The Gaming Den

FrankTrollman wrote: Remember how you said that the reason it was not OK for racists to ask black men to keep their eyes down was because it demeans them as people. But you held fast to your idea that it was OK to ask men to not initiate conversations with people they might find attractive on the grounds that those people might be made uncomfortable, apparently because that doesn't demean them?

I don't remember that because I never said it was OK to ask men not to initiate conversation with people they might find attractive on the grounds that those people might be made uncomfortable. That's how you chose to read it.
My idea, is, and has always been, that it's ok to ask men not to initiate conversation with people they might find attractive when they're/in a way that's likely to make them uncomfortable.

And this week I don't have time in pointless internet debate with people who interpret and rephrase everything they read in the way that supports their ideas.

Blade wrote: My idea, is, and has always been, that it's ok to ask men not to initiate conversation with people they might find attractive when they're/in a way that's likely to make them uncomfortable.

And your idea is, and has always been, racist and homophobic and frankly disgusting. Just like we told you the first time you trotted it out, and every time after that. Because your idea is really offensive, and obviously so.

There is a number of people who are racists or homophobes that is not zero. Racists are not mythical animals. Homophobes are not legendary creatures. They are real people who statistically exist. Polls show overwhelming support for interracial marriage, but there are still apparently one in seven white Americans who say they are not in favor. It is simply objectively true that if a black man or a gay man talks to a stranger, that there is a higher chance of that person being made uncomfortable than if a white straight man was doing it. A higher, and measurably higher chance, because whatever other circumstances might or might not trigger someone's discomfort, if they are racist or homophobic that is another largely independent variable that can also make them uncomfortable.

So whatever the fuck you think the line is for what's "likely" to make someone uncomfortable, there will be circumstances where a gay man is over that line and a straight man is not. There will be circumstances where a black man is over that line and a white man is not. So your position is literally and specifically and unavoidably that there are circumstances where it's OK to tell a man he can't talk to a stranger because he is black! That's what statistics fucking mean, you racist, homophobic dipshit!

-Username17

Frank wrote:Now Maj, your problem here is that none of the pieces of evidence in any way add weight to the argument that anything bad actually happened or that the man did anything wrong.

Watson never said the guy was wrong, or that anything bad happened, so if you want to argue that the dude was not wrong and he didn't do anything bad, go right ahead. I don't disagree with you. In fact, I previously have said that I see both sides of the story and think that both sides are right. Dude can totally ask Chick out, but Chick can totally call creepers.

When I was a decade old, I remember a night when I was watching TV in our living room - I was alone in the room, but not the house. We had curtains, but they were sheers so they were translucent. Someone got close to the house and was using a flashlight to peer around the edge of the windows. They went from one window pane to the next (there were three) and even tapped on the house a few times.

I was utterly petrified. I tried screaming for my parents in the other room, but couldn't even get out a squeak. I tried moving, but was completely frozen in place. The fear only broke when the person went away.

I found my mom in the other room and told her what had just happened, and she informed me that my step-dad had gone outside to look for the water main which was somewhere close to one of the living room windows. What a huge relief! It was totally a false alarm.

But that didn't negate the fear that I had felt. It was dark, I was young, I was alone in the room, someone was using a flashlight to check our house out, and I was so scared that I couldn't call for help.

Had it not been dark, things would have been different because I would have gotten a better sense of who was outside through the sheers. Had I been older, things would have been different because I'd better know how to react or interpret what was happening. Had I been with someone in the room, things would have been different because they would have seen, too, and been able to act or explain what was happening. Had there been no flashlight, things would have been different because I probably wouldn't have really noticed someone outside. Had I been able to yell for help, things would have been different because my mom would have been able to come in and intercede. Had anyone told me beforehand that my step-dad was going outside to look for the water main, I wouldn't have even panicked to begin with.

I wasn't wrong to feel fear, given my level of knowledge and understanding at the time. My step-dad certainly wasn't wrong to go look for the water main. And yet, no one found it particularly unreasonable when I turned around and asked my parents to tell me what they were up to in order to prevent something like that from happening again.

Watson said she was uncomfortable, that the situation was creepy, undesirable, and weird, and said she felt sexualized by the situation and asked that people not do that to her. If you want to ask her out [without her feeling that way], don't put her in that situation. If you don't give a shit about how she feels, by all means... Carry on.

Another video discussing STEM sexism. Not about Rebecca Watson.

Maj wrote:Watson never said the guy was wrong, or that anything bad happened

Yes, yes she fucking did:
1) In her first video, she describes how the man "clearly did not get" her discussions on sexism in the atheism community. The ones where she complained about vulgar mail and rape threats.

