The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

[Tiassa]

Speaking of Whine Country

I'm from wine country. So, no.

Being from wine country is irrelevant.

Would you say, "He's not an alcoholic, he's an addict"?

Just out of curiosity, do you think Jeremy Meeks is good looking?

He's not my type. Nice eyes, though. Shitty hair, bad tats. But the aesthetics of his appearance are irrelevant to me.

 

[Trooper]

Being from wine country is irrelevant.

Would you say, "He's not an alcoholic, he's an addict"?

“These were the biggest nerds I had ever seen, and they were both very ugly with annoying voices,” he wrote. “If they were pleasant to live with, I would regret having to kill them, but due to their behavior I now had no regrets about such a prospect. In fact, I’d even enjoy stabbing them both to death while they slept.”

“After that, I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering, and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it.”

I did say that he was a misogynist, didn't I? Hold on...let me double check....Yep, I did.


Would you say that he only hated women? Would you say that he was only a misogynist?

 

[krash661]

“These were the biggest nerds I had ever seen, and they were both very ugly with annoying voices,” he wrote. “If they were pleasant to live with, I would regret having to kill them, but due to their behavior I now had no regrets about such a prospect. In fact, I’d even enjoy stabbing them both to death while they slept.”

“After that, I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering, and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it.”

I did say that he was a misogynist, didn't I? Hold on...let me double check....Yep, I did.


Would you say that he only hated women? Would you say that he was only a misogynist?

i would say, as obvious as it is, you are attempting to defend his actions.it's that simple.

also, what a nice way of creating an argument, then backing out after asked for proof of your claims.

 

[Tiassa]

When Women Still Aren't Human

Would you say that he only hated women? Would you say that he was only a misogynist?

No, but the misogyny is what drove this manifestation of the dysfunction.

Meanwhile, you're essentially saying that if he has a glass of chardonnay, it's not a glass of chardonnay, but simply a glass of wine.

We will never erase psychopathic deviations and antisocial personality disorders because Nature so demands.

To the other, if we never erase misogyny, it's simply because people like you don't want to.

And if you don't like that sentence and what it means, then stop advocating that people look away from the misogyny.

And stop trying to justify Elliot Rodger.

 

[Trooper]

No, but the misogyny is what drove this manifestation of the dysfunction.

Are you a psychologist, Tiassa?

Let’s see now, if a crazy Christian loses it, and murders people in God’s name, which does happen, was it Christianity that drove his/her manifestations?

And if you don't like that sentence and what it means, then stop advocating that people look away from the misogyny.

I'm not telling anyone to look away. I said he was a misogynist and misanthrope. I'm telling you to stop being a vulture and using a tragic story to push your own agenda. I'm asking that you apologize for all of your insulting and still unfounded accusations.

I don't think that GeoffP, nor I, are rape advocates and misogynists.

And how exactly, am I trying to justify a mass murderer, by saying that he had a psychological disorder, is that how? You’re the one who’s trivializing it.

For some dumb reason, both you and Bells feel that any mental disorder is some sort of justification. That is incorrect.

 

[GeoffP]

Trooper, I wouldn't bother. I had a glance at some of the pages of one of the previous contentions and there was never really any room for discussion. They were just attention-seeking, or an excuse to demonise an actual opposition they couldn't get their hands on. There are better ways to spend your time than countering deluded allegations.

 

[Trooper]

Trooper, I wouldn't bother. I had a glance at some of the pages of one of the previous contentions and there was never really any room for discussion. They were just attention-seeking, or an excuse to demonise an actual opposition they couldn't get their hands on. There are better ways to spend your time than countering deluded allegations.

I know. Didn't I tell you that I was losing interest in the Bells & Tiassa show? Like I said, Sciforums one-ups a chatterbot but we both know it's a shitty remedy for boredom.

Take care,

Good day to you, Geoff.

 

[krash661]

Are you a psychologist, Tiassa?

oh, but you are ?
to say the opposite ?

Let’s see now, if a crazy Christian loses it, and murders people in God’s name, which does happen, was it Christianity that drove his/her manifestations?

what an apples to oranges comparison
(shrugs)
and the answer is yes,
because of your own words.

also it's an chemical reactions/imbalances or what other term, along with it.

both you and Bells feel that any mental disorder is some sort of justification. That is incorrect.

unbelievable.
please show where they have implied or actually stated this.
i can assure you,
this is your flawed interpretation of their words.

 

[krash661]

Trooper, I wouldn't bother. I had a glance at some of the pages of one of the previous contentions and there was never really any room for discussion. They were just attention-seeking, or an excuse to demonise an actual opposition they couldn't get their hands on. There are better ways to spend your time than countering deluded allegations.

anyone can see your own words.(just like i did)
unfortunately for you and them,
some of us can understand your words and intent.

like i continue to say,
create arguments then scream troll.

