Street Harrassment.!!!

[Tiassa]

Then effectively you don't have a case of street harassment, because they have that right. I mean, you want to play word games?

Your devotion to denigrating your fellow humans is outstanding.

Then again, that's not something to be proud of.

Here's a word game for you: Castle Doctrine is not intended to be applied in the home.

Consider that: A man's home is his castle. By Castle Doctrine he has the right to defend himself in his home. But Castle Doctrine is not intended to be applied in the home.

Actually, an ellipsis goes there, in order to demonstrate the word game: Castle Doctrine is not meant to be applied in the home ... if you are a woman in South Carolina who is being assaulted in your own home by an intimate partner.

Or, at least, that's what prosecutors in Charleston are asserting. And no, I'm not joking (↱).

See, the way around it is to note that a man's home is his castle, and a woman isn't a man.

Now that is a word game.

If the letter of the law does not prohibit that behavior, then it is not illegal behavior.

Technically, the letter of the law does prohibit such harassment, except the loophole is to say it isn't harassment.

You find it disgusting? Write Congress and tell them you find it disgusting and want action NOW!

You wish to be taken seriously? Behave as if you do.

 

[Trooper]

I think we need a video of a good looking dude walking that same route. Lets see how many compliments he gets about his pants.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Tiassa, I mean, you want to keep talking about how much traffic there is, and I keep telling you that there's an accident up there, and they ain't doin' sh!t!

 

[Tiassa]

re: Model Pranksters video

The first thing to people's minds is that Model Pranksters frequently fakes videos.

Then again, it's also the first and only thing to mind for Perez Hilton (↱), the stale wannabe gossip kingpin:

Guys just don't have to deal with the harassment that women face on a daily basis unless they actively try, so documenting these almost fake catcalls in pretty insulting.​

If they had done a bit better job, perhaps the video wouldn't be subject to such doubt.

If they didn't have a history of faking allegedly real footage, perhaps the video wouldn't be subject to such doubt.

If they didn't call themselves "Model Pranksters", perhaps people wouldn't wonder if they were pranking the video.

Perhaps if they didn't have the slogan, "We have the models do the pranks" (↱), people wouldn't suggest that maybe this is another prank.

But they say this time it's not a prank, so, hey, we believe them, right?

So let us give them the benefit of the doubt: Do you have a point to make, or are you still just trying to impress all the men?

It's not that harassment of men is a forbidden discussion, but I do think it requires a certain amount of "calculated apathy" to pretend the situations are equal. And it requires a certain amount of deliberate cruelty to once again respond to misogyny by bawling, "What about the men?"

True, it's a specialty market, but Wendy McElroy and Janet Bloomfeld have demonstrated that there is profit to be found in telling male chauvinists what they want to hear.

What I would encourage aspiring writers such as yourself to do is become better writers. You'll need to get a bit better at this routine before you can compete in the marketplace.

The question of women harassing men on the street is not unimportant. But it needs to be presented by a credible voice, and it will have no credibility as long as it is the reliable, expected response to discussions of misogyny.

You do nobody any favors laboring to give cover to misogyny.
____________________

Notes:

Hilton, Perez. "This Response To The New York City Catcalling Video Will Annoy The Crap Out Of You". November 3, 2014. PerezHilton.com. November 5, 2014. http://perezhilton.com/2014-11-03-male-response-to-female-catcalling-street-harassment-video

Wheaton, Oliver. "Video of a man getting catcalled in New York stirs up harassment debate". Metro. November 1, 2014. Metro.co.uk. November 5, 2014. http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/01/video...-new-york-stirs-up-harassment-debate-4930405/

 

[Bells]

Wasn't that Parma's argument? Correct me if I was wrong.

Parmalee's post was to point out the contradictions in your posts by simply quoting your posts.

When you claimed that this was a well known phenomenon and that harassment is a problem and then in a later post said how it was strange that in a city with 9 million people, it only happened to this woman.. I mean, which statement did you wish to stick to exactly? That it is a well known problem? Or that you can't figure out how it can only have happened to one woman in a city the size of New York?

Parma's argument doesn't get better with repetition.

Well considering that Parmalee has only contributed to this thread once, I find your assertion that Parmalee was repeating the same argument to be bizarre in the extreme.

What was the point in bringing out unrelated incidents?

Parmalee was quoting your post and linking it to point out just how you were contradicting yourself in them.. How exactly are they unrelated?

