This is an apology for a mistake I made. In a comment thread on Ophelia Benson’s blog about the effects of porn on unwanted violence in the bedroom, I gave as examples for my own points relating to that cases from my own personal sexual experience, which despite one content warning nevertheless got too detailed and explicit for Benson and many of her readers.
I became too defensive when attacked over that and I handled the whole matter poorly. I was too blinded by defensiveness in fact to adequately see things from other people’s perspective. Although some people appreciated what I wrote, and I value their perspective too, others who’s opinions I also respect did not, and that caused me to reexamine everything and (I hope) recognize where I went wrong and what to do about it.
I don’t want to distance myself from the people who thanked me, who included people who feel isolated from what men actually think or can think about sex and were glad to have access to it for a change, and people who deal with being attacked and demeaned and shamed for their fetishes and kinks and were thus understandably defensive about people seeming to attack and demean and shame me for the same.
But there are better ways to serve those needed ends. And I understand that now. I am always very frank and open about my sexlife. And I am often surrounded by people who are the same, and who appreciate that. So I too easily forget the world does not live in that bubble. And I didn’t realize the significance of that before now.
Explicit content is not universally wrong. It can even still serve the purposes I originally stated there and intended. And I may blog separately about that, in a better way. But content warnings are necessary for that even in your own space. And they aren’t sufficient in another’s space. You need to know it’s permitted there first, that it will be acceptable. And I now realize it’s your responsibility to check that beforehand. Because what results if you don’t can affect people badly in ways you don’t intend and wouldn’t want.
To all of those people who were harmed by my actions, I apologize. I did not want to cause harm, and regret having done so. This is another mistake in my life I shall endeavor to improve myself on and not make again. And I thank those whose remarks helped me to see that.
There are better ways to advocate for wider acceptance of sexuality and sexual diversity, and better ways to discuss the impact of porn on our lives too.
Thank you.
While I’m sure the people who took issue with your comments on Benson’s blog will appreciate your self-examination, I’m not sure this hit the mark with what their concern was – I don’t think that most people in the freethought world take issue with frank discussions of sex and sexuality, and I think the idea that their issue stemmed from something prudish is unfair.
I think that the underlying issue is that it becomes difficult to tell, when people comment on blog posts about sex and sexuality with something explicit, whether they’re using the thread as masturbatory material.
I don’t think that you were – but that is something that happens FREQUENTLY.
Let’s make this about entirely different people, and have a hypothetical.
I write a blog entry broadly describing a foray into BDSM. When I say “broadly”, I mean that in the post I say that I have had BDSM experiences that involved “some restraints” and “light spanking”, but I don’t say with whom or where or for how long and it all takes place in a sort of fog of lack of detail.
During my experiences, I came to wonder if all BDSM play was rooted in psychological issues involving self-worth. I did not approach my BDSM participation like a journalist, though – so it’s entirely possible that my view is skewed by happenstance due to who I met and the level at which I participated. I wonder about it, typewritten, and even go so far as to invite people to comment about their experiences as well.
Enter a person I know reasonably well through their own writings or comments (or let’s remove it even further and make this about an acquaintance I met once or twice and don’t think is a bad person), and they detail their experiences in the BDSM community. While my original article was a broad discussion of mindsets, this commenter is extremely specific to the point that their entries read a lot like erotica – I can imagine full scenes playing out in my head, and it’s kind of porny.
I don’t want to remove their comments, because they are answering the question, but the level of detail makes me wonder if they’re typing with one hand.
Again, if that was the case, it wouldn’t be a strange occurrence. As a blogger, I have come across commenters who did use threads about sex in that way, and I have in the past given them the benefit of the doubt and commented right along only to have the discussion end in several PMs about my “beautiful lips”, or maybe just a message that says “That was so hot”.
I really think that’s what you stepped in. It’s not that this is what you were actually doing, but someone has to know you well as a person to know that. You are preceded by a lot of bad people.
I concur. And I hope it wasn’t implied in my post here that the problem was prudishness. Rather, the problem I now realize was the consequences created by being too explicit without permission. And one of the problems with that (and there are others) is precisely the one you illustrate. So I think your comment does well as an added clarification to what I’m now saying. It’s certainly one of the things I didn’t realize until recently and count as having learned. In other words, the problem wasn’t others’ prudishness after all, the problem was my insensitivity.
