Help me here. Did Shades really say he considers mini-skirts a rape provocation?
No. His miniskirt example was a reductio ad absurdum of the position that K's manner of bearing his weapon invited his attacks. He's saying that the logic of those who say Kyle invited the attack by his manner of bearing his weapon would also justify the miniskirt example. Since he rejects the logic of those who say Kyle invited the attack, he rejects the miniskirt example.
Unfortunately, the situations aren't the same since nobody has ever feared for their own safety or the safety of others upon beholding a miniskirt, and then, commenced to rape in self-defense.
Analogies always involve differences and samenesses. The trick is in which differences and samenesses matter. For the argument that Shades was making, I think it works fine. In an open carry state, a person carrying the gun isn’t asking to be attacked. The mere fact of carrying a weapon does not give anyone the right or privilege to disarm him.
But the analogy breaks down if one tries to apply it more broadly. Because of the armed guy isn’t careful, he can create a situation in which others have a legal privilege to use force against him. Not so with the miniskirt.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
My understanding is that UR 9 applies to board interactions that spill over into real life. Like sending e-mails to people’s employers. That’s why the qualifier about “real life” is part of rule.
If we had a rule against on board harassment, I’d be happy to enforce it. I’d be happy to help draft one. Or if Shades says I’m misinterpreting the rule, I’ll enforce it how he directs.
It's the closest standing rule we have right now. If he wants to make a new rule as you say, that would be fine by me.
What is not fine by me, is that this issue has been raised since the beginnings of this board and never once has Shades bothered to address it. Would you like a list of links from the archives to back that claim? Because I have them.
Now, try to imagine that you are a long running female poster on this board. Imagine that you've seen this pass before your screen for 16 years. Imagine that you've watched the female population here dwindle down to almost nothing. Imagine that a clown car pulls up and unloads it's passengers and once again, female posters are being spit on again using sexual matters to do the spitting.
What the “F” would this admin have us do, RI? What? Just go away? Is that what this board wants? I can't speak for Lemmie but speaking only for myself, you know what--“F” this crap.
hear-hear-correct.gif (150.1 KiB) Viewed 777 times
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
Here let me describe the various techniques that female posters might use in the face of sexually harassing remarks. I know this like I know my own screen name. Why? Because I'm well practiced.
1. Ignore the comments.
2. Report the posts.
3. Respond in kind.
1. Ignore the comments.
When posters, in this case female posters, ignore sexually harassing remarks, it gives the impression that it doesn't matter to them. The result? It encourages more sexually harassing remarks from the same posters and encourages others to do the same because why? Because, see? She don't care so why the “F” not.
2. Report the posts
Posts have been reported. Some acted on, some not. By the time we're getting the response back, yet another list of offenses/violations takes place and adds to the pile. When these incidents go unchecked...all you're left with is posters with battle fatigue and board with crap slung all across it.
3. Respond in kind.
While this can work for a short while it forces the nature of the exchanges ever downward. Again, leaving the board strewn with crap giving the appearance that anything goes until the board resembles the shithole that it's become and draws even more intellectually disinterested crappy posters...like the contents of the recent clown car drive by...tuck and roll socks. If you think that a female poster like me (let's say) can't get as dirty as (say Schmo), you're dead wrong. The difference is that I don't care to. I'm not here for that. I'm here for discussion.
On a board that is purported to be a discussion board.
I'm goddamn sick of this. Write that down.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
The mere fact of carrying a weapon does not give anyone the right or privilege to disarm him.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, his analogy works in (at least these) two instances where 1) the firearm is like a rolex where the attacker wishes to seize the property or 2) the firearm triggers alpha-male aggression with those who think he needs to be taken down a notch. But neither of those cases are relevant to what I've seen anyone argue, which has mainly been, the recent use of the firearm to kill someone indicating the bearer is dangerous.
My understanding is that UR 9 applies to board interactions that spill over into real life. Like sending e-mails to people’s employers. That’s why the qualifier about “real life” is part of rule.
If we had a rule against on board harassment, I’d be happy to enforce it. I’d be happy to help draft one. Or if Shades says I’m misinterpreting the rule, I’ll enforce it how he directs.
It's the closest standing rule we have right now. If he wants to make a new rule as you say, that would be fine by me.
What is not fine by me, is that this issue has been raised since the beginnings of this board and never once has Shades bothered to address it. Would you like a list of links from the archives to back that claim? Because I have them.
Now, try to imagine that you are a long running female poster on this board. Imagine that you've seen this pass before your screen for 16 years. Imagine that you've watched the female population here dwindle down to almost nothing. Imagine that a clown car pulls up and unloads it's passengers and once again, female posters are being spit on again using sexual matters to do the spitting.
What the “F” would this admin have us do, RI? What? Just go away? Is that what this board wants? I can't speak for Lemmie but speaking only for myself, you know what--“F” this crap.
I can’t speak for admin or the board. I can only speak for myself. You don’t have to give me any links. I believe you. In the black, I don’t want you to leave, and I would be sad if you did. Lem and I get along like dynamite and a lit fuse, and I would be sad if she left.
This may sound silly, but both times I’ve moderated here, I’ve taken the clone of Shades thing pretty seriously. It’s part of the agreement I made with him. And, to me, that means not getting creative with the rules on my own. To me, that would be a breach of trust. So, closest rule we have isn’t good enough for me.
I rarely get time to read whole threads. My moderator efforts right now consists of reading and responding to reports. I’m not sure I’ve seen a report of harassment since the last discussion. Has the behavior changed at all since?
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
...I’m not sure I’ve seen a report of harassment since the last discussion. Has the behavior changed at all since?
In my case, no, I have not been directly sexually harassed here since I stopped posting in discussions where there is a possibility that those who sexually harass women might participate.
The mere fact of carrying a weapon does not give anyone the right or privilege to disarm him.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, his analogy works in (at least these) two instances where 1) the firearm is like a rolex where the attacker wishes to seize the property or 2) the firearm triggers alpha-male aggression with those who think he needs to be taken down a notch. But neither of those cases are relevant to what I've seen anyone argue, which has mainly been, the recent use of the firearm to kill someone indicating the bearer is dangerous.
I thought the argument Shades was responding to was that carrying the Rifle was “asking for it.” If I misunderstood the context, my bad.
Legally, at the point that Rittenhouse was clearly running away, I’m not sure that an indication that he is dangerous is legally sufficient for use of any force. If someone had successfully used force to disarm him, a prosecutor may have chosen not to prosecute. But I’m skeptical about the use of force is privileged when he’s clearly running away.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
...I’m not sure I’ve seen a report of harassment since the last discussion. Has the behavior changed at all since?
In my case, no, I have not been directly sexually harassed here since I stopped posting in discussions where there is a possibility that those who sexually harass women might participate.
You understand what that means, right?
Yes. And thank you.
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
I don't think there need to be more rules. I think sock puppets are a matter of judgment and circumstance. when it was 20 new dumb posts a day, or if most threads have 4 sock puppets sucking up the oxygen, then it's a problem. I'm not seeing those excesses right now, annoying as the trolling might be otherwise to the extent that it is happening.
On the sexual insults, that's a different matter. The high ratio of m to f posters here makes it even worse. I'd get rid of all those posts and ban the main account of the offender for longer and longer periods with each violation. any sock puppets to get around are perma-bans of socks. I don't think a rule needs to be made, just common sense with agreement by all 3 mods.
my opinion is shades should consider letting the 3 mods moderate the sexual insults from male to female posters here per their judgement and agreement on a case-by-case basis per commons sense.