2) In the very same video, she makes a broad statement about how men should not do that. Not a statement about how when men do that she thinks they are creepers. Just how they should not do that. Not do that to her specifically, just not do that at all to anyone.

3) In the article follow-up, she just blatantly and openly calls what he did an act of sexual objectification. I've quoted this article. Repeatedly.

4) In the second video, there's more shit WHATEVER WHY AM I HAVING TO TELL YOU WHAT THE PERSON YOU ARE DEFENDING HAS ACTUALLY SAID HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN WATCHED THE VIDEO OR READ HER ARTICLES YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY INFORMED ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF HER POSITION aaargh

Maj, I think you broke DSM. I know money's pretty tight for just about everyone right now, but I think it's only fair if you buy us a new one.

Watson's within her rights to set down personal boundaries and have essentially arbitrary friendship requirements. Hell, people are not obliged have any particular explanation for why they won't hang out with you or engage in sex, nor should they be, which is presumably why elevator dude just, you know, up and left once rebuffed. But with that said, once a hypothetical maxim for behavior is floated out on the internet, we're still allowed to think it's a bit fucked up and that the situation described doesn't merit characterizing some dude as objectifying women.

Maj wrote: I wasn't wrong to feel fear, given my level of knowledge and understanding at the time. My step-dad certainly wasn't wrong to go look for the water main. And yet, no one found it particularly unreasonable when I turned around and asked my parents to tell me what they were up to in order to prevent something like that from happening again.

This is where our perspectives differ, I suppose. Feeling fear in situations where no danger exists, or in response to ridiculous things, is embarrassing. It's the nervous laugh when people get caught by a jump-scare in a horror movie. You know that you're in no danger from anything on the screen and you still startled like a twitchy little bird.

"But fear can be an appropriate response, given lack of adequate knowledge!", you say. Sure, you can feel that fear, but that doesn't mean that the fear has to be considered valid after you've been demonstrated wrong. When you try to defend or validate misplaced fear, you're defending a failure in your perception or your fear response.

DSM wrote:WHATEVER WHY AM I HAVING TO TELL YOU WHAT THE PERSON YOU ARE DEFENDING HAS ACTUALLY SAID HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN WATCHED THE VIDEO OR READ HER ARTICLES YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY INFORMED ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF HER POSITION

I love this because it implies that if I would just listen/read I would agree with you. I did watch/read (I even transcribed one of her videos and posted it). I still don't agree with your interpretation.

@vitm - Firstly, there's a difference between feeling fear in a situation where you know something's not going to happen to you (like a movie or a haunted house), and a situation where you don't.

Secondly, you can't logic away an emotion that's already happened. So I was wrong about my house getting broken into. Does the fact that I turned out to be wrong change how I felt at the time? The only thing you can do is change things for next time.

Mistaken feelings are a bad thing to approach the concept of culpability from though. I mean, you could argue that the fact that she didn't really do all that much about the incident implies that she realizes that this guy didn't actually do anything unethical, but that's rather at odds with bothering to characterize elevator dude as the atheist who doesn't get it.

I love this because it implies that if I would just listen/read I would agree with you. I did watch/read (I even transcribed one of her videos and posted it). I still don't agree with your interpretation.

No. You do not get to boldly state things which are the opposite of true and then call them a matter of interpretation.

Watson wrote:I pointed out that she posted a transcript of my video but conveniently left off the fact that I had already expressed my desire to go to sleep. I also pointed out that approaching a single woman in an elevator to invite her back to your hotel room is the definition of “unsolicited sexual comment.” But those are unimportant details in comparison to the first quoted sentence, which demonstrates an ignorance of Feminism 101 – in this case, the difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification. The former is great – be attracted to people! Flirt, have fun, make friends, have sex, meet the love of your life, whatever floats your boat. But the latter involves dismissing a person’s feelings, desires, and identity, with a complete disinterest in how one’s actions will affect the “object” in question. That’s what we shouldn’t be doing. No, we feminists are not outlawing sexuality.

There are zero ways to read this that do not lead to the conclusion that Rebecca Watson is accusing this man of 'unsolicited sexual comments' and sexual objectification. Now, Rebecca Watson is wrong about both of those things, but she clearly believes them. Are you suggesting that Rebecca Watson finds 'unsolicited sexual comments' and sexual objectification acceptable behavior? If you are not willing to say Rebecca Watson finds those to be acceptable behavior, then it follows that Rebecca Watson is criticizing his behavior as opposed to making a statement of personal discomfort, and you are wrong.

