Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Culture of Victimhood (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: The Culture of Victimhood
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes. Every construction worker who leans on a wall in front of a walking woman, obstructing her path, to tell her that he likes her skirt and she should smile more both needs education and is fully capable of changing upon receiving that education.
Tom, that's not what I asked. Of course they are capable of changing. I asked if there was belief they WOULD change.

Yes, is an acceptable answer. Changing the question in order to answer yes isn't cool though.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm questioning if it's about anyone who wouldn't perpetuate the behavior, we would like to see ended, anyway.

Do you believe there are still those out there who both need education AND would change upon receiving it?

Absolutely. The vast majority of people accept what society tells the is okay or not okay to do, and act blindly within those limits regardless of actual harm that may be going on. That's what makes the problems systemic. The system teaches to behave in a certain, harmful way, the fallout from the harm reinforces the behavoir conventions and teaches future generations to behave in the same way, and so on.

It's only by constantly pushing back against such- encouraging enculturation of active consideration instead of passive reflection of ongoing cycles, that can really shift the gears to a more beneficial system.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's only by constantly pushing back against such- encouraging enculturation of active consideration instead of passive reflection of ongoing cycles, that can really shift the gears to a more beneficial system.
The problem seems to be that you don't actually know how to convince people to behave in a way that you want them to behave. Indeed, every post of yours leads me to believe that the methods you would endorse are guaranteed to provoke virulent backlash.

So to the extent that I would acknowledge there is a problem to be solved, I don't think any of the methods you have advocated for have an iota of chance of solving it - quite the opposite.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Incidentally, I don't actually think that construction workers whistling at passing women has much of anything to do with rape.

But to the extent that it is a problem, a more practical solution would be to go to the construction companies themselves and have them reign their men in. Many jurisdictions have successfully regulated the construction industry in various ways for occupational health and safety. All contracts these days contain anti harassment provisions. Enforce the provisions.

Not an easy task I'll concede, but easier by far than "encouraging enculturation of active consideration instead of passive reflection of ongoing cycles" or changing the gravitational constant of the universe or whatever Pyr and his social justice friends advocate in rape culture seminars.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
If someone is aware and is making the effort to not engage in oppressive social behaviors, they're also very likely to also understand the need to help others understand the problematic nature of such and either helping point them out or at least no arguing against others that are doing so.
So you want nothing further. I’m no longer part of the problem? I just need to shut up about having my feelings hurt because the “awareness education” obviously worked on me and many others? It had nothing to do with us being good people and possessing at least a moderate amount of empathy and an awareness of political power balance and history?
If your feelings are being hurt by things that you're imagining, then you'd do well to stop imagining them as a first step, since there's nothing in explaining how certain culturally propagated behaviors are harmful and should be avoided that targets your feelings or says any of the list of things that you asserted that some imaginary person is telling you.

If the problem is that you're so attached to harmful behaviors that you consider it a personal insult or attack on you to be asked to make the effort to stop doing them, then perhaps your claims to empathy need a bit more work to support.

(It feels as if the thrust of your argument here, though, is that you want to there to be a point of "done" where everything is good and you don't have to keep working to make things better. That state doesn't exist- the point is that, as with maintaining anything else, attaining a fair and just society takes active effort from all players. Constantly taking on the effort of considering the possible consequences of your behavoir and the context that the people you associate with are coming from.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
It's only by constantly pushing back against such- encouraging enculturation of active consideration instead of passive reflection of ongoing cycles, that can really shift the gears to a more beneficial system.
The problem seems to be that you don't actually know how to convince people to behave in a way that you want them to behave. Indeed, every post of yours leads me to believe that the methods you would endorse are guaranteed to provoke virulent backlash.
What makes you think that I'm trying to convince you to do anything here? We're talking about the problem and solution in abstract here, not attempting to specifically get anyone here to change their behavior.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What makes you think that I'm trying to convince you to do anything here? We're talking about the problem and solution in abstract here, not attempting to specifically get anyone here to change their behavior.
Well presumably you're trying to convince someone, otherwise how do you propose to change anything?