I'm amazed the lengths some people will go on this site too, to misrepresent what others have said in order to satisfy their biases.

You are the guy that just accused another member of posting the same argument multiple times when they have just posted in this thread once.. You are also the same guy who accused that member of of making an argument they did not even make at all but was instead simply quoting your very very different arguments where you contradicted yourself in this thread.. Not to mention the fact that you are the guy who just falsely accused them of bringing out unrelated incidents when they did no such thing.

Are you absolutely sure you want to accuse others of misrepresenting what others have said?

A general piece of advice Joe. If you are going to lie so blatantly, it would behoove you to keep up with your lies and not trip yourself up over them.

 

[parmalee]

This is precisely the sort of thing which tends to lower my seizure threshold into the serious danger zone—and I’ve already nearly cracked my skull open (miraculously averted by a very well-placed and plush dog bed) and burned (again, nearly) our humble A-frame to the ground (this time averted by Daisy, the dog, whose prescient bark-fest alerted my friend of the impending doom), just in the past three days—but my caninic thirst for knowing (see The Republic, Book II… somewhere) compels me…

Joe said:
Doesn’t anyone think it odd that in a city of 9 million people, she is the only woman this happens to?

How is one to interpret this? Are you suggesting that she is the only woman in New York to experience such harassment—if said harassment is not merely confabulated for purpose of furthering a career?

And this:

Joe said:
Where are all the other videos? Where are all the other complaints? There are roughly 4.5 million women in New York. One would think at least a few of them have access to cameras and can post on Utube. So if this is legit, just the law of large numbers suggests there should be more evidence. There are a lot of hungry reporters/journalists in New York in search of a story not to mention a host of female celebrities.

Are these questions rhethorical? Have you investigated Youtube and confirmed that there are, in fact, no other instances of women with cameras being harassed on the streets of New York? Indeed, the “law of large numbers,” and the ubiquity of cameras, do suggest the existence of further evidence. And, lo and behold, you just plug in the terms “new york” and “harassment” into Youtube’s serach engine, sort by upload date, skip the first three or four pages which mostly pertain to video cited in the OP, and you find oodles and oodles of examples—many of which are far more objectionable than anything exclaimed in the OP video.

But you continue:

It’s odd that in a city with more than 4.5 million women that someone wouldn’t have noticed this before and reported it. Perhaps terrorists infected the male population of New York overnight with a “bore” virus which compels men to act like jerks no matter how ugly or plain she maybe. I just don’t think so. I think this is more likely a publicity stunt which appears to have worked very well.

Whaaa?? Did you not even bother to investigate before making this extraordinary assertion? As I recall, you are somewhat a news junky, yes? I’m not. I don’t even have a tv and I largely avoid news-y type stuff on the interwebs. And yet I’ve stumbled upon articles, discussions, etc. on this very matter countless times in the past (not to mention real-world experience). In fact, iirc, Jessica Williams did a segment on the very topic of catcalling on the streets of New York on The Daily Show a couple of weeks prior to the emergence of the video in the OP.

Anyways, extraordinary claims and all that aside, you go on to say this:

You don't need this video to make that story known. You don't need this video to be true to make a point that harassment is a problem and shouldn't be condoned or that people need to be more sensitive to harassment.

Maybe you do need the video to make the story known—I mean, maybe you do need this video to make the story known, because your comments above do certainly seem to suggest that you were previously unawares.

 

[joepistole]

Parmalee's post was to point out the contradictions in your posts by simply quoting your posts.

When you claimed that this was a well known phenomenon and that harassment is a problem and then in a later post said how it was strange that in a city with 9 million people, it only happened to this woman.. I mean, which statement did you wish to stick to exactly? That it is a well known problem? Or that you can't figure out how it can only have happened to one woman in a city the size of New York?


Well considering that Parmalee has only contributed to this thread once, I find your assertion that Parmalee was repeating the same argument to be bizarre in the extreme.


Parmalee was quoting your post and linking it to point out just how you were contradicting yourself in them.. How exactly are they unrelated?


You are the guy that just accused another member of posting the same argument multiple times when they have just posted in this thread once.. You are also the same guy who accused that member of of making an argument they did not even make at all but was instead simply quoting your very very different arguments where you contradicted yourself in this thread.. Not to mention the fact that you are the guy who just falsely accused them of bringing out unrelated incidents when they did no such thing.

Are you absolutely sure you want to accuse others of misrepresenting what others have said?

