Of course all that "unkept data" proves your position. None of the kept data does.Unkept data, of which we know quite a lot qualitatively.
Of course all that "unkept data" proves your position. None of the kept data does.Unkept data, of which we know quite a lot qualitatively.
You bring it back to very concrete things that we can point to. That's not the point exactly. Terminal Blue wrote earlier:snip
This isn't a problem if the locker room misogynist turns out to be one in relationships also. Thus far in this thread we have people who haven't had a problem recognizing clear differences between themselves and the scumbag personality that's apparently the problem. With that in mind it's tough accept the premise that slipping into predatory behavior is waiting for everyone around the bend. Let's discard it and accept instead that people generally think that success with women is the way to be manlier and thus better in the eyes of other men if it isn't rape. Now it makes perfect sense to hide, excuse, and redefine predatory behavior. And if one thinks pushing boundaries just the right amount means success (and slowing down and/or refusal is the other person's responsibility), why not do it? Makes sense to me at least.But if we accept that predators can look like us, that they can share the same cultural expression and cultural identity as us, then we have to ask an incredibly difficult and troubling question. What is it about our behavior which makes it possible for predators to be predators and still look like us? What is it that we do which can camouflage predation? How do we fit into a culture that allows predators to thrive?
That's a low-hanging fruit in this sausage-fest.As fucking if you would have used the term "incredibly suspect" in reference to a cis woman talking about men.
Yes and no, some people do, many find there is a lot more pride to be had in having an awesome girlfriend/wife. Additionally there is nothing necessarily wrong with wanting or liking to screw many (wo)men. As long as it is consensual.I suspect a great number of men don't necessarily get involved in this behaviour, but they are affected by it and take in at some level that there is pride to be had from screwing as many (preferably attractive) women as possible. And that even if they are happy not screwing women, they may be aware that others could look down on them for not having done so.
I agree with your examples here but what you say now is not what Terminal said and consequently not what you were getting at in the previous by providing a specific example which displayed clear "guilt" through inaction and denial.It's not collective guilt, though. An imam who attempts to sway Muslims from extremism should not have to feel guilty for an imam that does not. A man who rejects objectification of women and opposes it in others should not have to feel guilty for a man that does. (They might though, because sometimes when people identify themselves with groups they take criticism or failings of the group personally.) If we all have a responsibility to be good citizens, it exists on an individual level.
Firstly, again, I'd go back to post #114. This seems to argue that in fact a lot of people do not recognise the difference between themselves and scumbags: they manufacture a characterisation of scumbaggery in a way that conveniently omits stuff (chiefly, I suspect, them and theirs). And again, refer to my comment about the policeman who raped and murdered a woman in London last year. He said and did things other officers didn't seem to think problematic: a major reason for this being that they were saying and doing the same things too.You bring it back to very concrete things that we can point to. That's not the point exactly. Terminal Blue wrote earlier:
This isn't a problem if the locker room misogynist turns out to be one in relationships also. Thus far in this thread we have people who haven't had a problem recognizing clear differences between themselves and the scumbag personality that's apparently the problem. With that in mind it's tough accept the premise that slipping into predatory behavior is waiting for everyone around the bend.
Yes, that makes sense.Let's discard it and accept instead that people generally think that success with women is the way to be manlier and thus better in the eyes of other men if it isn't rape. Now it makes perfect sense to hide, excuse, and redefine predatory behavior. And if one thinks pushing boundaries just the right amount means success (and slowing down and/or refusal is the other person's responsibility), why not do it? Makes sense to me at least.
Sure, most people can tell fantasy from truth. But something is a fantasy because it has an appeal. The fantasy might be recognised as such and unobtainable, but the appeal still exists and creates a motivation to do things. Realistic things independent of the fantasy, which might not be very nice things to do.But men recognize the flaw in that thinking much better than given credit for here. We get it's a fantasy, and while it certainly exists in our psyche as a way to process real information there is no concern for a mix-up.