 

[krash661]

but we both know it's a shitty remedy for boredom..

exactly,
you just admitted your intentions,
" create arguments then scream troll. "
nothing more.

 

[Tiassa]

Keep on Politicking

Let’s see now, if a crazy Christian loses it, and murders people in God’s name, which does happen, was it Christianity that drove his/her manifestations?

Yes, insofar as we leave the term "Christianity" open to interpretation. That is to say, the outlook Jesus had in mind if he really did walk the Earth? Nowhere to be found in the modern faith. Scriptural adherence? Not a particularly relevant Christian force in our society. The messed up excuse for Christian faith driven by televangelists and politicians? Well, that is certainly more common.

In the end, what one must do is comprehend the relationship between the malady and its influences. If the Christian in your hypothetical proposition leaves a hundred-page manifesto and a series of YouTube rants expressing his rationale, that is what we must analyze.

The reality is that two people can be psychopaths with two different manifestations.

I'm not telling anyone to look away.

Actually, you are. Quit lying. Again, see your own posts at #25 and 31.

I said he was a misogynist and misanthrope.

Yes, and you've been arguing the insignifcance of his misogyny, when it is in fact, as he expressed, the driving force behind his rupture.

I'm telling you to stop being a vulture and using a tragic story to push your own agenda.

This from a person who admits she has adopted her stance because she doesn't like someone on the other side of the argument?

So tell me, Trooper, what is this godawful "agenda" I'm pushing?

I'm asking that you apologize for all of your insulting and still unfounded accusations.

Trooper, the dishonesty you show is repugnant. It is an embarrassment to this community. You have been shown repeatedly where people are getting their information from you, and all you have in this case is, "nuh-huh".

Remember that whatever your problem with Bells, you picked this fight.

Oh, my, the aggrieved accused says, "Nuh-uh! You're unfounded!" and yet has nothing to offer to demonstrate that claim.

Quit lying.

"He was right, though. Women do reward aggressive and obnoxious behavior, reinforcing the idea that manhood is attained through power. Most of them are drawn to men who demonstrate confidence, stubbornness, and risk-taking tendencies, i.e. the high Machs. Why? Because therein lies 'the challenge'."

—Trooper​

#YesAllWomen?

 

[Bells]

This doesn't make sense to me.

Why were the charges dropped, again? It wasn't due to lack of evidence, that’s for sure.

Was it because he was too incompetent to stand trial, because you knew how the system worked as a former employee, case overload, or because it didn't serve the public interest to prosecute? Why did they feel that it wouldn't serve the public interest to prosecute? Was it because it was a revenge rape, is that why?

Do you think he’s capable of doing this to another woman?

All of the above.

They didn't feel it was worth prosecuting due to some, all or none of the reasons above.

Do I think he is capable of doing it to another woman? Yes. Do I think that woman will be me? Yes. He hasn't exhibited that level of hatred towards anyone else. Just me. I apparently took away his manhood when I took away the leverage he had over his ex-wife when my ex-husband and I gave her the money to pay off her debts to him. Since he believes it was primarily my money, I denied him something something. Or so the saying goes.

Why don't they feel it is in the public interest to prosecute? Cost and also it would lead to the perception that they only care about one of their own while hundreds of other rape cases are dropped. I should amend that. It's not public interest they are concerned about but their own. It all comes down to politics. They aren't there to advocate my interests. This is a common practice. Or more to the point, what has happened to me is not uncommon. Few ever make it to trial.

Believe it or not, I understood before. You just won't let anyone understand, a common reaction of victims of violence and rape. (Not that they are mutually exclusive). And, to be more specific, I don't "understand" your particular experience as such, but to generalize, yes. I do empathise. I really do. From past experiences with abusive (I was about to say "relationships") interactions. No two are the same. The main part of mine is "what did I do to bring this on?" Nonetheless, as I am dealing with past experiences, I'm not going to start leaving my drinks unprotected because it's my right not to have someone put a roofie in it. I'm not going to figure I can go anywhere, anytime, in any part of the city because it's my God given right or something. I will do what I can to protect myself and still lead a happy life. So fuck those of you that say that's wrong, that's the way I choose to live.

Perhaps you can try and explain the pathological need to be so patronising? Common sense being advocated as rape prevention. No, really, do you all think women are so stupid that you need to keep repeating it? We know. Believe me, we know. We know that because of the actions of some random stranger or someone known to us or that we are intimate with, that our movements and actions have to be curtailed and our behaviour controlled. We know there are two separate standards worded as rape prevention and explained to us as being "common sense". Yet women are still raped in their homes more often than not.

