dress, yet is not controversial.

Look at me agreeing with BRTD, everybody.

Obviously no one's going to put their iPhone on a bench in a park and walk away, expecting it to still be there in an hour. But what does that say about society? What does it say about us as humans that we can't even be entrusted not to take what isn't ours? And we believe this is a Christian nation? Please, America doesn't have the faintest clue about Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

Welcome to the wonderful world of Calvinism

[Oakvale]

Obviously no one's going to put their iPhone on a bench in a park and walk away, expecting it to still be there in an hour. But what does that say about society? What does it say about us as humans that we can't even be entrusted not to take what isn't ours? And we believe this is a Christian nation? Please, America doesn't have the faintest clue about Christianity.

People are greedy assholes, it's not worth getting upset over.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hate to get involved in the awful "discussion", but ill point out that as rape is about power and control usually instead of sex, there is probably no link between revealing clothes and rape at all. Which makes the whole insinuations even more uncomfortable.

Might I also point out that a jogging outfit of shirts and a tank top is probably more revealing than any "slutty" dress, yet is not controversial.

Look at me agreeing with BRTD, everybody.

Obviously no one's going to put their iPhone on a bench in a park and walk away, expecting it to still be there in an hour. But what does that say about society? What does it say about us as humans that we can't even be entrusted not to take what isn't ours? And we believe this is a Christian nation? Please, America doesn't have the faintest clue about Christianity.

Most Christians prefer not to be condescended to by the secular masses.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hate to get involved in the awful "discussion", but ill point out that as rape is about power and control usually instead of sex, there is probably no link between revealing clothes and rape at all. Which makes the whole insinuations even more uncomfortable.

Might I also point out that a jogging outfit of shirts and a tank top is probably more revealing than any "slutty" dress, yet is not controversial.

Look at me agreeing with BRTD, everybody.

Obviously no one's going to put their iPhone on a bench in a park and walk away, expecting it to still be there in an hour. But what does that say about society? What does it say about us as humans that we can't even be entrusted not to take what isn't ours? And we believe this is a Christian nation? Please, America doesn't have the faintest clue about Christianity.

Hate to be a dick to you Carl, because you are among my favorites here, but if you had the faintest clue about Christianity yourself, you would know that all humans are depraved. It is not a societal problem; it is a problem that taints every single individual living.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hate to get involved in the awful "discussion", but ill point out that as rape is about power and control usually instead of sex, there is probably no link between revealing clothes and rape at all. Which makes the whole insinuations even more uncomfortable.

Might I also point out that a jogging outfit of shirts and a tank top is probably more revealing than any "slutty" dress, yet is not controversial.

Look at me agreeing with BRTD, everybody.

Obviously no one's going to put their iPhone on a bench in a park and walk away, expecting it to still be there in an hour. But what does that say about society? What does it say about us as humans that we can't even be entrusted not to take what isn't ours? And we believe this is a Christian nation? Please, America doesn't have the faintest clue about Christianity.

Hate to be a dick to you Carl, because you are among my favorites here, but if you had the faintest clue about Christianity yourself, you would know that all humans are depraved. It is not a societal problem; it is a problem that taints every single individual living.

Speaking as a member of the depraved, this guy's probably right.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Not talking about the Christians here, as this forum is home to some of the best examples of Christians there are.

My problem is with the fact that people don't live to respect their fellow man. I understand Christianity teaches about original sin and all that, but it's mostly about having respect for your fellow man and not needing worldly possessions idk

I'm a utopianist i guess

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not talking about the Christians here, as this forum is home to some of the best examples of Christians there are.

My problem is with the fact that people don't live to respect their fellow man. I understand Christianity teaches about original sin and all that, but it's mostly about having respect for your fellow man and not needing worldly possessions idk

I'm a utopianist i guess

How can I respect my fellow man if apparently they'll take my iPod when I leave it on a park bench for an hour?

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Because they don't respect YOU if they do that. Which is my problem.

Don't know if I ever mentioned it, but I had my iPod stolen during school while I was in gym class. The person went into my backpack, dug through my belongings, stole my iPod, left my headphones and my cellphone.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Because they don't respect YOU if they do that. Which is my problem.

Don't know if I ever mentioned it, but I had my iPod stolen during school while I was in gym class. The person went into my backpack, dug through my belongings, stole my iPod, left my headphones and my cellphone.

That's why you don't respect thieves.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm a utopianist i guess

This explains so much. Come join the dark side. Cynical ideologies are so much fun.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm a utopianist i guess

This explains so much. Come join the dark side. Cynical ideologies are so much fun.

Quite.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Back to the original topic, now that I'm on my computer and have more time:

No one would argue that listing legitimate advice as to avoiding rape (don't go alone in dark alleys, don't get intoxicated or put yourself in a vulnerable situation) is blaming women that don't follow those who do get raped. But "Don't dress like a "slut" or you might be raped" is not that, since as noted it's about power exchange. "Don't go in creepy back alleys in shady areas after dark" is not bad advice, and no one would argue that a guy who gets assaulted and mugged in such an area deserved it or its his own fault, or even a woman for that matter. But if a woman is raped in such a situation, it doesn't matter if she was wearing a sweatshirt and jeans or a miniskirt. Neither is going to make a difference to such a rapist.

Of course no one would also argue that a woman who's raped in a back alley really enjoyed it or wanted it. But in the type of situations where most rapes occur, it becomes a frequent accusation, and this "advice" is just a way of shifting the blame onto the victim. It has its origins in old backwards thinking that all women are slutty and probably enjoy it anyway, and is the basis for why in so many Islamic countries the burden of proof is put on a rape victim to prove she didn't want to have sex and fought back to avoid prosecution. Even in countries where extramaritial sex isn't illegal, it can still be used as a source of "slut shaming" if that sort of thinking gets out, or ridiculous thinking like "OK he might've raped her and it is his fault, but if she didn't wear that outfit he probably wouldn't have been tempted" which once again is now what rapists seek.

And this also ties into why Todd Akin's comment was so messed up. It wasn't that it was factually innaccurate and scientifically garbage, while it was, even if that wasn't the case the implication was also there that it was only a "legitimate" rape if the woman was under physical duress and fought back, so if tricked or drugged and in other cases it's not truly rape. The old "Well she was asking for it". No defended in court would ever argue "well she was asking for it for walking in that alley so clearly it was consensual" but "she was asking for it otherwise she wouldn't have dressed that way" IS used. It doesn't always work of course, maybe not even a majority of the time when there is an obvious rape, but it's still used. It's not the same as "It's not OK to take your iPod, but you shouldn't have left it in that location", more like "Well if you left it there you clearly didn't want it anyway, so whoever took it didn't do anything wrong."

[Paul Kemp]

I don't know what's going on here but I'm sure it's terrible.

[Goldwater]

Yeah, this petition is basically useless, don't know why a bunch of liberals think that signing it is going to get a gay teacher re-hired at a religious school.

If you don't want this kind of s**t to happen, just get rid of religious schooling. It's as simple as that. Make everyone go to public schools, ban private schools, end homeschooling, etc. It's all terrible anti-social activity anyway.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, this petition is basically useless, don't know why a bunch of liberals think that signing it is going to get a gay teacher re-hired at a religious school.

If you don't want this kind of s**t to happen, just get rid of religious schooling. It's as simple as that. Make everyone go to public schools, ban private schools, end homeschooling, etc. It's all terrible anti-social activity anyway.

Ideally, all education should be either public or government-approved private, yes.

[TNF]

Goldwater why are you in favor of segregation of our schools by family income?