I'm saying the "solution" you propose isn't anything of the sort.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see this has turned from being about micro-aggression as it pertains to addressing females in public, to a conversation about rape culture and literally about rape. And the tangent began when the question was posed whether we should change society to be a place where a woman doesn't have to fear being in an elevator with a man because he's bigger and stronger.

News flash! She will always fear this, and the only society where she won't fear this will be a complete police state where a person's entire family are executed if you commit a crime. Excepting that environment, which I believe could actually create an environment where you'll KNOW no one will mess with you, you don't know at all. So in our society a woman's only options will be to a) be armed, b) become an expert at Wing Chun, or c) avoid elevators with men. There is no cure for fear like this, because it is simply a fact that bigger and stronger men are bigger and stronger. The only recourse is then to either choose not to be afraid, or else to accept that some measure of insecurity will be involved in partaking in life, which can be mitigated with good sense and precautions. There is simply no other option. You cannot sanitize facts.

Part of what I think is up with the whole victim culture thing is not so much to accuse people who wrong others, but rather to accuse others who are stronger than others. In other words, people who have more of a thick skin, people who don't mind a bit of annoyance in life, people without serious self-identity issues. There is no 'cure' other than genetic engineering for women being weaker than men, and in the absence of a cure instead we foster blame for it. What did this particular man do to the woman in the elevator with him? Nothing, but he's bigger than her and therefore a potential threat. Well I guess he is, in this sense, but calling out males everywhere to pretend not to want things from women won't change the basic facts here. Maybe he could rape her and kill her in the elevator (a more or less preposterous scenario, by the way). How is crying about it going to change that basic fact? Are you saying that if I see a guy raping and killing a guy in an elevator that I should speak out against it? Yeah, I'll try to keep than in mind. Meanwhile, no society you can confabulate will make the woman feel safe since nothing it can do will make men stop being men and stop being stronger. Revaluating values to make being stronger equal to being privileged or an oppressor that has to pretend he has no desires is classic victim-mentality aggression against those perceived as stronger. But you can't alter the reality that hecould attack her if he wanted to. As Plato put it, no one can stop the knife in the marketplace. It's just a fact of life you have to deal with.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Rape is forcing sex on someone who has not consented, and that is a crime no matter how many of the people involved are drunk.

I don't care to get into the minutiae about rape and psychopathy for the purposes of this thread, but since the thread does pertain to college campus rules and terminology, this point needed to be addressed. scifi, you are incorrect. This is not how rape is now being defined, both on campus and legally. Rape is now defined such that if sex occurs at all if the woman is intoxicated to any extent the man is a rapist. Forcing sex has nothing to do with it and is now legally irrelevant. Similarly, it is now the case that if a woman does not verbally state her consent before the sex act the man is a rapist. If you don't believe me you can go check this out. That's the kind of perverted society we're moving towards. In the victim culture the accuser is automatically correct if the accused is part of an oppressor class, and similarly being part of an oppressed class means one's statements have special privilege.

In summary: the fact that conditions of actual rape are being discussed in regard to the subject of micro-aggressions is precisely what I called you out on before. Some of you, I think, take the notions of rape culture, privilege, micro-aggressions and other such things all in a ball of "oppressor society" and see all things in this light. You then treat instances of this as small wasp stings (to use Pyr's term) repeatedly inflicted on the oppressed and try to find ways to stop the oppression. Meanwhile in the real world what you're actually referring to is guys trying to make time with girls. God damn.

Pyr's theory is that men should pretend they have no sex drive, no interest in girls, and no interests in having interactions with girls, and to go through a day treating other people merely as sex-neutral drones. The time to treat them as actual people (you know, with all human parts) is when they hang up a sign which says "ready to be flirted with now", such as in a bar and...well, just in a bar, basically. I have no doubt that some people (maybe Pyr included?) really think the world would be better if people would live like this. I have another word for it: dystopia. It is nothing more than the ultimate negation of the most basic drive we have, put into a tight collar and forced to hide its face.