I am very happy to see this unreserved apology, which I assumed was coming, based on my judgment of your character.
I love your reasoning, and will happily continue to read this blog, even though I was among those that didn’t appreciate your commentary on Ophelia’s blog (even though I never commented on it).
It’s always good to see someone do the right thing! Mistakes are completely fine by me (and I’ve made plenty), so long as there is self-examination and correction!
Richard, I hope that the persons who consider themselves offended by the way you have exposed your personal sexual experience, especially for having did so in the Ophelia blog—as if it were not a public space visible and joinable from everywhere around the world and provokin virtually all kind of comments—are now assured that you’re not losing a good opportunity to learn something and change your mind.
I’m far away from saying that you had all the right in the way you handled the situation. But I want just make clear that the persons who have insulted or treated you as a little 12 y.o. boy that has harassed them are somewhat hypocrites. They are reacting on a personal emotion and personally attacking you, but you’ve not addressed anything personal against them.
Now, for all people, I just want to remark some points:
1) Ophelia’s post was about violence against women in the sexual relationships. The question was about the role of the porn industry in its diffusion and banalization. Richard, in his very first comment, was attempting to make it clear that any violence, is not necessarily bad because they’re a lot of women that appreciate it, as a part of sexual roleplay in very controlled situations. He made it clear that the consent, the communication and the respect are the keys to avoid real violence and enjoy roleplaying. In my opinion this comment, even though a little explicit, was very pertinent to the question
2) The first comment beeing appreciated, a discussion started, then his third comment was very explicit and too much detailed. Before giving a lot of details about his sexual experiene, HE GAVE A TRIGGER WARNING, unfortunately not in capital letters like this, but I think that it didn’t change anything. Why? Because all the people that are now upset, have seen it, yet they continued to read. They considered themselves grown enough to go ahed and they did it. Except for feeling eventually uncomfortable with so much explicit content.
3) Ophelia, the owner of the blog, was not able to decently manage the situation. Given the opportunity to moderate the comments, why didn’t she? Her first two comments failed to make clear that she didn’t want such a type of comments on her blog. Then she continued to be ambiguous, failing to be a good host for Richard, not adressing her comments directly to him and resting on the comments made by other persons. The worst thing that she made was to compare Richard with a character known for having PTSD.
4) Many people have expressed a discomfort discovering that the brilliant Dr Carrier is the same person speaking about his kinky personal experience. They wanted in some way dissociate the two aspects of his personality. So this confirms the issue advocated by Richard, that there’s a lot of shame about sexual practices that are unusual and very imaginative, and that it’s needed to speak about them to facilitate the acceptance of a larger diversity in the human sexuality. I don’t know if the solution is that there proposed by Richard, probably not. Perhaps a more gradual approch is necessary. But remember that a richer sexuality is the distinctive mark of smart people.
Although I myself was taken aback by the frankness of your language in that comment thread, I must take issue with the idea that it constituted an invasion of Benson’s private space.
This is not a private network, it is a blog network with 1000s of viewers every day. Individual blogs are not your living room, they are public noticeboards.
I disagree somewhat. Blog spaces are private property, like restaurants or pubs or clubs. And like publishers, too, who also get to decide what they will or will not publish. But here I’m referring to their role as social spaces. As such they can have their own house rules and do’s and don’ts. They can decide to be safe spaces in specific ways. They can decide to have certain levels of expectation set so readers know what to expect and whether they will want to frequent that space. They can decide what will or won’t make their preferred customers or audience uncomfortable.
So they aren’t publicly owned spaces in the sense you mean. (And of course even publicly owned spaces have community rules governing them. But that’s besides the point here.)
We should indeed respect people’s spaces and their rules. We can always create our own space if we want to go places they do not or, to meet their particular goals and values, cannot.
And content warnings remain important even in your own spaces. But that’s a separate matter.