A general piece of advice Joe. If you are going to lie so blatantly, it would behoove you to keep up with your lies and not trip yourself up over them.

Hogwash, I accuse others of deliberate misrepresentations of my statements. That is fairly obvious to anyone who reads what has been written and has a rational mind.

Who knew the meet questioning the veracity of a video would arouse so much hate?

The point I made about the 4.5 million women is that if this was the problem this video represents it to be, the problem would have garnered much more attention long before this video unless it is your position that men suddenly became barbarians overnight. Maybe there is a barbarian virus going around.

I never said sexual harassment didn't exist or hadn't been documented before this video tape...damn minor detail again. And frankly it isn't relevant to my point nor can it legitimately be construed as contradictory to anything I have written. As I have repeatedly said, if the harrasment in this tape were truely representative, one would expect it this to have garnered much more attention much earlier.

 

[Bells]

Hogwash, I accuse others of deliberate misrepresentations of my statements. That is fairly obvious to anyone who reads what has been written and has a rational mind.

You accused Parmalee of repeating an argument they never even made once - when all Parmalee did was to point out the clear and direct contradiction of your posts once.

I'll repeat something for you Joe. Parmalee, up to that point, had not only not made the arguments you accused them of, but had also not repeated it - which should be agiven since they had not even made the argument in the first place. To reiterate, Parmalee was quoting your posts and pointing out how you contradicted yourself.

You also made some bizarre comment about something Parmalee never ever said and commented on the honesty of women when it comes to street harassment... Out of the blue.

You can hogwash until those hogs come home, it still will not absolve you from the fact that you made a clear error, you misrepresented another poster and downright lied about what they said, how many times you imagined they said it and are now refusing to admit what you did wrong.

 

[joepistole]

You accused Parmalee of repeating an argument they never even made once - when all Parmalee did was to point out the clear and direct contradiction of your posts once.

I'll repeat something for you Joe. Parmalee, up to that point, had not only not made the arguments you accused them of, but had also only not repeated it - which should be agiven since they had not even made the argument in the first place. To reiterate, Parmalee was quoting your posts and pointing out how you contradicted yourself.

You also made some bizarre comment about something Parmalee never ever said and commented on the honesty of women when it comes to street harassment... Out of the blue.

You can hogwash until those hogs come home, it still will not absolve you from the fact that you made a clear error, you misrepresented another poster and downright lied about what they said, how many times you imagined they said it and are now refusing to admit what you did wrong.

Actually I did no such thing. I restated Paramalee's argument as I understood it. I did the same when James made the same argument. If Parmlee wants to clarify, she is free to do so.

Who would have thought one simple apropos question would generate so much visceral hate from people who don't even live in New York and may have never been UN New York where the video was filmed.

 

[GeoffP]

Ask Parmalee and James, they have used the argument to prove the veracity of the video and those who produced it. I have debunked this before, but it keeps coming back from folks like Parma and James. Just because some women were harassed, it doesn't follow that this woman was harassed and it has no bearing on the veracity of the video or the folks who produced it. Didn't you notice the wink at the end of the post? It was to note the absurdity.

Well, it's just that that's a bit of a reverse take on the usual attack on inference: that is, I would have expected your critique to go just because this woman was harassed doesn't mean other women are, rather than just because some women were harassed, it doesn't follow that this woman was harassed. But sexual harassment occurs. Period. What is in question here is the extent to which it occurs and more specifically whether this experiment reflects the actual incidence. The above discussed back-of-the-envelope rates - say 1 in 20 of all men - don't appear unreasonable. Or is the wink intended to signify that you were satirizing the first argument?

Anyway, the upshot is that even this rate is too much. While short individual incidents are probably not actionable, there is a range of really egregious harassment there: and even 'casual' harassment is ridiculously oppressive at the rates being projected here. It warrants further investigation, and societal action.

Part of me says it would be hilarious to see how long you last before being arrested, but there is also a danger that you'll just be beaten to death, and that wouldn't be funny. Well, maybe if you decided to crack wise, and maybe pull a rubber ducky out of your ass, so you could leave us laughing. Then I would laugh in order to honor your memory.

I've never heard of this new rubber duck fetish of yours and so must leave its clarification up to your greater expertise. But you forget the humanitarian element here: having exposed myself to the assembled womenfolk of NYC, how could I then deny them? They say better to have loved and lost but surely it's kinder not to torture them with what they could never have, what with the Draft Riots only a scant 150 years past. I know, I know: it saddens me also. If life gives you lemons, squirt them in the eyes of your harassers.

