Moderation Questions

I'm making fun of (or at least trying to, I'm not always successful) your over-the-top posting about why rape isn't such a big deal.

I don't think Didace was being entirely serious. In any case, there is a real discussion to be had about about how to think about sexual encounters in cases involving drugs and alcohol. If you are trying to get a woman bombed out of her mind so that you can have sex with her, that's obviously a problem. But if two equally intoxicated people meet at a party and end up having sex, and the guy isn't pressuring or intimidating the woman, that's a different sort of encounter. It might be a mistake. It might be something that both people very much regret. But it's a different situation than the first scenario.

Ugh. What is wrong with me? Fixing now.

You're never successful, just fyi.

FWIW, I interpreted "his goal was to get the whiskey bottle they were sharing down to a certain line and it'd be a sure thing" to mean basically this. But perhaps I have an over-the-top hatred of men. And as Didace intelligently points out, who's to say she isn't the one coercing him if he also gets drunk? It's all so confusing.

This is exactly right.

Mongodig was bringing Brock Turner energy to the thread yesterday and it was incredibly creepy

I obviously wasn't caping for mongidig. That guy unambiguously views women as objects to be used/exploited.

It wasn't mong who said what Trolly quoted. Mong is the meat up/paint fumes/probably chloroform guy.

no angry in the slightest - fwiw i know you're posting from a level of deep sarcasm etc and mostly just venting etc etc

but in a vacuum... you just blindly posting that all men are unfuggable etc is 10x more problematic than the general tenor of the replies (yes you've had some creepy replies but by and large they weren't) so it was just over the top performative cinema for someone to witness that event - where you are by far and clearly the most misanthropic of all posters - and then gladly rain down general dismissal and condemnation of the men while not mentioning an iota of your behavior right after i'd been describing the phenomena of pitch forks bringing out unfettered virtue signaling amongst certain males so it bore mentioning

and this would describe those who you routinely attack as well - congrats you found a group of peers! did you know i also breath oxygen as well? it's kind of astounding how much we have in common once you start stating basic human function as if it were a trait huh

if you flipped the genders though, it would not describe crossnerd in the slightest, which you seem oblivious to

I thought you were the chloroform guy, now I'm all mixed up.

Not commenting on crossnerd but I’ve apparently drawn the ire of a few people because I think sexism towards men is bad and racism towards white people is bad and sexuality-based discrimination against straight men is bad, in addition to all the other forms of discrimination and prejudice I’m against. This is very offensive to leftists for some reason.

Oh and also saying being an American is a privilege is offensive to black people.

I’ve learned a lot on this forum.

I should have added - not necessarily in that order.

I have not doubt than mongodog isn't bright enough to not drink way more than his date. Probably not only a meat down situation, but she gets frustrated and leaves after he passes out.

I've more just noticed that you have a deep urge to be contrarian for contrarians sake in leu of Lucio being here and have occasionally seen fit to indulge you

love the new meat down and meat up 😀

Those were her words, bro.

Spoiler

Show

It’s actually not at all contrarianism. I know people think that’s the case but it’s really not. Jalfrezi will tell you, I’m just an overeducated pompous lib.

Most of the time I have nothing to add to the Trump stuff. Obviously I agree Trump is horrible. But I also have always been deeply interested in making Democrats more liberal and less focused on academic leftism.

I am also very much in favor of inclusivity and pluralism, but this has to include white people, straight people, cis people, men, and everyone that is considered a “privileged group” by people that have been poisoned by the oppressor/oppressed narrative.

In the UK, no, because rape can only be committed by a man, but a woman can be guilty of sex without consent, the equivalent offence, if she is sober or even if both parties are drunk.

this is also how i identify

when 99% of posts are already condemning people on the right, there doesn't seem much value is being the 4th guy to post "yeah trump sucks" but instead mention something else that nobody else has yet commented upon

Inclusivity starts with white people being less racist. Its unreasonable to expect minorities to be unitarian while under the boot. There has been no time in history they haven't been under the boot. Just varying levels of boot applied

So yeah, I'm more concerned with straight white males being better, because on a pure numbers basis they are the largest offenders

And I don't really care about the whole world, because we can only control so much, I am mostly worried about the US

I will say that when luci was here he was everyday posting some screed in defense of Trump and I had a lot more of my focus on the counternarrative towards that. It’s sort of a natural consequence of shrinking the overton window on the right that the people more in the center/moderate will become the new opposing force.

If they ever ban me, I’m sure coordi will be the new dialectical opposition unless he just starts accepting their narrative wholesale.

So the dichotomy being set up here is that you can only be concerned about one type of prejudice at a time, and so we should tailor our message to only call out one form of prejudice? Therefore if we see a minority being racist we should keep our mouths shut because it’s not a big deal?

I’m just trying to understand your logic here, even if you didn’t really substantiate that straight white men are the most discriminatory. Let’s assume that’s true. I don’t see how it follows that other forms of prejudice are ok and should be ignored. Especially if there’s reason to believe that being exposed to that actually makes white people even more discriminatory.

I'm not saying it should be ignored but it should be understood. Like being legitimately concerned that BPT has some verified discussions. Can you even understand why they might want to do that? Can you steel man yourself into justifying why that might even be actually fair?

But if you can't understand why they might want to do that, or why that might actually be fair, can you acknowledge that they might have a propensity towards segregation due to our historical intolerance and violence?

I kind of see your stance as expecting minority communities to "do as I say, not as I do" and everyone knows thats horse ****