Thank you for this apology. I wonder though if you have also considered this from a feminist perspective and as someone who I consider as a feminist ally, I hope that you will also consider this. When I read your original comments, I was reminded of all the situations that I have experienced, as a woman who is put in the position of unwelcome sexual sharing or subtle boundary pushing. And because of the way we are socialized to pretend that nothing is wrong, nothing is happening and to minimize our own feelings and reactions, to not make a scene, to brush it off. And when we do react, then we get various responses that involve gas-lighting, accusations of prudery, or sometimes an apology that then progresses to how bad the offender feels and our responsibility to forgive them. I’m not saying that this is how I see your apology, on the contrary I believe it is sincere and that your history shows you to be good at self-reflection and trying to be better as a human. So apology accepted.
That’s actually another concern of mine. It adds to the comment above another way my insensitivity in this matter overlooked exactly the sort of problems you are talking about, especially people’s constantly having to deal with them in ways oneself might not have.
In my own case, most of my sexually frank company actually consists of women, so I actually learned my frankness and openness about sexuality from women (and explicitly feminist women). This I think is unusual, since in my past I saw most men acquiring it from other men, in ways very dismissive of or insulting to women. That turned me off and I became a very sexually closed person for nearly two decades. So it had the opposite effect on me. It was much later that women’s company taught me to become more open and frank about sex.
The downside of that has been that it made it more difficult to think about and anticipate the sorts of concerns you mention. Although I confess the upside was that it gave me a healthier and less sexist view of sex. But at least the downside is correctable.
Boast about your virility much, Richard?
Atheists engage in false advertising about the sexually liberating effects of nonbelief: It doesn’t necessarily work for a lot of young men. The sexually rejectable young Christian guy who abandons belief in god just becomes a sexually rejectable atheist guy, like those male virgin neckbeards who show up at atheist gatherings and wonder when they can cash in on the promise of sexual fulfillment they read about in atheist propaganda. (They had good company at one time: Madalyn O’Hair’s younger son, the atheist activist Jon Garth Murray, who died a 40 year old virgin in 1995.)
Women’s exclusion of more and more men from sexual relationships, because these men don’t meet women’s emotionally immature demands for drama, shows signs of becoming a major, secular social trend. Reportedly a quarter of single Japnese men in their 30’s have had no sexual experience – and you can’t blame that outcome in Japan on Christian indoctrination about the evils of sex.
Yet Western sexologists show no interest in studying this phenomenon, because their field has biases in favor of promoting feminism and normalizing deviancy. The sexually screwed up gay man receives far more protection and consideration from elite institutions than the male virgin with normal desires who just needs some help in acquiring the skill set for forming sexual relationships which might lead to marriage and family formation.
Where was my boast of virility?
I must have missed that.
And reality is, the expectations secular women have of men are actually the very definition of mature. It’s Christian mores that are immature.
In Japan, meanwhile, is a voluntary movement, with socio-cultural causes you seem not to have investigated at all.
As to your concerns about poor virgins who can’t get laid: if they start treating women as friends and equals and persons and not sexual targets, they’ll do fine. Elliot Rodger was a sociopathic asshole. Don’t aspire to be like him.
Thank you.
I agree with ediblepolygon and think that may have been an issue for some people. Although I was put off by your comments, they didn’t come across as self-pleasuring, only a bit self-absorbed. As if you had found a cool new scene, were very excited about it, and it was sort of spilling into every discussion.
I get that, I was the same when I first discovered that there was an atheist/skeptical community. Every conversation was a chance to slip in debunking or hypocritical Bible quotes. “I just figured this out! Wow!” Decent conversations that didn’t need any of that were derailed, honest emotions were ignored, and I became a bore.
Consensual sexual violence or force is a tricky conversation to have. Given the stats, you’re bound to run up against someone who finds the topic distressing. It’s also an easy way to open the door for those one-handed typers that ediblepolygon pointed out. I’m interested in how you will handle this going forward because you’re right, these discussions do serve a purpose. I hope you can manage the juggling act of honesty, explicitness, and care for the reader.
On my end, I’ll take your trigger warnings seriously. 🙂
Thank you, Richard.
I’ll comment on the post to point people to this.
Do you intend to post a link to this in the thread on Ophelia’s blog, or do you feel yourself too thoroughly disinvited? The thread is not dead, and the remaining followers might be interested.