It's suggested that the majority of thoughts that enter a man's mind have to do with sex, people they're attracted to, looking at people they like to look at, and thinking about their own sexuality. If this is so, then by pretending these thoughts are not appropriate ones and must be bottled one is being repressed in the most serious way. I cannot think of anything more inhuman than suggesting that one's desire to find ways to interact with the opposite sex are, in essence, sinful. This position, for whomever holds it, is truly the face of religious fundamentalism.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Well presumably you're trying to convince someone, otherwise how do you propose to change anything?

On what basis should I assume that I have the proper context to try to convince anyone here about anything regarding their personal habits when I don't actually directly know anyone here in a real context? There are people that I try to convince, but this isn't the forum for that- this is just a deep academic dig into what the concepts are. The facts of the what the position entails are the facts of it; you can try to understand them or ignore them as you will- that's totally up to you.

quote:
I'm saying the "solution" you propose isn't anything of the sort.
Given that I've seen little evidence that you're actualyl willing to honestly understand what I'm saying, I'll take that with as much gravity as the level of information behind it makes it worth.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no cure for fear like this, because it is simply a fact that bigger and stronger men are bigger and stronger.
So are many women given any given woman. Except at the outliers, individual variation is in size and strength is just as great among men or women as it is between men and women.

Strength has nothing to do with the fear, it's the cultural programming that means there's a significant chance that it will be abused in harmful ways.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Revaluating values to make being stronger equal to being privileged or an oppressor that has to pretend he has no desires is classic victim-mentality aggression against those perceived as stronger.
Are you seriously saying that men are so fundamentally uncivilized that they can't separate having desires from being subject to active, uninvited attempts to service them? That there isn't a wide range of day to day actions that it should be the norm for those desires to have no effect on?

You don't have to "pretend you have no desires" to be polite and civil on a day to day basis.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Meanwhile in the real world what you're actually referring to is guys trying to make time with girls.
quote:
Pyr's theory is that men should pretend they have no sex drive, no interest in girls, and no interests in having interactions with girls, and to go through a day treating other people merely as sex-neutral drones. The time to treat them as actual people (you know, with all human parts) is when they hang up a sign which says "ready to be flirted with now", such as in a bar and...well, just in a bar, basically. I have no doubt that some people (maybe Pyr included?) really think the world would be better if people would live like this. I have another word for it: dystopia. It is nothing more than the ultimate negation of the most basic drive we have, put into a tight collar and forced to hide its face.
So, in summary, women aren't really people unless you can harass them for sex, without any regard to whether they're interested in such attention from you? And, in fact, if you have to deal with them as a person without forcing them to deal with your sexual desires, they're just drones.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
There is no cure for fear like this, because it is simply a fact that bigger and stronger men are bigger and stronger.
So are many women given any given woman. Except at the outliers, individual variation is in size and strength is just as great among men or women as it is between men and women.

Strength has nothing to do with the fear, it's the cultural programming that means there's a significant chance that it will be abused in harmful ways.

Nice try, but this is just a dodge. It's about strength and nothing more. Anyone who cannot be physically subdued by someone cannot be violently raped by them hand-to-hand. Maybe with a weapon, yes. Being physically subject to the whims of crazy men is exactly what this is about, because if women were twice the size of men there would be no discussion in the first place.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
a more practical solution would be to go to the construction companies themselves and have them reign their men in
I thought we were against threatening people with being fired.

-----------

quote:
And the tangent began when the question was posed whether we should change society to be a place where a woman doesn't have to fear being in an elevator with a man because he's bigger and stronger.
I don't agree. I do not, for example, fear being mugged when I am in an elevator with someone who is bigger and stronger than I am, even though the likelihood that I will be mugged by a stranger is actually much higher than that a woman will be raped by a stranger.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Nice try, but this is just a dodge. It's about strength and nothing more. Anyone who cannot be physically subdued by someone cannot be violently raped by them hand-to-hand. Maybe with a weapon, yes. Being physically subject to the whims of crazy men is exactly what this is about, because if women were twice the size of men there would be no discussion in the first place.