 

[James R]

Now this is interesting, yes?

This video tends to confirm that street harassment does occur, and to men as well as to women.

I wonder whether joepistole will jump in and question the veracity of this video, just like the one with the woman. I'm betting we'll hear no comment from joe on this one. He won't accuse the male in the video of lying or being so ugly that people feel sorry for him, or whatever it was.

And I notice that the post above where this video appeared has already generated one "Like" (from Motor Daddy - surprise!). And Trooper posted it (surprise!).

Why do our harassment-deniers like this video so much? For the same reason the people who made it like it and post the tongue-in-cheek comment at the end about all the "harassment" (in inverted commas) the guy in the video received. The reason is this: they don't think what happened to the guy was harassment. And therefore, it follows that what happened to the woman in the original video wasn't harassment either.

But there are some assumptions at work here, aren't there? I'll list some of the ones I think our harassment-deniers might have:

• Men can't be harassed by comments on the street.
• Men can't be harassed by women.
• Women can't be harassed by comments on the street.
• Strangers asking for your number as you walk down the street aren't harassing.
• All the comments in both videos weren't harassment but were compliments and friendliness.
• Nothing sleazy was going on in either of the videos.
• Nobody could possibly feel threatened by anything that happened in either of the videos - man or woman.
• Good-looking guys and women should expect and tolerate all pick-up attempts as they walk the streets. That's the price they pay for being good-looking.
• Women in general should put up with sexualised comments on the street. That's the price they pay for being women.

Given these assumptions, what the video of the guy shows is a good-looking guy who is empowered by his looks, walking down the street and attracting wanted female attention - even from complete strangers! What a lucky guy! What guy wouldn't have his ego pumped by that! This is nothing to complain about!

And therefore... given the same assumptions:

What the video of the woman shows is an attractive-enough woman walking down the street and attracting male attention (never mind if it is wanted or not - she must know what she is doing with the way she looks) - even from complete strangers! What a lucky girl! She must love having one strange man hit on her every 6 minutes, just like the guy in his video was loving the comments from the women! Certainly there's nothing to worry about here. Guys who silently stalk women along the street for 5 minutes are just admiring their looks and hoping they might pick-up. Harmless! And women should be happy for the attention - especially if they're not that good looking. When they're old and ugly they'll wish they were "harassed" (in inverted commas) more often!

The male video doesn't show what the makers think it shows. What it does is support the original video.

Now, joepistole. Please tell us all how you distrust the motives of the guy in the male video, how he isn't really that good looking, how he's a struggling actor trying to make a buck, and how therefore the video must have been faked. I hope you're consistent.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Now this is interesting, yes?

Yes!

This video tends to confirm that street harassment does occur, and to men as well as to women.

Which law covers such a thing and when will the Police arrive? Because if we are just flapping our lips, well that would be a waste of time, no?

Here's the conversation:

James R: That's just plain wrong how those guys are behaving towards those women.

MD: Is there a law against such behavior? Maybe we can call the Police and have them arrested!

James R. No, but do you see how they are treating those women. Let me explain all the problems in the video for you...

MD. If there is no law then maybe we should try to get a law passed, so we can have them arrested.

James R. I know, but let me break this whole mess down piece by piece, and disect this thing till the cows come home so that it sinks into your thick skull, MD, that this is unacceptable behavior!! It will not be tolerated!!!

MD. But James, if there is no law then they did nothing wrong.

James R. Here we go again! Another person sticking up for the men.



Sigh

And I notice that the post above where this video appeared has already generated one "Like" (from Motor Daddy - surprise!). And Trooper posted it (surprise!).

Presents too? Not sure what the surprise is. Care to explain your position on that surprise, James??

 

[iceaura]

MD. But James, if there is no law then they did nothing wrong.

Remember having sex with corpses in Florida?. There was no law against it. The relatives of the deceased persons nevertheless felt they - and even the dead person - had been wronged.

Who but a sociopath would fail to recognize the wrong in this kind of harassment, if witnessing it in real life? And we know the harassing men are aware of the wrong of what they are doing, because they don't do it to women whose perceptions and reactions can affect them.

There are several obvious reasons this kind of stuff is not legislated against, the one addressed here being so many men (in this patriarchal society) seem to think it isn't happening. Look at the number of men here who doubt the veracity of the video on the grounds that it seems improbable, who think the level of abuse documented in it had to have been staged.