Oh, I had forgotten about that. I just assumed someone else would have cross-posted it by now. (And I think it has been?)
First let me say that I for one appreciate your apology and would like to note that in many ways it seems like a sincere and thoughtful one. It’s difficult to admit error to and apologize and you are to be commended for doing so. If I were the only person in the world aside from you, this would be over and done.
However I’m afraid there is still an underlying theme here that might, to some, seem rather problematic especially in light of your reaction in the original thread (at Ophelia Benson’s Butterflies and Wheels). I’m hoping you can address this point more explicitly, perhaps in another blog post or an update to this one, so as to clarify any potential misunderstanding. It may be too important to be left to the comments section. I may be misreading you in which case please correct me where I’m wrong.
From the OP:
In the original thread, your initial reaction was (rather than admit error and apologize) to recommend that everyone else learn to be more comfortable with such frank discussions. Read in the context of those remarks and that initial reaction, the above quote has similar connotations.
As in the original thread, you still seem to be implying here that people were in fact “seeming to attack and demean and shame [you].” To your marginal credit, the word “seeming” does soften the blow a bit, but not enough. You are still implying that it would (at least) be reasonable for someone to perceive that you were being attacked and demeaned for your kinks and fetishes. And you are implying that people (and indeed perhaps yourself?) were “understandably defensive” because of that. I’m sorry to be frank and use course language but this is pure bullshit.
The fact is that if you overstep boundaries (even inadvertently), it is not okay for you to imply that someone else is somehow at fault, or that someone else was actually attacking/demeaning you, or even just merely seeming to do so. It’s not at all reasonable to feel “understandably defensive” in this context, just like it’s not at all reasonable to feel “understandably defensive” if someone resists, using physical force, the transgression of their physical boundaries. It would be like: you accidentally stepped on someone’s toes; they yelled at you to step off; you got defensive… but you feel that it’s understandable because they seemed to be shaming and demeaning you. Hopefully you can see the problem is not them yelling, it’s your stepping on their foot plus your unjustified anger at their justified response. Their response doesn’t amount to shaming or demeaning you in any way so it’s not right to imply otherwise.
If you feel even partially justified in being defensive when someone reacts negatively to your boundary transgression, then you have a problem. Victim blaming and/or gaslighting, to any degree whatever, is always wrong. Full stop.
This was explained more than once in the original thread, but let me put it in bold this time: you were never being shamed or demeaned for your kinks and fetishes and it is not reasonable for you to feel one bit justified in being defensive (or to feel that anyone else is justified in being defensive on your behalf) for that reason. It was never about that and to imply otherwise is wrong.
From your own post How To Do Wrong Right, you offer the following guideline (amongst others):
I believe you were talking about conference policies here, but there is no reason this same general principle (or one that is analogous to it) shouldn’t apply in social situations as well. If you overstep boundaries, other people should be free to report that violation (directly to you in this case) without you insinuating in any way that they are attacking or demeaning you in the process or that anyone was shaming you for your kinks and fetishes. I don’t think you have outright violated this guideline, but you are walking the edge and leaning in that direction.
From Lousy Canuck’s Anatomy of an apology:
You only get a partial credit for this, at best. You still don’t seem to recognize that your reaction, bordering on if not crossing into victim blaming and/or gaslighting territory, was and still is as much or more of a problem as the original transgression.
Check, good job on this one.
Half credit. You did say explicitly that you were wrong and you apologized so you get full credit on that part. However you still seem to be wide of the mark on “how exactly you were mistaken.”
Here’s where your apology falls way short. As in the original thread, there are under currents of excuse making here, with continued implications that you were the victim or target of shaming or demeaning for your kinks and fetishes. Or at least that it’s reasonable for other people to react defensively because it “seems” that way.
[snip]
And this is a declaration of intent toward prevention of future harm, by explaining what will be done proactively to change the circumstances through which the original offense happened.
Partial credit. You did say you would try to do better, but you didn’t really put forward any concrete suggestions or steps describing the “how.” Specifically how will you change your behavior to avoid these kinds of boundary transgressions in the future, and what will you do to ensure that appropriate boundaries are established and respected in other spaces?