Furthermore, Rebecca Watson in both videos tells men not to do the thing the man in the elevator did. If you believe that Rebecca Watson is merely expressing personal discomfort, then an imperative upon men to not do X does not follow. It literally cannot follow. This point has been well-established. Your personal discomfort will never be a sufficient metric for defining the acceptable behavior of other individuals, because homophobes and racists are a thing that exist. If Rebecca Watson's attempt to dictate the behavior of men is to be anything less than deeply offensive and disrespectful, she MUST have some reason beyond personal discomfort. And if she has a reason, then clearly it isn't solely about her personal discomfort. (And, separately, those reasons are wrong.)

DSMatticus wrote: No. You do not get to boldly state things which are the opposite of true and then call them a matter of interpretation.

And people in this thread have specifically said she named him, and specifically said she called him a rapist.

So yes, "boldly stating things which are the opposite of true" is a real problem in this thread.

Your personal discomfort will never be a sufficient metric for defining the acceptable behavior of other individuals, because homophobes and racists are a thing that exist.

This is extremely broad, and people have attacked others for being "too broad" in this thread. Do you actually stand by this statement?

DragonChild wrote:
And people in this thread have specifically said she named him, and specifically said she called him a rapist.

So yes, "boldly stating things which are the opposite of true" is a real problem in this thread

So wait a minute, this guy has never been named, and Watson was the only witness?

Since this is the internet, I think I gotta come down firmly on the side of "pics or it didn't happen" and assert that the gent / creep in question likely never existed and I gotta give Waston props for a shockingly provocative piece of trolling. Well done.

DragonChild wrote:

DSMatticus wrote: No. You do not get to boldly state things which are the opposite of true and then call them a matter of interpretation.

And people in this thread have specifically said she named him, and specifically said she called him a rapist.

Wow. You're being shockingly dishonest, even for an internet argument about sexism. The term used was "name and shame" and it was by me. When you asked if I was sure she had specifically used her name, I lauded as how I was not. It is entirely possible that she merely described him such that people could figure out who he was later. In the age of internet shitstorms, I don't actually think there's much of a difference. Whether she specifically used his name or merely identified him, it still fits the definition of Name and Shame, which is an actual thing with a real definition and wikipedia entry and literally is exactly the thing that Rebecca Watson did. Learn to English.

By the way: since you still haven't retracted your grossly offensive characterization of people who don't agree with you as being accessories to date rape, my offer to punch you in the god damned dick still applies.

DC wrote:

Your personal discomfort will never be a sufficient metric for defining the acceptable behavior of other individuals, because homophobes and racists are a thing that exist.

This is extremely broad, and people have attacked others for being "too broad" in this thread. Do you actually stand by this statement?

Yes. Everyone with any brains at all and any respect for minorities at all stands by this statement. The personal discomfort of Person A cannot be a standard of behavior for Person B. Because Person A can, and most likely does, feel uncomfortable in situations where that is not reasonable. Maybe you lost family to IRA terrorism and feel uncomfortable in the presence of people wearing green ties, that is however tough shit. Most people get uncomfortable in essentially arbitrary situations that have less understandable reasoning.

The personal prejudices of people include prejudices that are immoral. They include so many immoral prejudices, that we often use the word "prejudice" as a shorthand to refer only to the immoral ones (rather than simple bayesian assessments of the world such as "bigger people are more likely to want an extra pancake"). If we include the prejudices of people at large into proscriptive statements about what individuals can and cannot do, we will by definition be using a rubric that is to a very great extent immoral. Black people make racists uncomfortable, but it is immoral to place any restrictions on their behavior because of that fact.

Proscriptive statements about behavior have to come from assessments of the rightness or wrongness of the acting person. Not the prejudices of the people around them. Rebecca Watson is arguing entirely from her own prejudices, which are misandrist and immoral. And that makes the proscriptive statements she derives, immoral. Less hurtful than if she had gone after oppressed minorities, but still immoral and for the same reason as if she had.

-Username17

DragonChild wrote:This is extremely broad, and people have attacked others for being "too broad" in this thread. Do you actually stand by this statement?

Yes, because it is sane, and in fact the only sane way to handle the issue. If you think you have a 'gotcha,' I highly recommend you doublecheck you understand what the word sufficient means and then verify that your gotcha isn't actually a case that includes harassment, intimidation, assault, or so on.

FrankTrollman wrote:Rebecca Watson is arguing entirely from her own prejudices, which are misandrist and immoral.

And misogynist to boot. With the patriarchy very much in power, "don't you dare talk to women, because we are gentle creatures with fragile psyches" contributes to the oppression and isolation of women.

Maj wrote: @vitm - Firstly, there's a difference between feeling fear in a situation where you know something's not going to happen to you (like a movie or a haunted house), and a situation where you don't.