Secondly, rape prevention advocates demand that women behave a certain way to avoid being raped, while ignoring the fact that what they advocate offers absolutely no protection against spousal rape or intimacy rape or acquaintance rape. Don't drink, don't dress a certain way, don't walk down the street by yourself - especially at night, don't associate with men you aren't related to or don't know.. When countries or religious ideology impose those demands of women and say that not doing makes the woman too enticing for men who cannot control themselves, we consider it barbaric and misogynistic and with the specific intent to control women. But word it for rape prevention, and you all think it's fine and dandy.

We get it. If we take all those necessary steps, we won't be raped... Which is frankly so ridiculous and stupid, it's astounding people still keep plugging it. But here we are and people are still pushing rape prevention as though it's a cure for rape.

Instead of focusing on the potential rapist and telling them that rape is not acceptable and not okay, the onus is placed directly on the woman to not be raped if she follows a certain set of behavioural guidelines and rules which control her dress, her movements, her actions, what she wears, when she goes out, how she goes out, who she goes out with, who she talks to, how she talks to them, what she does when she goes out, where she goes out to and the times and locations of where she can and cannot walk.

I say fuck those of you who believe that I should not be free to live the way I choose to live because doing so will result in my being raped.

 

[Randwolf]

Perhaps you can try and explain the pathological need to be so patronising?

Perhaps. Perhaps you can stop being so defensive as well.

Common sense being advocated as rape prevention. No, really, do you all think women are so stupid that you need to keep repeating it?

No, I only have a problem with certain forum members being too stubborn to acknowledge that there is a place for such common sense measures.

We know. Believe me, we know.

Apparently not. Bells, I have no grudge against you, I respect you. And what you do / did for a living. Just because you get animosity from other posters does not mean you will do so from me. Not all posters, ya' know?

We know that because of the actions of some random stranger or someone known to us or that we are intimate with, that our movements and actions have to be curtailed and our behaviour controlled. We know there are two separate standards worded as rape prevention and explained to us as being "common sense". Yet women are still raped in their homes more often than not.

That may well be true - a sad state of affairs but not one promulgated by me.

Secondly, rape prevention advocates demand that women behave a certain way to avoid being raped, while ignoring the fact that what they advocate offers absolutely no protection against spousal rape or intimacy rape or acquaintance rape.

I'm pretty sure that not leaving a drink unattended applies to acquaintance violence as well. It did in my case at at least, and while there is no parallel between being drugged and having all your valuables stolen, not to mention waking up in a ditch alongside a road you didn't even know existed, I think that experience allowed me a glimpse. Maybe. Don't know...

Don't drink, don't dress a certain way, don't walk down the street by yourself - especially at night, don't associate with men you aren't related to or don't know.. When countries or religious ideology impose those demands of women and say that not doing makes the woman too enticing for men who cannot control themselves, we consider it barbaric and misogynistic and with the specific intent to control women. But word it for rape prevention, and you all think it's fine and dandy.

You obviously are confusing me with someone else Bells. I'm not here to fight with you.

We get it. If we take all those necessary steps, we won't be raped...

You would be wrong. Dead wrong in the some circumstances. Why do you make stupid assertions like this? I didn't say that, never have. Lose the chip already...

Which is frankly so ridiculous and stupid, it's astounding people still keep plugging it. But here we are and people are still pushing rape prevention as though it's a cure for rape.

Who does? I just get aggravated because you and others refuse to admit that we all take precautions - against all sorts of evil. Six years I've been waiting for you to admit it. Then, when you do, you have to have the tag afterward of "Oh no, none of those measures were to prevent rape, only other sorts of crime / violence" (paraphrased) Really? How stupid do you think people are? It's human (animal as well?) nature to protect one's self - when one can.

Instead of focusing on the potential rapist and telling them that rape is not acceptable and not okay,

The two aren't mutually exclusive Bells. *patience*

the onus is placed directly on the woman to not be raped if she follows a certain set of behavioural guidelines and rules which control her dress, her movements, her actions, what she wears, when she goes out, how she goes out, who she goes out with, who she talks to, how she talks to them, what she does when she goes out, where she goes out to and the times and locations of where she can and cannot walk.

By whom Bells? Who is placing the onus squarely and exclusively on women? And why only women? Men get raped as well. And I'm not talking about being raped by your female high school teacher. Remember your Geoff / Bubba story? Let's try that one for a second. Do you think inmates [should] take precautions against Bubba? Why?