This is somewhat subjective, but it could be argued that a week is too long. Also you did post two other posts prior to this apology. Like it or not that does say something about where your priorities are.
This is just my subjective assessment so take it FWIW. Overall score: not great. For the effort I would give you “satisfactory” but for the remainder of the criteria I’d give you “below average.” If it were me I’d line it up and try again. Maybe have it vetted by a trusted neutral and objective party this time. Make sure it’s 100% excuse free and 100% free of any hint or implication that it’s someone else’s fault or that I were somehow justified. I’d include an apology for my previous weak tea apologies as well. But that’s just me, YMMV.
TL;DR: Thanks, but an apology mixed with even a a little victim blaming or gaslighting is a failed apology, IMO. It’s like a birthday cake that is nearly impeccable, except for a little smidgen of feces in the corner. What you are asking us to do here is enjoy the rest of the cake and just ignore the feces. No thanks, I’d rather just skip the cake entirely if I have to accept the soiled part with it. Cakes that are 100% feces free (so far as the visible eye can see at least) are a dime a dozen so why would anyone settle for less?
P.S. On the off chance that you decide not to post this comment, I plan to cross-post it elsewhere along with a screenshot or archive showing it in moderation here. I think it deserves a fair reading and a thoughtful response.
(1) On whether anyone crossed into slut and kink shaming, or whether it was all just expressions of what they were inferring from the violation of expectations, I’m uncertain now and have no definite opinion.
There are several other people who still see it that way, though. And I understand their worry, too. Sometimes it doesn’t matter why someone is saying something, it can still negatively impact social attitudes towards the kink community and people who are otherwise vulnerable to being demeaned for their consensual sexual behavior, and I don’t want to dismiss those concerns. The concerns exist and are generally valid, even if they are misapplied here. And it’s hard to tell someone they are perceiving things incorrectly. Especially when even you aren’t sure.
It’s also possible some people actually crossed that line, including in venues off that thread (e.g. on the Slymepit). To adapt your analogy, sometimes if you step on someone’s toe and they call you a f*gg*t, though you are at fault for upsetting them, they are still demeaning you. So it’s not automatically either/or.
But I don’t think it’s necessary to tease that out now. Going forward, if I’m more careful about the matter of venue, then there won’t be any such confusion, and then shaming will be obvious and capable of being called out. Muddling that very issue is yet another reason my behavior was problematic.
(2) Second paragraph, first two sentences: I recognize my blind defensiveness and poor handling of my reaction was part of the mistake and behavior I’m apologizing for.
(3) My post does express how to avoid these mistakes in future: self-monitoring for defensiveness and trying to see things sooner from other points of view; and not assuming explicitness is accepted in someone else’s venue, and thus instead finding out and getting permission first (and using content warnings even in your own venue).
I could add that it also remains important to recognize that some people can be understandably bothered even by how understandable reactions are worded. Like the analogy of calling someone who steps on your toe a slur in addition to voicing valid objections; but even when that isn’t the case, what is said, even when free of slurs or intended denigration, can have unintended consequences to the social perception of certain marginalized people. We should be as concerned with that, as I am now concerned about the unintended consequences of my mistakes.
(4) Sometimes due to our busy lives (from work and other obligations), and those of the people whose advice we trust and seek, it can take more than an Internet minute to see the mistake you made and what to do about it and then find the time to compose and publish a blog post free of typos and errors and sentences that can be misconstrued. Especially when it’s a blind defensiveness that’s blocking you. If anything, expecting rapid well considered apologies is an unrealistic expectation to have of people. People need time to figure things out, and that time will be stretched even further by having to take care of a hundred other duties in the meantime. The Internet is not the universe. It’s an appendix to the universe.
Lots of good points.
But who defines what porn is?
Not a relevant question here.
But in other contexts, it would be who is talking about it. Their obligation is only to be consistent, and if not using a conventional definition established by common use, explain what definition they are using and why. I discuss the philosophy of defining words in an early section of Sense and Goodness without God.
As a strong believer in feminism and equality between the sexes it disturbs me to see how much almost religious prudery there is among people claiming to be feminists, even some of those that make the claim they are sex positive.