There used to be a Greek city-state, thousands of years ago, in which anyone who did something so obviously wrong that a new law had to be written was for that reason thrown off a nearby cliff.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Remember having sex with corpses in Florida?. There was no law against it. The relatives of the deceased persons nevertheless felt they - and even the dead person - had been wronged.

Who but a sociopath would fail to recognize the wrong in this kind of harassment, if witnessing it in real life? And we know the harassing men are aware of the wrong of what they are doing, because they don't do it to women whose perceptions and reactions can affect them.

There are several obvious reasons this kind of stuff is not legislated against, the one addressed here being so many men (in this patriarchal society) seem to think it isn't happening. Look at the number of men here who doubt the veracity of the video on the grounds that it seems improbable, who think the level of abuse documented in it had to have been staged.

There used to be a Greek city-state, thousands of years ago, in which anyone who did something so obviously wrong that a new law had to be written was for that reason thrown off a nearby cliff.

Caution: Lip flapping above!

Maybe you have a problem understanding? If there is no law then you can't do sh!t about it! Do you comprehend that concept? You can talk about how you can't stand it all you want to, but if you aren't applying your efforts to making a law, you ain't doin' sh!t to fix the problem, you are just flapping your lips! Nothing changes with lip flapping, as evidence in Congress. You want something done? Then quit talking and start DOING!

 

[Motor Daddy]

...and while we all know that this is all Bush's fault, that is to be expected from him. He doesn't care about women's rights like Obama does!

Wait...If Obama cares so much about women's rights like the Democrats do, and they've been in power for 6 years, with 2 years left, will it still be Bush's fault if and when the new President in 2 years is a Republican, or will it be the new president's fault that this mess is still going on??? Not sure on that one.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

Which law covers such a thing and when will the Police arrive? Because if we are just flapping our lips, well that would be a waste of time, no?

Not at all. Because flapping our lips is how human beings discuss what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what isn't, how people should behave and how they should not. Societies are built on people flapping their lips.

MD. But James, if there is no law then they did nothing wrong.

Most likely you're not really this stupid and are just trolling. But just in case, let me ask you: are you aware that not all morality is codified in law? If you're unaware, and wish to learn more, please let me know.

Presents too? Not sure what the surprise is. Care to explain your position on that surprise, James??

Do you want me to explain irony for you as well? Just let me know. I understand that being American and all, the concept may be alien to you (although I will grant that some of your more enlightened people get it).

Maybe you have a problem understanding? If there is no law then you can't do sh!t about it! Do you comprehend that concept?

Rubbish. There's no law that you're supposed to hold your fork in your left hand and your knife in the right, either. There's no law that you should say "Thankyou" when somebody does you a favour. Most of everyday morality isn't covered by law. But that doesn't mean you can't do shit about it. People can learn. People can be taught. People can work stuff out without having to be fined or threatened or thrown in prison. Bizarre concept, I know, but it's true.

You can talk about how you can't stand it all you want to, but if you aren't applying your efforts to making a law, you ain't doin' sh!t to fix the problem, you are just flapping your lips! Nothing changes with lip flapping, as evidence in Congress. You want something done? Then quit talking and start DOING!

You say you don't harass women on the street. Why not? There's no law against it. So why don't you do it?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy:

Not at all. Because flapping our lips is how human beings discuss what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what isn't, how people should behave and how they should not. Societies are built on people flapping their lips.

What is wrong is identified by laws. You claiming lollypop licking is wrong because you despise lollypops is BS! If there is no law against lollypop licking, then it isn't wrong, by law, and you can't call the Police and have the person arrested, because there is no law against licking lollypops, no matter how much you think it's wrong!

Most likely you're not really this stupid and are just trolling.

Again, you think wrong is what you believe to be the case. If the law doesn't say it's wrong, then we don't get to call the Police because James thinks it's wrong. Nope, the cases in court are never backed by the belief of James, they are backed by real laws, in writing, not in James' head. See?

But just in case, let me ask you: are you aware that not all morality is codified in law? If you're unaware, and wish to learn more, please let me know.

Are you aware that there are no Morals Police?

Do you want me to explain irony for you as well? Just let me know. I understand that being American and all, the concept may be alien to you (although I will grant that some of your more enlightened people get it).

So Americans have trouble with the concept of irony because they were born in America? Is that all of them born there?