You can talk about almost anything short of outright advocating atrocity, usually you just need to be tactful about the way you do it. What people usually mean by saying they can't talk about anything is that they barrelled into a sensitive issue overconfidently, stridently, with dubious claims, bad evidence, little consideration for other people's opinion... and met a great deal of pushback.Now the troubling question. We are at the peak equilibrium on freedom vs safety. Sure there can be some little optimizations but nothing grand. Like, talking about this publicly makes you a pariah at the drop of a hat (unless one is with likeminded people -> creates a circlejerk).
No, I think you have an extended and somewhat tenuous argument to collective guilt which, whilst coherent, is well short of infallible deductive logic.Clearly in order "to take responsibility" I have to acknowledge that people who culturally resemble me hurting people is not an accident. And since this all started with a description of "men's culture" as a man I have to acknowledge it is NOT an accident other men hurt people. Considering I am clearly a part of that culture I am, to a certain degree, part of the reason why this happens, otherwise I wouldn't be part of it (in which case i'd like the culture to be specified and not just referring to "men") or the link would be accidental. And you brought up an example where the causal link was pretty damn explicit, so extrapolated to "men's culture" you have a pretty damn clear example of a call to collective guilt.
We don't know exactly what was said there and then, so who cares. Rape + murder is a shock and surprise from just talk every time. Even if my racist friend (disclaimer: we're not close and I always confronted his stupid shit) went and lynched somebody, nothing he has previously said would reduce the shock, because his history would be only words. Obviously if the guy had a criminal record and nothing to lose, but that's not the case. Anyway, people are more introspective than given credit for, just not in the same ways with the same trains of thought.Firstly, again, I'd go back to post #114. This seems to argue that in fact a lot of people do not recognise the difference between themselves and scumbags: they manufacture a characterisation of scumbaggery in a way that conveniently omits stuff (chiefly, I suspect, them and theirs). And again, refer to my comment about the policeman who raped and murdered a woman in London last year. He said and did things other officers didn't seem to think problematic: a major reason for this being that they were saying and doing the same things too.
I disagree with the bolded part. The appeal is to sometimes look through the lens of the fantasy and search for things that align. When that happens a functional person thinks it's a funny coincidence and not more (but maybe an idea for a themed party or just the cake). A maladaptive person sees it as an invitation to go deeper and look for more. In fact relating to the fantasy can become a big part of their identity (lookin' at you, weebs).Sure, most people can tell fantasy from truth. But something is a fantasy because it has an appeal. The fantasy might be recognised as such and unobtainable, but the appeal still exists and creates a motivation to do things. Realistic things independent of the fantasy, which might not be very nice things to do.
You'd think so, but this is not a topic so-called normies ever talk about. I even complained about it before in another thread that the way how "adults" talk in my university student circles is very neutered even when everyone's shitfaced.You can talk about almost anything short of outright advocating atrocity, usually you just need to be tactful about the way you do it. What people usually mean by saying they can't talk about anything is that they barreled into a sensitive issue overconfidently, stridently, with dubious claims, bad evidence, little consideration for other people's opinion... and met a great deal of pushback.
They're comment being "less obviously true than they would like" is not an enormous statistical claim. It is a reasonable doubt.You're making an enormous statistical claim. You need something more solid.
You're right. If it was a cis woman making those statements, I would be infinitely more blunt than to call it "suspect". A cis woman would have total ignorance of the male experience on top of attacking a demographic she's not a part of. It would not be "incredibly suspect", it would be "blatantly shameless".Oh, sure. As fucking if you would have used the term "incredibly suspect" in reference to a cis woman talking about men.
Of course all that "unkept data" proves your position. None of the kept data does.
Just to be clear, you're arguing against the suggestion that crime statistics have biases.'Reality' here is your personal experience. That is not superior to data collected from hundreds and thousands of individual 'realities', which is why anecdotes are not data, until you collect and systemise hundreds and thousands of them.
It's not a funny coincidence. Part of the appeal of Bond is he can effortlessly pull hot women with little more than bad quips and skipping all that relationship and emotional bonding stuff. So... why does that speak to them?I disagree with the bolded part. The appeal is to sometimes look through the lens of the fantasy and search for things that align. When that happens a functional person thinks it's a funny coincidence and not more (but maybe an idea for a themed party or just the cake).
Hey! My fruit are hanging perfectly normally, I'll have you know! It's natural for one to be slightly lower than the other!That's a low-hanging fruit in this sausage-fest.