I’ve seen it argued by people that make that claim that for instance Andrea Dworkin was also sex positive and didn’t have an unhealthy distrust of men and masculinity at all.
Personally, I would think that if you are going to bring up a topic such as pornography, you should expect some frank responses, and not get shocked if you get some views that might disagree with your opinions.
I’m not saying you should get all in people’s faces about this, but a few delicate flowers shouldn’t have the right to silence adults that wish to discuss topics about things that are out there in the real world.
It’s good to read this. I can’t accept any apology as I was mainly put off by your comments because of how I knew they’d effect others, and they’re the ones who need this apology, and will accept or reject it. And didn’t respond in that thread to begin with, for so many disparate and not really related reasons.
But thank you for writing it.
You went wrong, it was pointed out- repeatedly, and after reading all of that, my conclusion is that the majority of FTB is a giant solipsistic bubble, and as much as its superego cries for diversity, its id is entirely inhospitable to it, preferring one sort of voice to all others so that the whole thing is one big circle jerk of pseudo-intelectualism. I’m not defending you, apologizing for you or not. You can do that for yourself- or not. If the argument is don’t do this or that on her blog, then she should tell you so- and this is a matter not of admonishing others for jumping in, just that they do it for the blogger, and the comments sections become all sorts of crazy.
(e.g. Take the one woman who leapt to Benson’s defense in an eloquent academic dissertation about how you went wrong and how you could properly apologize, which verbs to use and so on, for which she got clapping kudos from Benson, offered thanks for the recognition, then was immediately questioned by Benson and accused of being an insincere troll. Exhausting, really).
Yours is the only blog here I check on here at FTBs and even so, I don’t feel comfortable making this comment because my point is banal and perhaps the problem is my own, and I shouldn’t make it public, but maybe it might be helpful- squabbles between personalities in the skeptic/atheist community probably turn readers off you never knew you had- like me. When dueling blogs address the same topic from different viewpoints, that’s educating and interesting. As a new member to the online community, what I’ve seen in the comments on PZ Myers’, Greta Christina’s, and Benson’s blogs- by them as well as their followers- is not inviting. Whatever point a new commenter may want to make has a good chance being lost in translation for which she will pay the dear price of chastisement and derision for not being versed in the right academic language- even when she agrees with the chastisers- or apologizes- for the twentieth time. (Now, so I can hear Greta Christina in my head- “How dare you tell me what to say on my own blog… (I wasn’t, I was—)… You’re banned you blah, blah, blah).
Just a thought. Please don’t pummel me with it.
I can’t comment on what else goes on on Benson’s comment thread. But you aren’t using the word solipsism coherently. Nor relevantly as far as I can tell. You seem to be complaining that the bloggers on FTB have different opinions and styles and skillsets, and some differences in values and concerns, and get into arguments and have disagreements. I don’t see why you would want it any other way. Because the alternative is a dogmatic hive mind.
The only other complaint I think I perceive here has something to do with what you think is the inconsistency or self-defeating behavior, or something, of Ophelia Benson. Which you should take up with her. Politely and clearly. If no satisfaction accrues from doing so, then you can decide to stop reading her blog I guess. I don’t know what else to recommend.
Richard Carrier @28,
Thank you for this reply, your willingness to engage with my concerns is appreciated. I think we both agree these are important topics and I’m grateful that you are providing a platform to have these discussions.
But the problem arises when, by your choice of tactics, you are necessarily making a tradeoff between (a) minimizing the potential negative impact on “the kink community and people who are otherwise vulnerable to being demeaned for their consensual sexual behavior” and (b) minimizing the potential negative impact on everyone else; where everyone else almost certainly includes at least some people who were victims of physical abuse or trauma, some people who may have PTSD, fpr example, etc. What you seem to be saying is that your desire to create an ethical safe space for the kink community is more important that the desire to create or foster an ethical safe space for everyone else, and that if you had to err one way or the other you would rather do so in favor of the kink community.
Fair enough, good point. Can you actually cite anything from Ophelia Benson’s thread that would be analogous to someone calling calling you a f*gg*t though? @28 you refer to venues other than that thread, but since you did not make that explicit in the OP, the implication is that the alleged kink shaming came from the original thread at Butterflies and Wheels. Might be worth an update to the OP to clarify if that’s not the implication you intended.