Which is why they fear being raped by strong women in elevators too?

No, it's specifically the attitude that you expressed above- that their primary value to men is as objects for sexual desire that causes the problem.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought we were against threatening people with being fired.
General contractors control what goes on in their projects. They control contractors, subtrades and dictate how the work is done. Typically they are also supervised by a contract administrator (often an engineer or an architect) who ensures that the work meets standards.

Almost all such contracts have anti harassment policies.

Construction workers have bosses like everyone else. They answer to their bosses. Their livelihoods depend on it.

It would be difficult to curb this behaviour universally but certainly not impossible. In the 20th century we made immense strides in the areas of occupational safety to eliminate unsafe practices on construction sites. I see this as akin to that.

Stop by a construction site some day and watch them build a 50 story office tower or condo from the ground up. It's really an amazing feat of organization. In the grand scheme, preventing your workers from whistling at passing women isn't terribly complicated.

Of course, that's a real proposed solution to a specific problem. It's not"encouraging enculturation of active consideration instead of passive reflection of ongoing cycles" I'll concede.

[ October 02, 2015, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Almost all such contracts have anti harassment policies.
Question: about three years ago, a woman complained online about two men who were making innocuous but sexist jokes during a conference. One of the two men was a contractor, was identified from her tweet, and was fired. In the resulting backlash, the woman herself was fired from her job, and the other man was himself fired for publicly making offensive statements about the woman who originally found his friend's jokes offensive.

Do you believe that any or all of these firings were appropriate?

(As a side note, I'm not sure that a general solution to the problem "being catcalled and sexually objectified by strangers while passing" can really be presented as "identify whether they're currently representing an employer, then complain to that employer." Leaving aside its applicability to all but construction-worker scenarios, there's also the issue that it's not addressing the problem but rather the manifestation. It becomes an issue of punishment and enforcement, as opposed to actual education.)

[ October 02, 2015, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course, that's a real proposed solution to a specific problem. It's not"encouraging enculturation of active consideration instead of passive reflection of ongoing cycles" I'll concede.
In other word, it's just firing people for behaving in was you don't like, rather than teaching everyone that it's not a good way to behave. Why encourage good behavoir when we have an opportunity to punish people instead?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Question: about three years ago, a woman complained online about two men who were making innocuous but sexist jokes during a conference. One of the two men was a contractor, was identified from her tweet, and was fired. In the resulting backlash, the woman herself was fired from her job, and the other man was himself fired for publicly making offensive statements about the woman who originally found his friend's jokes offensive.

Do you believe that any or all of these firings were appropriate?

If it's the case I think you're referring to, as I recall, this woamn eavesdrops on two men having a private conversation at a conference, photographs them surreptitiously and then gets them fired. Then in an ensuing backlash she got fired in retaliation.

If ever there was a poster child for the vile corrosive effect of social media on society, that's the one.

But in answer to your question, it seems pretty self-evident to me the difference between whistling at / verbally accosting a passing woman, versus having a private conversation that an eavesdropping third party considers offensive.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"identify whether they're currently representing an employer, then complain to that employer."
You misunderstand my point. I'm suggesting that the machinery to ensure this doesn't happen is already built into the system. It just requires municipalities, property owners, regulators and their contractors to ensure that the standards are enforced, the same way they enforce WHMISS.

This isn't an ad hoc solution of requiring individuals to report abuse, although that's a part of the system. It's a top down approach.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WIth, of course "private conversation" being a complete fabrication, given that they were talking loudly enough to be casually overheard in an auditorium with no expectation of privacy.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In other word, it's just firing people for behaving in was you don't like, rather than teaching everyone that it's not a good way to behave. Why encourage good behavoir when we have an opportunity to punish people instead?
I'm proposing a proven solution that has worked in the past. We did not end problems like child labour, warehouse fires and other occupational death traps by convincing employers to "teach" themselves that it's not a good thing to burn their employees alive for a thicker profit margin. We set up codes of conduct and enforced them. If you don't comply, you get shut down and in some cases prosecuted criminally.