According to the data we have, there is an enormous gulf between incident rates of predation from men and women.They're comment being "less obviously true than they would like" is not an enormous statistical claim. It is a reasonable doubt.
You believe women are incapable of discussing issues pertaining to male violence?You're right. If it was a cis woman making those statements, I would be infinitely more blunt than to call it "suspect". A cis woman would have total ignorance of the male experience on top of attacking a demographic she's not a part of. It would not be "incredibly suspect", it would be "blatantly shameless".
Yes, something in real life resembling a fantasy is a funny coincidence. We're talking about people who have no issues separating fantasy and reality here. Every other day I entertain the fantasy of having access to completely disposable dolls (aka females of the species homo sapiens). That would be really nice. It would be crazy to happen in reality. Bond visits exotic locations and doesn't get diarrhea either, and if he does it's scripted. Moreover, Bond's appeal has been discussed in this thread multiple times already.It's not a funny coincidence. Part of the appeal of Bond is he can effortlessly pull hot women with little more than bad quips and skipping all that relationship and emotional bonding stuff. So... why does that speak to them?
There is infinite data in the universe that is not being kept by anyone. It is a really minor point to say a lot of data is overlooked.To suggest that in reality the prevalence is the same, requires an enormous amount of overlooked data. Which is an enormous statistical claim, yes.
Sure, and the same could be said to handwave away any conclusion backed by data that doesn't suit you.There is infinite data in the universe that is not being kept by anyone. It is a really minor point to say a lot of data is overlooked.
I don't think it is.Isn't that true though? Or at least, very close to true?
I think that rape is a very specific type of crime that is much more difficult to morally justify than others. Theft can be moral if a man steals because he's hungry and can't afford food. Murder can be morally just if you kill someone in defense of yourself or others.Because I think this is not where the problem is. I don't think this needs to be about rape, it can be about any sin or crime as I think we all have the potential to do anything bad: rape, theft, murder, etc.
Fine (though depressingly arguable) but are moral justifications really where the rubber meets the road?There isn't a moral justification for rape.
As plenty of people have taken offense to the sexist theory about "men's culture" which was posited I'll stand by my analysis.No, I think you have an extended and somewhat tenuous argument to collective guilt which, whilst coherent, is well short of infallible deductive logic.
I think you're in danger here of assuming forced rape with violent assault. But we know perfectly well a lot of other rape occurs, and I think some of that is something people can much more easily justify to themselves in the heat of the moment. Such as two people out on a night out, they're getting on well, one of them gets blind drunk and is taken home, where the other takes advantage. There are forms of intimidating people into compliance (think some PUA shit), and people can much more readily tell themselves that they had consent, or at least the facsimile of it that is someone not stopping them.I think that rape is a very specific type of crime that is much more difficult to morally justify than others.
And to add to that, it's not just the rapists. Lots of "normal" people when hearing about a rape will find it doesn't fit their idea of rape and thus doesn't count. They had consensual sex in the past, the victim consented to some stuff, the rapist took the victim out to dinner and was owed sex, they were married etc.I think you're in danger here of assuming forced rape with violent assault. But we know perfectly well a lot of other rape occurs, and I think some of that is something people can much more easily justify to themselves in the heat of the moment. Such as two people out on a night out, they're getting on well, one of them gets blind drunk and is taken home, where the other takes advantage. There are forms of intimidating people into compliance (think some PUA shit), and people can much more readily tell themselves that they had consent, or at least the facsimile of it that is someone not stopping them.
I think you're also looking at this very rationally, and overestimating the rationality of others. I've watched some real police dramas, and I was staggered to see some people, when the police have laid the proof of their sins in front of them, hopelessly protest that they aren't a rapist, or a child abuser. I don't think this is just some feeble last gasp denial as if the police are going to say it's all okay then and withdraw the charges. I think they simply have not managed to fully conceive of what they have done as wrong.
I am merely saying it's overlooked. They data we keep is insufficient to reach a meaningful conclusion.You're not merely saying it's overlooked. You're saying it points a certain way, and that the ratio is so drastically in one direction that it overturns all kept data.