Indeed, we should be concerned about how our words and actions impact everyone. Though a vital point is that you can very easily be an advocate and even evangelist for the kink community without necessarily going into great detail about your personal kinks and fetishes in every given context. You can push back against the stigmatization of sex and sexual kinks and fetishes without transgressing clearly established boundaries. It’s possible to do both and that’s the line you have to walk..
Indeed, and perhaps it was unfair of me to bring it up. Thanks again for the response.
abear @13,
In this case, the shoe does not fit me at all, but I still take issue with this sentiment. Can you quote where you are seeing this religious prudery in this case please? I guess I missed it.
A discussion about pornography is not necessarily an invitation to share your personal kinks and fetishes; any more than a discussion about rape culture is an invitation (or excuse) to discuss one’s personal rape fantasies; any more than a discussion about colon health is an invitation (or excuse) for you to share the size, color and consistency of your last bowel movement.
I mean, surely you understand that context matters, and that it’s possible to have a discussion about pornography in many different contexts. In this case, it was more of a meta discussion at Ophelia Benson’s blog and there is no possible way that any reasonable person could read that post and interpret that as an invitation to delve into their personal stuff like that. On the other hand, had the discussion been about the amazing variety of kinks and fetishes the author’s personal experiences in kink community, then such details would not seem so out of place. Context matters.
Nobody was trying to silence anyone and, with respect, it’s hyperbolic nonsense to suggest or even to subtly imply otherwise. None of Richard’s comments were blocked or deleted, he wasn’t asked to leave or prevented from replying, and most importantly he’s got his own blog and social media channels with which to express his views. No silencing involved on any level, by anyone. Attempted or otherwise. At all. Freeze peach, and all that.
Also your reference to “delicate flowers” is offensive and harkens to victim blaming. The only thing delicate I’m seeing are the fee-fees of the people who wrongly believe they are being silenced, shamed or demeaned.
Here’s the bottom line as far as I see it. There are venues/contexts when such explicit personal details are welcomed and expected, but there are also venues/contexts where it’s not. The onus is on the speaker/writer to know which is which, and there is no harm in erring on the side of caution at the start, and then ratcheting up accordingly if and when the appropriateness is verified and validated. Inability to make this distinction is a problem because it leads to inadvertent transgression of boundaries; deliberate, stubborn refusal to recognize and respect this distinction is more sinister.
Correct me if I’m wrong – I could have misunderstood, and I don’t want to accidentally exaggerate this beyond what you meant, but this is what it sounds like – you seem to be saying that the onus is purely on the speaker/writer, and the listeners/readers are merely an audience who are (how do I put this without sounding rude) totally helpless to protest, and that some type of harm will come to them if the speaker/writer isn’t very careful to censor him/herself and not misjudge the room. Then you say that the person who crosses the boundary of someone present isn’t just someone who misjudged the room; it’s someone who is being deliberate or stubborn and deliberately crosses boundaries with sinister intent. Is that about right?
I want to clarify, because if I did understand you correctly, then to me this is shaming language. You are in essence saying that the things I personally enjoy talking about are so caustic, so perverted, so awful for others to hear, that they will be harmed when I talk about them. Not only that, you are in addition saying that my misjudging the room is not just a mistake, but has sinister intent. You then said something about victim blaming up there, and my first thought, “What victim?” Someone accidentally got an earful of details about someone’s fetish, and you call that person a victim?
You don’t think that is an attempt to shame? Maybe not purposefully, but you have to understand that to me, it comes across as just that.
Basically what you’ve done can easily be explained and forgiven. I just read in my sociology class about very similar sitution. Forgive as my language is not english. I am Taiwanese.
You can’t really argue with Dr. Hendricks there. When you’re right you’re right!
I can’t say I understood any of that.
Ok that looks suspiciously like it was actually made with the pomo generator. It has the same sentence structures that the generator spits out:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
And the wikipedia page about the Postmodernism Generator:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism_Generator
Yup, just google searched and someone in 2013 called “Parody Accountant” did the same trick over at the slymepit (I’ve used “Do Not Link” here):
http://www.donotlink.com/fwkm
Awesome. Good catch. And thanks for the links, too.