No reason at all why this wouldn't work for stopping construction workers from whistling at passing woman. It's just a question of mustering the will to do it. Like I said, the provisions are already there in the contracts. Maybe it's just not a priority for contractors to enforce.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
WIth, of course "private conversation" being a complete fabrication, given that they were talking loudly enough to be casually overheard in an auditorium with no expectation of privacy.
That a conversation is loud enough for someone to overhear has no bearing on whether or not it's a private conversation.

But regardless of whether or not the woman felt offended, taking photographs, posting them on social media and attempting to get the men fired was a far more vile act than some sexist jokes they might have made. Indeed, in the era of social media, anybody photographing another person without consent deserves to have his / her face smashed in. I consider it to be tantamount to assault.

Evidently I'm not alone, because apparently this woman ended up fired herself for her loathsome conduct.

This is the sad world we live in. Social media is a cancer. It brings out the worst in people.

[ October 02, 2015, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You misunderstand my point. I'm suggesting that the machinery to ensure this doesn't happen is already built into the system. It just requires municipalities, property owners, regulators and their contractors to ensure that the standards are enforced, the same way they enforce WHMISS.
In the same way that illegal immigrants are refused employment, perhaps? [Wink]

-------

quote:
But in answer to your question, it seems pretty self-evident to me the difference between whistling at / verbally accosting a passing woman, versus having a private conversation that an eavesdropping third party considers offensive.
Well, they were joking back and forth fairly loudly. She wasn't consciously eavesdropping; she overheard some offensive jokes from some rows back in an auditorium, which means they weren't exactly being subdued.

Which raises the question: what if they were joking about her? What if they were talking about their intent or desire to rape someone? What if they were sharing corporate secrets? If the issue is that they were behaving inappropriately, why does it matter that they did not intend for her to overhear? Should a company be comfortable employing people who will only joke about rape sufficiently softly?

I think bringing employers into the issue makes the whole thing considerably more fraught than it needs to be.

Question: if a construction worker is catcalling you, would you be justified in taking his picture so you can identify him to his employer later? With the specific intent of getting him fired?

[ October 02, 2015, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which raises the question: what if they were joking about her? What if they were talking about their intent to rape someone? If the issue is that they were behaving inappropriately, why does it matter that they did not intend for her to overhear? Should a company be comfortable employing people who will only joke about rape sufficiently softly?
Your question is counter factual - what if they were joking about raping her specifically within easy earshot of her, but not intending her to hear them? Is that what you're asking? [Smile]

But to address your general question, I assume you're asking me to answer the hypothetical: does an employer want to ever employ anyone who privately has joked about something vile or socially unacceptable? That seems to be the gist of it.

Alright, I'll bite - have you ever made a joke or joked about a really nasty or horrible topic that would get you fired if you announced it in public? I know I have. I don't actually know anyone who hasn't, to be honest. So do you think I and everybody I know should be fired and become unemployable for life?

If I make a holocaust joke to my friend, and he surreptiously records it on his phone and then posts it to social media with my photo as a "holocaust joker" do I deserve to become unemployable for life?

This is the evil of social media coupled with the ubiquity of smart phones. It's a surveillance state and the surveiller is us. Pretty scary stuff.

What's especially vile about it is that you don't even have to be on social media to get burned, like the African AIDS lady. Others can force your participation against your will.

[ October 02, 2015, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Question: if a construction worker is catcalling you, would you be justified in taking his picture so you can identify him to his employer later? With the specific intent of getting him fired?
I don't agree that catcalling should be a fire-able offense, to be honest. A reasonable employer would discipline the employee and if he persisted, then fire him.

And in answer to your question, if someone is specifically catcalling at you while he is on the job, I have no problem reporting that person to his employer, any more than I'd object to calling the bus company about a bus driver who cut you off on the road, or the taxi company about a drunk taxi driver.