Rubbish. There's no law that you're supposed to hold your fork in your left hand and your knife in the right, either. There's no law that you should say "Thankyou" when somebody does you a favour. Most of everyday morality isn't covered by law. But that doesn't mean you can't do shit about it. People can learn. People can be taught. People can work stuff out without having to be fined or threatened or thrown in prison. Bizarre concept, I know, but it's true.

When I say "you can't do sh!t about it" I mean you can't call the Police and have them arrested! There are no Morals Police, James. Ever see one? Do they have a "Morals Police" badge?

You say you don't harass women on the street. Why not? There's no law against it. So why don't you do it?

There is no law against eating Spinach, but I don't do that either. You, on the other hand hate Spinach so much that you want to see all people that eat Spinach be arrested. The problem is, James, it's not wrong to eat Spinach unless the law says it's wrong to do that, and violators will be prosecuted. You don't seem to get that, unless you're playing dumb because the alternative is to lose ground in this debate?

 

[milkweed]

There is no law against eating Spinach, but I don't do that either. You, on the other hand hate Spinach so much that you want to see all people that eat Spinach be arrested. The problem is it's not wrong to eat Spinach unless the law says it's wrong to do that, and violators will be prosecuted. You don't seem to get that, unless you're playing dumb because the alternative is to lose ground in this debate?

Sure you had to use spinach. I like spinach and cannot support its ban. Again.

Now if you would have said sauerkraut...

 

[James R]

joepistole,

Where are we at? I actually thought that we might be making some progress. Then I reviewed your contributions to the thread. No obvious progress to be seen. Sure, there's a lot of backing off, softening of your position, self-rationalisation and sitting behind the barricades, but those things prevent real progress.

Brace yourself. This is a long post. If you're true to form, I don't expect any honest reply from you. Probably you'll post a one-worder or a sentence again. It's ok. I understand that once you dig a deep hole for yourself there comes a point where it's hard to climb out. Anyway...

Here's where we started - your knee-jerk instinctive reaction to the video. This is the real joe:

Well there are two possibilities. This is either a publicity stunt on her part or the men in New York City are extraordinarily desperate and/or bored. Because she's not that attractive.

She has certainly received a lot of attention with this video. She has been making all the news programs. So if it is publicity she wants, and what struggling actress doesn't want publicity, she is certainly getting it.

Doesn't anyone think it odd that in a city of 9 million people, she is the only woman this happens to?

Only two possibilities, according to Joe:

1. It's a publicity stunt (i.e. faked).
2. Men in NY are extraordinarily desperate and/or bored (and can presumably only fill in their day by harassing women on the street).

I would suggest possibility 3:

3. Women are regularly harassed on the street in NY by random men.
​

But Joe tells us that (3) isn't a possibility. (1) and (2) are the only possibilities. Why? Because no man could conceivably even want to harass the "struggling actress" who is "not that attractive".

I mention in passing that I find it interesting that you consider the status of this woman to be so important. Could this be harassment if she was a famous and successful actor, perhaps? Does she not matter if she's "struggling" and unknown? And is it impossible for "not that attractive" women to be harassed? Or is it her fault that she's "not that attractive"? Would she avoid harassment if she was prettier?

So, from the start, Joe refuses to even consider the possibility that the video might be legitimate and, much more importantly, that harassment of women regularly occurs on the streets of NY.

For all your pleas to argue logically, Joe, it seems you have a gaping hole in your own analysis of this matter. It's a hole big enough to drive a bus through. You never asked yourself: "What if women actually are regularly harassed on the streets of NY?" What then, Joe? No, it's a thought not worth considering.

And lest we think you've changed your mind, here's a recent post from you:

LoL, PJ I hate to interrupt your fantasy, but the two options I outlined are exactly what I have said consistently.

This confirms that option (3) isn't on the radar for Joe.

Aren't you even getting the hint of a problem in your oh-so-logical thought process by now, Joe?

Either this video and actress are truthful or not.

Indeed. So, tell me how the logic goes.
Video is a fake. Therefore there is no harassment in NY. ?
Actress is not truthful. Therefore nothing to worry about concerning street harassment?
Something like that?

Or is the main concern to put feminists or liberal types back in their biased boxes and to pretend that the real issue here is the existence of a video, and not the problem of street harassment?

