|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 22:11:13 GMT -5
What you and Hmark and NNNN and the rest are doing is not any different from the story of the guy who was stopped on the street by cops cause they accused him of stealing a belt at Barney's he legally bought just cause he was black. He's guilty cause of who he may be, not what he did. Just what you're doing now. You can point out all the jargon you want to make your argument, but all you're doing is try to justify prejudice over something that really had nothing to do with the gender of either person. Yes, we burned the village in order to save it. You do realize that there is a correlation between the unfair treatment of black people for the very reason they are black with that of the unfair treatment of women because they are women as it relates to experiences of violence and unfair treatment under the law, right? We're the real sexists and racists for pointing out that racism and sexism exist. No, you're not the racists and sexist for pointing out it exists. You're racists and sexist when you blame anyone and anything of one sect of being lesser or evil, the definition of being racist or sexist
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 22:15:57 GMT -5
Now you've constructed a strawman, and you're starting to edge into complete unreasonableness. To reiterate: -No cops were called to the scene here. -No arrests were made. -No "black marks" were added to anybody's record. However, you have chosen to construct a situation that doesn't exist to appease your own prejudices and biases. That's your prerogative. What isn't your prerogative is to project strawman arguments onto fellow posters. Do not do it again. How am I making a strawmen?! i'm sticking to the actual incident, while you and the rest are bringing up the creepiness of the dude and rape and sexual assault figures. I haven't strayed from the topic or what is known. Don't lie to me. I know what I wrote, what you wrote, and what everyone else wrote cause it's out in the open and posted. You wrote about a story that involved a man who did nothing that could even be construed as suspicious, let alone illegal, and then faced the potential of arrest over a false pretense. The story in question is about a man who did perform a questionable action, not an illegal but a questionable one, and faced no potential for arrest unless he continued the behavior. Your point is nonexistent, insulting to your fellow posters, and keeping it up will not be tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Oct 23, 2013 22:15:58 GMT -5
No, you're not the racists and sexist for pointing out it exists. You're racists and sexist when you blame anyone and anything of one sect of being lesser or evil, the definition of being racist or sexist Like, it's right here, dude... Which isn't to say that men and women can't talk to one another because that's a straw argument: in a situation where there is respect, mutually agreed upon terms of conversation, equality of discourse, and reciprocity of intent when partaking in the situation. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. And I'm not the only one who has said something to this effect from what I just quoted either. EDIT: Let me add... Is every man a threat? No.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 22:16:00 GMT -5
They can escalate quickly, sure, but unless he was mentally unstable in the first place, they're probably not going to just jump from "left a note on your car saying I had a crush" to "I'm going to force my way into your apartment" in one step. This situation is like she jumped from step A to step C, and a guy who probably was completely fine gets treated as a creeper and badmouthed on the internet just because he didn't know how she'd react. I think the issue is that you're leaving out any middle ground. I don't think the woman necessarily thought "OMG MUST BE A RAPIST"...frankly, we don't know exactly what she thought, beyond saying she wanted to be careful in case the guy was prone to bursts of violence or anger...but many people who commit rape/sexual assault aren't "climbin' in yo' windows" types, and unfortunately even seemingly innocent overtures sometimes come with more sinister implications. Again, view it from the woman's perspective: a strange man you've never seen (to your knowledge) has left you a note like this; you don't have to think "he automatically has to be a rapist/stalker/whatever" to still think "I'm going to take the safe route here". To repeat, it wouldn't shock me if the guy had no ill intentions...but his action was still pretty creepy. That alone is reason enough to be cautious. The extremes of the situation are that he's innocent but naive and will take this as an aww, shucks moment and move on or that he's sinister and is doing this for evil ulterior motives and would have tried to force it next time. The middle ground would be that he would try again for whatever reason, even when she showed no interest. Like I said before, if she had no interest and he tried again, then I don't think there would be an issue with her calling the police. He'd have gotten an answer, either directly or through her silence, and he would have tried again. The persistence would be the middle ground to me, her thought process is ultimately irrelevant due to what she did. Whether she jumped to him definitely being a rapist or her just not being sure and wanting to be safe doesn't matter in the end, because her action was to go to the police, say any further contact would bring criminal complaints, and say that they shouldn't even contact him because he might be violent. The middle ground is a smoldering crater at this point, she didn't even want the police to find out if it was an honest misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 22:17:56 GMT -5