Nothing like the scenario in the case you mentioned.

And incidentally, since when did every offensive thing an employee can do become an automatic firing? What about making a sexist joke merits firing any more than missing a meeting, bungling a case or failing to file forms on time?

Is firing literally the only form of discipline that employers have at their disposal?

I guess a verbal reprimand or a suspension isn't enough to satiate the bloodthirsty social media mob.

[ October 02, 2015, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So these two guys were having a loud conersation at a professional function while representing their employers, but because they were only directly speaking to each other there is nothing they could say that would be vile enough to justify calling them out for it?

(As a side note: I don't believe I've ever said something I would consider vile. I don't even tell dead baby jokes. But that's not even the standard, here: I certainly don't shout dead baby jokes at a conference while wearing a badge.)

As far as "merits firing" goes, by the way, you'll note that I specifically brought this up while saying that involving employers was unnecessarily fraught.)

[ October 02, 2015, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So these two guys were having a loud conersation at a professional function while representing their employers, but because they were only directly speaking to each other there is nothing they could say that would be vile enough to justify calling them out for it?
Well again, what exactly are we talking about here? Are we talking about a blonde joke, or are we talking about "huh huh I'd like to rape the blonde in the front row". Context kind of matters. In your absurd hypothetical, the "joke" would be tantamount to a criminal threat.

But even in the eventuality that someone did say something semi privately that was so vile it deserved to be reported, the relevant party to report to is the person's supervisor or HR department, not a bloodthirsty mob of Twitter followers with the person's clandestine photo posted.

If a taxi cuts me off on the road, I call the taxi company and complain. I don't snap a photograph of the driver, post it on Twitter and start a campaign to ruin his life.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How do you feel about those Planned Parenthood videos?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How do you feel about those Planned Parenthood videos?
Not totally familiar with those. Something about organ trafficking? A bit like that ACORN sting a few years ago?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is what was said,

quote:
I really did not mean to offend anyone and I really do regret the comment and how it made Adria feel. She had every right to report me to staff, and I defend her position. However, there is another side to this story. While I did make a big dongle joke about a fictional piece hardware that identified as male, no sexual jokes were made about forking. My friends and I had decided forking someone’s repo is a new form of flattery (the highest form being implementation) and we were excited about one of the presenters projects; a friend said “I would fork that guys repo” The sexual context was applied by Adria, and not us.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/

I think her behavior regarding taking a photo and then tweeting it was inappropriate (a tweet of just the context without the photo would have been reasonable). I think complaining to the conference would have been reasonable. Or simply addressing the individuals directly.

[ October 02, 2015, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, I just read a Google synopsis. It sounds like what I thought - basically a politically motivated sting / hatchet job.

Without knowing all the ins and outs, it's hard to judge. Sometimes these videos reveal genuine corporate misfeasance that probably should be outed.

No idea if the videos in this case were fair or balanced.

But either way, not sure how that relates to the social media witch hunts against individuals. Are you suggesting that these things are somehow comparable? I don't really see it.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin,
Your last response to me shows that either I am far, FAR worse at articulating my position than I ever realized or that you are unable to comprehend my words on this topic without reading volumes between the lines. I honestly don't know which and am beginning not to care.

To those who answered my question honestly, thank you. I obviously think that the attitude expressed and discussed her on what form that “education” should take is wrong, but I appreciate knowing you feel it is still required. I think you are selling humanity short (or at least the WMT strain of it) and I consider myself quite the pessimist on that count.

I also apologize for dragging the elevator scenario into this. It was an ill conceived attempt to illustrate the , perhaps not uselessness but helplessness of having that education / empathy / enlightenment. The only actionable advice amounted to try to get out first and if she looks really freaked out, let her take the elevator alone. Fair enough, I asked. Neither improves society but they could ease the anxiety of a random social encounter. All it costs me is the currency of hope for our society and possibly a little time.

Also, when I talk about hurt feelings, I am doing so mockingly. Though this topic does get me riled up so it is probably a double edged sword. I bring it up because I am making the accusation that there is nothing else desired than to hurt feelings. Pure vengeance against those with privilege or power or strength. This, is bait. This is an invitation to prove me wrong.