Oh, and I almost forgot. You asked why she was the only person out of 9 million that this happens to. And this:

It’s odd that in a city with more than 4.5 million women that someone wouldn’t have noticed this before and reported it. Perhaps terrorists infected the male population of New York overnight with a “bore” virus which compels men to act like jerks no matter how ugly or plain she maybe. I just don’t think so. I think this is more likely a publicity stunt which appears to have worked very well.

So, once again, Joe's oh-so-logical brain says:

• If harassment occurs, then women would say it occurs.
• Joe doesn't personally know of any women who say it occurs, and can't be bothered taking 2 minutes to see if he can find any relevant evidence of women's reports.
• Therefore harassment doesn't occur on the streets of NY. Corollary: video must be a fake.

The problem (obviously), is in step 2. Earlier in the thread, I suggested that you look at women's comments on this video, or in general, about harassment on the streets. You didn't. Why not? Why didn't you apply your oh-so-logical mind to evaluating the evidence that's out there? Why did you assume that your personal experience would be sufficient to draw conclusions?

Now, let's give you some points for recognising that harassment is a bad thing (hypothetically, if it occurs):

If this video is a truthful, then it is indeed a sad state of affairs. Anyone innocently walking the streets shouldn’t be molested physically or verbally. I don’t think anyone with any sense of decency would think otherwise.

This is a good start, joe. But nowhere in this thread, as far as I can see, have you talked about what you think would amount to harassment, physical or verbal molestation. You haven't expressed an opinion on whether the comments and behaviour of the men in the video would amount to harassment, in your opinion.

Are you brave enough to venture an opinion on that, or will you continue to distract using the question of the legitimacy of the video?

Now, on to the question of my evil motives, assumptions and dishonesty. Here's what I wrote previously:

My argument here is (1) that the video shows street harassment and (2) that street harassment should not be accepted in an inclusive society. What's illogical about that? You can disagree, of course. You can claim that the video doesn't show harassment, and/or you can claim that harassment is acceptable in society. But instead, all I've seen from you is questioning of the legitimacy of the message. Unless, of course, you're trying to argue that the video doesn't show harassment because everyone in the video is a paid actor trying to advance his career. But if that's your argument, then I want you to address point (2). That's the important part. And so's the part where you explain what you consider to be street harassment and what you don't, because it's a cop-out to say "I'm against harassment, but I think that harassment hardly ever occurs, if it occurs at all."

There's no a priori reason to doubt the veracity of this video. If you have any evidence that it was faked, please post it.

All I got in reply from you, Joe, was deafening silence.

That is, even on your main point - that the video was faked - you have nothing. You'd like it to be a fake, but you've got nothing to say it is. In fact, everything about it says that it isn't. This video has attracted a lot of publicity, but strangely I haven't yet seen an article that calls into question the legitimacy of the footage. Nobody in the conspiracy of fakery surrounding the video has broken ranks and spoken out about the shooting of the video. Nobody has come forward from the streets to expose the fraud. And yet, somehow joepistole knows it's a fake. Magic! Oh wait, no, logic.

And because you failed to respond last time, I repeat:

Calling into question this woman's truthfulness without any evidence is, in fact, another form of harassment. And this time it's you who is doing the harassing.

Why do you feel a desperate need to delegitimise the woman in the video, in particular, joe? So you can ignore her message? So other people will ignore her message? Can't you see that this is another form of harassment?

And that brings us more-or-less up to date. In the next post, I will look at your latest replies.

 

[James R]

joepistole:

I have questioned the veracity of the video and the struggling young actress who starred it for all the many reasons previously and repeatedly stated whereas you mindlessly accept the video and the words of this young actress as gospel truth without question.

Again, interesting how you focus on the woman. This video was made by two people. I'm not sure how many others were involved in editing it.

I don't see any reason to question the veracity of the video. You have given two reasons why you question it: (1) you think the woman in the video is so unattractive and (presumably) therefore struggling as an actor that she needs the (presumably large) amount of money she was (persumably) given to fake it; and (2) the makers of the video have a (presumably) hidden agenda to achieve something (politically-correct liberally subversive?) by making a fake video.

There's a lot of assumptions in there, and the whole things smells like a badly-woven conspiracy theory on its face, don't you think? Coming from somebody with an oh-so-logical mind who is oh-so-honest about everything, something about your theories seems out of place, Joe.

Give me real reason to question the legitimacy of the video and I will happily consider it, I assure you. Of course, that won't make a jot of difference regarding the reality of harassment on the streets, because there just so damn much independent evidence of that. But you haven't bothered checking that, have you Joe?