I say fuck those of you who believe that I should not be free to live the way I choose to live because doing so will result in my being raped.

I say more power to you. The missing ingredient in what I'm saying as opposed to what you are inferring is "force". It will fall on totally deaf ears, in fact, you remind me of a three year old putting his hands over his ears and shouting "Nya Nya Nya" to drown out the sound, but hey - just for the record:

I do not advocate that anyone do anything they don't want to. If you don't believe that, perhaps you will believe this: I don't give a flying fuck what you do Bells. What part of that do you not understand? I'm not belligerent about this issue, I was six years ago maybe, but even then only because of the unbelievable obstinacy I encountered. No one, certainly not me, is telling you how to live your life. Period. End of story. Now return the favor...

 

[krash661]

I'm not here to fight with you.

then why do you continue to do so.
the simplest thing is just to shut up about it.

 

[Tiassa]

On Neuroses and Priorities

I say fuck those of you who believe that I should not be free to live the way I choose to live because doing so will result in my being raped.

I wonder if there is any sort of technology that can be adapted to give men a night in Rapeville insofar as some sort of device will alert them whenever they are breaking the Infinite Protection Advice Protocols.

With Google Glass up and rising, it might not be long before any willing man can have that little light go off in the corner of his vision telling him that, if he was a woman, he was being irresponsible about self-protection.

Better yet, let the women in his company observe him and click a button to set off that alarm.

What do you think? One Friday night on the town, maybe?

What it comes down to is that this gets too close to some men. They aren't the stalk-and-jump rapists, so it's easy to dispense self-righteous advice to women. But when we get down to the fraction of rapes within that 22% that such advice would actually apply to, it would seem very much a betrayal of one's protection advice to suggest that similar "common sense" does not apply to the conditions encompassing 72% of rapes. The problem with that, of course, is that suddenly, the suspicion they would thus ask women to hold all men in (while some of our brothers complain that women are holding them in suspicion) includes the advocates themselves. A man doesn't want to think of himself as a rapist, potentially, possibly, or otherwise. And many women put up with this behavior because society has informed them that it's their own damn fault, so it goes on and on because she made the mistaken decision to get married or have an intimate partner or even a male friend.

This is why they can't do any better.

Geoff would deny the functional burden of IPA.

Billvon would exclude consideration of the most frequent types of rape because they disagree with his idea of common sense.

Trooper? Hell, Elliot Rodger was right about women, apparently, and that's not really a psychoanalysis I would look forward to, you know, because Once Upon A Time Poor Elliot Saw A Beautiful Girl While Out For A Walk. It's one of those things where you put the most obvious suggestions that rush to mind aside because that analysis can't possibly be correct insofar as it is terrifying to think that it might be.

At this point, it's all about themselves; that would be the irony if it wasn't also the giveaway.

I mean, look at Trooper's argument:

"I'm telling you to stop being a vulture and using a tragic story to push your own agenda."​

Perhaps we should invoke the Trooper Policy at Sciforums: Discussing how an issue relates to one's own life disqualifies either the issue or the member who posts such a discussion.

And I have to admit, it's a great rule if one wants to empower rapists. Just tell the women to shut up.

I mean think about it for a moment. Your own agenda? My own agenda? Okay, fine. If breaking the rape phenomenon and alleviating its damage in our society is somehow "my own agenda"? Hell, fine, I'll take it.

But why do I have a feeling that, if I took the Trooper Policy for a larger application at Sciforums, we would end up quashing a lot of discussion because people are pushing their own agenda?

What's that? A physicist wants to talk about the latest popular manifestation of young-earth Creationism? Nope. He needs to stop exploiting unfortunate situations in order to push his own agenda.

A chemist or biologist wants to talk about what pesticides do to life in general? Nope. Sorry. Stop pushing your own agenda.

Pretty much any discussion, then, that can be tied back to a living situation, about which controversial questions exist, will be disqualified under the Trooper standard.

And this is the problem. These people aren't really thinking through their arguments. Like Geoff arguing that homosexuals are merely mistaken in order to support his biological trigger argument that rape happens because a man gets horny. Or even the implication of what it means if men really are so dangerous as he needs them to be.

This is all personal to them. This isn't about rape or society or men and women. It's about their egos. Pure, intransigent opposition.

 

[krash661]

I wonder if there is any sort of technology that can be adapted to give men a night in Rapeville insofar as some sort of device will alert them whenever they are breaking the Infinite Protection Advice Protocols.

With Google Glass up and rising, it might not be long before any willing man can have that little light go off in the corner of his vision telling him that, if he was a woman, he was being irresponsible about self-protection.

Better yet, let the women in his company observe him and click a button to set off that alarm.

