june gloom on 8/7/2020 at 19:08
Quote Posted by SubJeff
No it isn't.
And no it isn't.
i rest my case
june gloom on 8/7/2020 at 19:09
Quote Posted by icemann
he/she
do they actually use both pronouns or are you just a shitty friend who can't be bothered to remember which one they use?
SubJeff on 8/7/2020 at 19:11
Can you read?
You're really amazing. We finally agree on one thing and you can't see how my view is not built on anything to do with who can and can't commit rape or assault. At all.
Where have I said this?
SD on 8/7/2020 at 23:02
Quote Posted by heywood
The fundamental issue here is one of gender.
The "OMG, somebody might see a dick!" argument I keep hearing from your guys is the misdirection.
We're just never going to agree. If you're not willing to let trans women act as women in public, solely because they have male genitalia, regardless of whether their genitalia poses a problem or threat to anyone, then there really isn't much more to talk about. I'm just glad you guys aren't making the rules.
No, it's about dicks, and you seem to simultaneously want to associate dicks with gender, while denying that dicks define a person's gender. It's Schrodinger's Cock.
Plus it's a bit more than "somebody might see a dick". Although you seem entirely unwilling to accept that a lot of women and girls would be extremely intimidated by seeing dicks in a changing room, and justified in being intimidated.
And to repeat, nobody wants to prevent transwomen acting as women in public. We're talking about denying access to women's private safe spaces.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
I feel like this thread has gone full circle now.
At the end of the day, when you boil it right down, this entire "bathroom discussion" is about fear.
Leaving aside trans people for a moment (as it's not really a subject any of us are knowledgable enough to argue about), women like J.K. Rowling appear to be afraid of
men (which in her definition also includes trans people). She seems to be afraid that men are dangerous sexual predators and that women need to be kept safe from them.
Let's take a step back from that for a moment. Why would women be so afraid of men?
Well gee, I don't know, I guess it must be because a significant proportion of men are dangerous sexual predators.
The statistics say 20% of women in this country have been the victims of sexual assault. Having spoken to some actual women, that sounds somewhat on the low side to me, but let's take it at face value.
Next time you're out and about, count the women you pass. Every fifth one has been sexually assaulted. Add them up. Then tell me women at their most vulnerable - captive in prisons, naked in a locker room - have nothing to fear.
Society does a terrible, terrible job at protecting women from sexual violence. I'm sorry that prioritising their safety impinges on anyone else, but it's tough shit.
Kolya on 8/7/2020 at 23:29
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Since we've already established that our society and courts currently don't deal with cases of sexual crimes against women, then it stands to reason that we need to reform our society in some way.
How can we do that?
Well since you're not living in an oppressive political regime but in Ireland, I guess you could...
A) Effect change in the solid democratic process of your country.
B) Or start advocating extrajudicial punishment though social ostracism and slander.
Let's see which way you choose:
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
How can we do that? Well, for one thing, we can start by making sure that the perpetrators of these kinds of crimes face the consequences of their actions, by for example refusing to associate with them or refusing to support them. A kind of "consequence culture" for misdeeds that currently don't have appropriate consequences in our society.
And you know what? Someone who doesn't like the idea of a consequence culture and wants to diminish it might decide to mis-label this as a "cancel culture".
I understand you sympathize with the cause of rape victims and so do I. But I'm not going on a slippery slope to totalitarianism for them, the same way I'm not going to advocate censoring the whole internet because of child abuse. If that's cancel culture, it would already look bad. But it's also fiercely anti-intellectual in its rash and immoderate retributions for perceived thought-crimes, creating a stifling intellectual atmosphere. And it propagates ahistorical revisionism, when judging works of art solely by today's quickly tightening moral standards with intent of holding their creators responsible if possible.
Cancel culture is in one word an ideology, that you subscribed to under the tutelage of a guy who can barely leave his basement for fear of the outside world, feeding his hatred of everyone who isn't as miserable as he is.
june gloom on 9/7/2020 at 01:29
Quote Posted by Kolya
Cancel culture is in one word an ideology, that you subscribed to under the tutelage of a guy who can barely leave his basement for fear of the outside world, feeding his hatred of everyone who isn't as miserable as he is.
if this is in reference to me, biggest lmao in the world because A) i'm not a guy and 2) i promise you, NV doesn't need me to teach him anything
i wonder when the forum nazis will show up, i'm shocked they haven't yet as this thread continues to fester unchecked
Renzatic on 9/7/2020 at 01:34
Jawohl? You rang?
...eh, looks okay to me. A little overly tense and touchy, but that's not unusual these days.
Starker on 9/7/2020 at 01:55
If someone has been the victim of abuse, they have every right to speak out about it, even if they can't prove it in court. Rather, it would be totalitarian to shut down their free speech.
Something being historical is no excuse for giving it a free pass for its problematic aspects. Statues in public spaces are also current symbols, for example, and as such can easily be retired, especially ones put up with bad intentions to begin with. And disclaimers on old movies or TV episodes are hardly "stifling intellectual atmosphere".
Cancel culture is in one word a narrative perpetuated by reactionaries who are afraid of the mores changing and yearn for the "good old days".
SubJeff on 9/7/2020 at 03:52
Quote Posted by Starker
Cancel culture is in one word a narrative perpetuated by reactionaries who are afraid of the mores changing and yearn for the "good old days".
So (
https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/) all these people are reactionaries?
Got it.
Thanks.
Sulphur on 9/7/2020 at 04:03
I think stifling of expression is a legitimate concern when the targeting is misguided and causes more friction in social communication than there should be - that's definitely a concern, but you can't say that people like Rowling didn't deserve it.
But outside of Rushdie having a fatwa declared on him for having the gall to treat a religious prophet as a flawed human being/take creative liberties on a religious text (/s in case it's needed), have any of those people actually been 'cancelled'? Heck, I'm pretty sure that more people wanted to read Rushdie after that furore than before.