This whole page, the only suggestion I saw offered of actionable change was jasonr's that construction companies reign in their men. The response was to dissect and extrapolate that suggestion and point out all it's faults. Fine, but realize, no alternatives are being offered. Or am I also suffering from a reading problem and missed them?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But either way, not sure how that relates to the social media witch hunts against individuals. Are you suggesting that these things are somehow comparable?
Yes. Because while individuals were included in the tweet, the tweet was to provide an example of the "female-unfriendly" atmosphere in tech, which many men refuse to believe actually exists. Her posting, in other words, was not to shame those specific men but to make a broader point.


quote:
Fine, but realize, no alternatives are being offered.
I've seen several alternatives offered here. You just think men are too stubborn and worthless to benefit from them.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, D.W., I don't think education is the actual end-game of this sort of issue. Some people who argue for education about micro-aggression and so forth no doubt believe in it legitimately, and those on this site are likely in that group. But I suspect that the activists pushing topics like this would have far more than 'awareness' as the result of their success. If they had their way we'd be looking at censorship of speech in universities, expulsion and firings for un-PC speech or other micro-aggressions, and once Peeople (or whatever the hell it's called) or something like it is up and running the PC-police will be there to ruin anyone's reputation who steps out of line, brigading down a person's 'rating' as they see fit.

The goal is not education, but empowerment; giving the victims the tools to teach the oppressors a lesson. And the only testimony that will count will come from the victims.

For all those who I've been debating here, you need to know how much I'm with you on the subject of empathy for others being terribly important and how the lack of respect for other human beings is a plague that is spreading more than ever with the internet. I wish you could understand that my concern is not to blow off people who are suffering, but rather to prevent more suffering in faulty attempts to correct some of life's annoying circumstances. I hope I'm wrong about this, by the way, it would be very nice if you were right and that we're not headed down a dark path with this kind of social policing.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes. Because while individuals were included in the tweet, the tweet was to provide an example of the "female-unfriendly" atmosphere in tech, which many men refuse to believe actually exists. Her posting, in other words, was not to shame those specific men but to make a broader point.
Let her write a blog post then and refer to the men anecdotally.

I don't deny a certain satisfaction seeing the social media demon turn on those who would use it for malevolent purpose as it did in this case. However, as I've mentioned alot to people lately, for me social media is a uniquely vile and disgusting medium that brings out the worst in people. For me this isn't about one woman, but about an entire medium. Facebook and Twitter are the most socially corrosive forces I have seen in my lifetime, by far. It makes you wish that someone would drop an EMP on their headquarters and eradicate their entire enterprise. Sadly not going to happen - Facebook at social media are the terrorists' best friend.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, as I've mentioned alot to people lately, for me social media is a uniquely vile and disgusting medium that brings out the worst in people. For me this isn't about one woman, but about an entire medium.
The next few decades are going to be hard on you, because the presumption of privacy and the idea that individual grievances should be kept between individuals are absolutely things that are going to go away. People just a couple years younger than us are in the habit of taking pictures of their breakfast and are disappointed when fewer than five of their friends comment on the results.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My only hope is that I can somehow someday convince my kid (who is now only 2) that social media is an enormous soul-sucking machine before his peers get to him. Sadly I think my chances are slim to none - it looks like teenagers can't exist without it these days.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with Josh. My daughter is 15 months and it will probably be hopeless for her although I'll do my best.

I'm only 35. My generation *created* social media. So how can it be that we are already shaking our fists from our rocking chairs lamenting the decline of the youth? Is this like what video games were to my parents' generation?

But no, scratch that. Not TV, not the Kardashians, not anything that's come before seems as bad as Facebook and Twitter. What's worse than watching gutter trash debase themselves on TV for an hour? How about a form of entertainment that convinces the majority of the population to turn themselves into gutter trash 24/7?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, and here is teenage exhibit A.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1