Secondly, you can't logic away an emotion that's already happened. So I was wrong about my house getting broken into. Does the fact that I turned out to be wrong change how I felt at the time? The only thing you can do is change things for next time.

I agree with you that the two fears are different, but I was trying to pull a different example than the "person of different ethnicity walking up the street towards you" one that's been bounced around.

I largely agree with you on the second part as well, I just disagree with your prescription of how to change things in the future. Your feelings at the time can't be retroactively changed, but you can recognize that they were mistaken so that next time you don't freeze up in a useless panic. However, you wanted other people (your parents) to modify their behavior (keep you informed of their activities) so that you wouldn't feel fear in a similar situation in the future. My contention is that you are the one that needed to change something.

vitm wrote:I largely agree with you on the second part as well, I just disagree with your prescription of how to change things in the future. Your feelings at the time can't be retroactively changed, but you can recognize that they were mistaken so that next time you don't freeze up in a useless panic. However, you wanted other people (your parents) to modify their behavior (keep you informed of their activities) so that you wouldn't feel fear in a similar situation in the future. My contention is that you are the one that needed to change something.

I'm not sure how people can override their fear response. I know it can happen, but I don't know how it can happen.

That being said, I haven't frozen up since that event - but I couldn't explain how/why that change happened. All I know is that in a dead panic, I'm gold.

Managing "useless" fears is a staple of cognitive behavioral therapy, so I'd suggest looking there for ways to manage or eliminate a fear response (see: operative conditioning).

I just want to say that this and related matters (probably all deserving their own thread) have been bugging me a lot in the last months, and this thread has really helped me resolve some nagging questions of philosophy. Thank you, TGD!

I'm familiar with cognitive behavioral therapy, actually. My son sees a few specialists for/at school, and apparently, some of my parenting techniques coincide with various forms of therapy. I just didn't associate it with treating fear - though it makes sense, I suppose.

I don't know how reasonable it is for people to seek out treatment to help with fears. In my case, I haven't been in many situations like my big freeze up - people just don't come up the windows of my house and shine their flashlights in it. Also, the expense is not generally one that's covered by insurance.

In the instance of being afraid to fly, or spiders, or calling people on the phone... Something where you're highly likely to encounter the circumstances again and continue to be debilitated by them. Paying for therapy might be a worthwhile investment.

In Watson's case, I think she stands a really good chance of ending up in the same situation again. As much as I understand how her situation could be intimidating, it's just not healthy to go around freaking out about half the world's population.

Starmaker wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Rebecca Watson is arguing entirely from her own prejudices, which are misandrist and immoral.

And misogynist to boot. With the patriarchy very much in power, "don't you dare talk to women, because we are gentle creatures with fragile psyches" contributes to the oppression and isolation of women.

This is importantly true, yes. Even if Rebecca Watson got her women-only elevator rides, she wouldn't like it. History has shown that when architects make things for the privileged and the unprivileged, they do tend to skimp a bit on the things made for the unprivileged. The women's elevator is not going to go directly from the lobby to the rooms, because that is where the manavator goes. Just as black people in the fifties didn't get equal schools, equal water fountains, or equal seating in restaurants, if we segregate things for women they will not be equal. The patriarchy is a thing that exists, and if women get separate things they will get secondary and leftover things. That is how it will work. That is how it has always worked. They literally do that in Saudi Arabia, and that is how it works there now.

The Supreme Court wrote:We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

So even if Rebecca Watson was able to formulate an internally consistent theory of justice where men weren't allowed to talk to people because it creeped her out, from a Utilitarian perspective we would still have to reject it. I am openly contemptuous of anyone being able to formulate such a theory, as evidenced by the fact that not one person supposedly defending her statements on this thread having been able to do so, but when the rubber meets the road segregating oppressed people does not protect them. Never has. Never will.

-Username17

So for those watching at home the answer to "Does being a vocal atheist mean you're sexist?" the answer is "If you are Rebecca Watson, yes".

FrankTrollman wrote:History has shown that when architects make things for the privileged and the unprivileged, they do tend to skimp a bit on the things made for the unprivileged. The women's elevator is not going to go directly from the lobby to the rooms, because that is where the manavator goes. Just as black people in the fifties didn't get equal schools, equal water fountains, or equal seating in restaurants, if we segregate things for women they will not be equal.

-Username17

So which are better, female or male restrooms?

Those experience different usage patterns. Also, I am informed by a former custodian that female restrooms are considerably filthier.

name_here wrote:Those experience different usage patterns. Also, I am informed by a former custodian that female restrooms are considerably filthier.

When I do my business, I lift the seat up. Because sitting on the porcelain is preferable to sitting on the plastic seat that has been sprinkled with hoverpiss.

(Does google index spoilers?)