What do you think? One Friday night on the town, maybe?

What it comes down to is that this gets too close to some men. They aren't the stalk-and-jump rapists, so it's easy to dispense self-righteous advice to women. But when we get down to the fraction of rapes within that 22% that such advice would actually apply to, it would seem very much a betrayal of one's protection advice to suggest that similar "common sense" does not apply to the conditions encompassing 72% of rapes. The problem with that, of course, is that suddenly, the suspicion they would thus ask women to hold all men in (while some of our brothers complain that women are holding them in suspicion) includes the advocates themselves. A man doesn't want to think of himself as a rapist, potentially, possibly, or otherwise. And many women put up with this behavior because society has informed them that it's their own damn fault, so it goes on and on because she made the mistaken decision to get married or have an intimate partner or even a male friend.

This is why they can't do any better.

Geoff would deny the functional burden of IPA.

Billvon would exclude consideration of the most frequent types of rape because they disagree with his idea of common sense.

Trooper? Hell, Elliot Rodger was right about women, apparently, and that's not really a psychoanalysis I would look forward to, you know, because Once Upon A Time Poor Elliot Saw A Beautiful Girl While Out For A Walk. It's one of those things where you put the most obvious suggestions that rush to mind aside because that analysis can't possibly be correct insofar as it is terrifying to think that it might be.

At this point, it's all about themselves; that would be the irony if it wasn't also the giveaway.

I mean, look at Trooper's argument:

"I'm telling you to stop being a vulture and using a tragic story to push your own agenda."​

Perhaps we should invoke the Trooper Policy at Sciforums: Discussing how an issue relates to one's own life disqualifies either the issue or the member who posts such a discussion.

And I have to admit, it's a great rule if one wants to empower rapists. Just tell the women to shut up.

I mean think about it for a moment. Your own agenda? My own agenda? Okay, fine. If breaking the rape phenomenon and alleviating its damage in our society is somehow "my own agenda"? Hell, fine, I'll take it.

But why do I have a feeling that, if I took the Trooper Policy for a larger application at Sciforums, we would end up quashing a lot of discussion because people are pushing their own agenda?

What's that? A physicist wants to talk about the latest popular manifestation of young-earth Creationism? Nope. He needs to stop exploiting unfortunate situations in order to push his own agenda.

A chemist or biologist wants to talk about what pesticides do to life in general? Nope. Sorry. Stop pushing your own agenda.

Pretty much any discussion, then, that can be tied back to a living situation, about which controversial questions exist, will be disqualified under the Trooper standard.

And this is the problem. These people aren't really thinking through their arguments. Like Geoff arguing that homosexuals are merely mistaken in order to support his biological trigger argument that rape happens because a man gets horny. Or even the implication of what it means if men really are so dangerous as he needs them to be.

This is all personal to them. This isn't about rape or society or men and women. It's about their egos. Pure, intransigent opposition.

....

 

[Randwolf]

then why do you continue to do so.
the simplest thing is just to shut up about it.

You know, just for fun, I think I'll try pushing a button that I have never pushed in six years. You know, that "report" link? You are like a mosquito - you need swatted. And I'm relentless. Now go pick on someone else before you krash. This discussion is ongoing for years - no one invited you.

 

[Kittamaru]

You know, just for fun, I think I'll try pushing a button that I have never pushed in six years. You know, that "report" link? You are like a mosquito - you need swatted. And I'm relentless. Now go pick on someone else before you krash. This discussion is ongoing for years - no one invited you.

Well... technically speaking, it IS a public forum...

 

[Trooper]

"He was right, though. Women do reward aggressive and obnoxious behavior, reinforcing the idea that manhood is attained through power. Most of them are drawn to men who demonstrate confidence, stubbornness, and risk-taking tendencies, i.e. the high Machs. Why? Because therein lies 'the challenge'."

Yep, we like loud and aggressive men, but gossiping little bitches, not so much.

 

[Kittamaru]

"He was right, though. Women do reward aggressive and obnoxious behavior, reinforcing the idea that manhood is attained through power. Most of them are drawn to men who demonstrate confidence, stubbornness, and risk-taking tendencies, i.e. the high Machs. Why? Because therein lies 'the challenge'."

Yep, we like loud and aggressive men, but gossiping little bitches, not so much.

There is a difference between liking someone who is "powerful" and "manly", and someone who is "dangerous" or "a bad boy"... therein is the issue - why do some women tend to constantly go for the "bad boy"? Is it to punish their parents? Some pathological need for danger? I really don't know... wish I did a number of years ago... might've been able to save a few girls I knew in High School from several broken hearts (and occasionally blood noses and blackened eyes)