You regard the video and this struggling young actress as sacrosanct. In your view, it cannot be questioned as it is gospel. And I have also repeatedly stated that neither you nor I know the veracity of the video and the struggling young actress who starred it. We only have their word that they are truthful.

If it's a conspiracy, there must be many people involved - surely a lot of people involved in the hollerback campaign for a start. And all of them are maintaining the facade brilliantly up to the present time. Then there's all that corroborating evidence from women posting in forums, on blogs, in comment sections of newpapers etc. saying that yes! these things occur all the time in NY (and London and Sydney and elsewhere).

But yeah, let's just concentrate on the word of the "not very attractive, struggling young actress". If she was more attractive, maybe she'd be more reliable as a witness. If she was famous and not struggling, then maybe we could trust her more. If she wasn't an actress but an inventment banker (?) then she'd be more reliable. If she wasn't a woman then we could probably trust her more. If she wasn't a liberal feminist politically-correct extremist then maybe we could trust her. But as things stand, we have only the word of some woman who can easily be dismissed. Now there's a familiar story to hear from a white male.

What you have repeatedly done is to pretend facts do not exist. You have used a host of fallacies. You have accused me of taking positions and of saying things I didn’t’ say or even hint at. You have repeatedly lied. Unfortunately for you, I am not going to defend positions I do not take or subscribe to just to make you feel better. You stepped in it, now live with it.

Throughout, I have referred to your own opinions expressed in your own words. Where I have had to infer things about your position, I have asked you directly to clarify and explain, confirm or deny. In some cases, you have expanded on your position (slightly). In others you have hid yourself away and avoided. On crucial issues, you have made yourself look very bad by avoiding uncomfortable questions that would expose your true opinions or force you to admit an error.

Contrary to your claim, I have not relied on logical fallacies, which I assume you are referring to, and I hope I have not made factual errors. If I have, I would be happy for you to correct them in your next post.

I have previously asked you to document my "repeated lies". You have come up with nothing.

In short, your accusations are empty.

I answered every legitimate question you asked. You just didn’t like the answers.

Bad move, Joe. Now you have told an obvious lie and you've been caught out. You responded to a lengthy post of mine that was full of direct questions with a one word dismissal. Given another chance to respond, you continued to avoid.

Oh wait! You say you answered all the "legitimate questions". So you get to decide which questions you consider legitimate and which ones you think aren't legitimate? Well, that's very convenient for you, isn't it? Just label all the questions you don't want to answer as "illegimate", then ignore away.

Well done, Joe. How logical and honest of you.

The questions I didn’t answer were not related to our discussion or my position which was and remains the basis for this discourse.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I assume you're saying you don't want to talk about street harassment, but only about the legitimacy of the video. The video is about street harassment, Joe. The thread is titled "Street Harassment". Maybe you should have started one called "Faked video" and restricted the discussion there. Looks like you chose the wrong thread - one about a social issue that impacts women every day.

I didn’t answer your questions about specific words which used would constitute harassment, because frankly the question is infantile and pointless. There are no specific words which if used would constitute harassment. Women, men, my dogs, can all be harassed without words or with any words, context and perception is everything. So to engage in an argument about what words which if used constitute harassment is just silly and pointless. It is quite frankly infantile. It isn’t my cup of tea and it has nothing to do with the subject of our discussion.

This all sounds very encouraging, Joe. But the thing is, I have no clear idea about what you consider to be harassment. And in particular, it's not at all clear to me whether you think the behaviour in the video would amount to harassment, assuming the video was real. Previously, you posted something that sounded like you thought it would be harassment, but there was an "if" in the sentence. I asked you to clarify, but you ignored that request. In fact, you've ignored every request to discuss what you consider is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of behaviour of men on the street towards women. Instead, you have tried to divert the thread topic into a discussion about a conspiracy theory you dreamed up.

Given some people are denser than others; I will repeat myself one more time for your edification. I question the veracity of the video in question for all the reasons previously stated. That doesn’t mean that sexual harassment doesn’t occur. That doesn’t mean that sexual harassment should be condoned. I have said and will say once again for your edification, that harassment of any kind should not be condoned, sexual or otherwise, be it with words or with gestures.

As above, you've still failed to express an opinion on the content of the video. On the assumption that it is real, does it show unacceptable behaviour? Yes or no? Or in parts? What?