Because in real life, in human society, that is how we solve our problems. Again, what was the harm in her meeting him, with someone else at her side. Hell, she should have had the cops at least join her in meeting this person, and settle this out, rather than leave it unresolved for it to turn into something worse down the line. What you and Hmark and NNNN and the rest are doing is not any different from the story of the guy who was stopped on the street by cops cause they accused him of stealing a belt at Barney's he legally bought just cause he was black. He's guilty cause of who he may be, not what he did. Just what you're doing now. You can point out all the jargon you want to make your argument, but all you're doing is try to justify prejudice over something that really had nothing to do with the gender of either person. The only judgements I've made on him are from the actions that he indisputably performed (unless we're now doubting he put the note there) which seem incredibly creepy to me and the woman who received the note. The rest of what I've said is trying to explain how her actions are logical for her, things that will cause no backlash for him but could well save her IF he is dangerous. The case in "Barney's" involves someone making a snap judgement towards someone of a minority that's often attacked, in a court system that will undoubtedly be biased against him, not based on his actions but based on preconceived notions, and not to protect anyone's safety but because they thought a buckle looked too expensive. It's apples and oranges. No, it's not. You are making the judgement of him being a creep from a note, and cause of that, assuming that it would have led to a sexual assault. And thus, you're already basing the reaction of the woman as right because there is a lot of women who gets raped out there raped by men so you gotta be careful. Same with the Barney's store and the cops. They're basing the reaction of them as right cause a lot of people getting robbed out there, robbed by blacks, so you gotta be careful.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 22:18:58 GMT -5
I think the issue is that you're leaving out any middle ground. I don't think the woman necessarily thought "OMG MUST BE A RAPIST"...frankly, we don't know exactly what she thought, beyond saying she wanted to be careful in case the guy was prone to bursts of violence or anger...but many people who commit rape/sexual assault aren't "climbin' in yo' windows" types, and unfortunately even seemingly innocent overtures sometimes come with more sinister implications. Again, view it from the woman's perspective: a strange man you've never seen (to your knowledge) has left you a note like this; you don't have to think "he automatically has to be a rapist/stalker/whatever" to still think "I'm going to take the safe route here". To repeat, it wouldn't shock me if the guy had no ill intentions...but his action was still pretty creepy. That alone is reason enough to be cautious. The extremes of the situation are that he's innocent but naive and will take this as an aww, shucks moment and move on or that he's sinister and is doing this for evil ulterior motives and would have tried to force it next time. The middle ground would be that he would try again for whatever reason, even when she showed no interest. Like I said before, if she had no interest and he tried again, then I don't think there would be an issue with her calling the police. He'd have gotten an answer, either directly or through her silence, and he would have tried again. The persistence would be the middle ground to me, her thought process is ultimately irrelevant due to what she did. Whether she jumped to him definitely being a rapist or her just not being sure and wanting to be safe doesn't matter in the end, because her action was to go to the police, say any further contact would bring criminal complaints, and say that they shouldn't even contact him because he might be violent. The middle ground is a smoldering crater at this point, she didn't even want the police to find out if it was an honest misunderstanding. I really don't know what you're arguing now, I apologize. Continuously saying "she went to the police" makes it sound as if this was a direct cry for help and a direct fear of rape; the "middle ground" I speak of is that it was simply a cautious move, and not necessarily done with any motivation beyond "I want to play this safe". I don't know how many more times we can say this, so, well, that's all, folks. Talking in circles is tiring.
|
|