“I can’t comment on what else goes on on Benson’s comment thread.”
I’m not asking you to. My points are pretty simple- 1. The comment sections at FTBs, in general, can be inhospitable- something I observed today in reading both this post and the reactions to your comments in Ophelia’s thread which happened to have played out in Ophelia’s thread and which I a particular example because you linked to the discussion of which my example was a part. 2. There is not a great diversity of opinion when dissenters are treated harshly.
“But you aren’t using the word solipsism coherently. Nor relevantly as far as I can tell.”
Yes, I am- “extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one’s feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption”.
“You seem to be complaining that the bloggers on FTB have different opinions and styles and skillsets, and some differences in values and concerns, and get into arguments and have disagreements. I don’t see why you would want it any other way. Because the alternative is a dogmatic hive mind.”
No, I’m not. 1. I am criticizing the hostility I’ve observed at FTBs as someone who recently discovered its existence. It’s my perception after reading your posting and the link to Benson’s blog, the bloggers here are not very hospitable to each other, and some are very rude to their own followers. 2. That while I’m drawn to the issues of debate and appreciate various opinions- I don’t think they’re as diverse as you imply- that there is a hive mind feel to the followers comments and perceived dissenters are treated rather harshly. And because of that perception, I thought it might be something to share that the bloggers and commenters here at FTBs might consider they might be inhibiting the very diversity of thought they claim to embrace.
It was just an observation in context of your schooling and apology, and not meant to provoke deep thought or considerate response. It may still be unclear, but there it is.
I don’t know where you are getting such a bizarre definition of solipsism. But even that bizarre definition does not describe FTB as a network.
And I don’t know where you have been the last ten years, but you are describing nearly every comment system of any substantial size on every blog, YouTube, and other venue anywhere online.
I am fan of Doctor Carrier. I have read many chapters in books from other compilations of authors about atheism. I Left a long comment earlier, but I do not see it now.
I am awaiting moderation. I hope I’m not spam because I’m a Taiwanese student with a Taiwan email address! ?
Yes. All comments go to moderation here and can take days to clear. Because most of my life is not lived online. So I often won’t even be able to look at them for a couple of days.
Hallo Richard – first time commenter here!
I was among the people who were made uncomfortable by the detail you shared. While I definitely didn’t feel the need for an apology I’m glad to hear that you now understand why your comments were problematic in that context.
The reason I’ve decided to come out of my preferred lurking is that I want to apologize to you now too. I want to apologize for not entering the discussion at Ophelia’s, for not speaking up. Because even though I was uncomfortable with your comments, I was even more uncomfortable with the aggressive reactions you received.
From reading your blog, and watching a few of your interviews/talks on youtube, I got the definite impression that you are a considerate, thoughtful, kind human being, who would never provoke negative feelings on purpose. And I also find that the way you critisize others, the way you give (negative) feedback, is clear-headed and fair, and I never felt you were attacking someone on a personal level, or trying to hurt them in order to get back at them. I also know from previous blog posts that you are working very hard at understanding and accepting people’s boundaries.
So despite being uncomfortable with your comments I believed that you were a decent human being who’d in this case overstepped a boundary involuntarily. And I think that you really would have deserved this consideration to guide the response you got. But that didn’t happen. Instead, the aggressiveness and below-the-belt nature of some of the responses you got shocked me quite deeply, in fact; it actually hurt.
So here’s what I want to apologise for: I want to apologise for not speaking up about this on the thread. I felt that you were being treated unfairly and viciously, and I should have said so openly, right then and there. I didn’t, because I was worried I’d receive similar aggression in response. That was cowardly. I am sorry!
I’m also sorry they made the environment feel that way. It’s a common internet problem, IMO. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t endeavor to say we don’t like it and that people should make an effort to change it, so everyone can feel comfortable contributing.
Me too, macanna. I’m normally a lurker, but I felt I had to come out to say something on this one. I was also nervous because I don’t particularly enjoy fighting with people online, which is often what this sort of thing turns into, but this time it is a topic near to me so I felt I had to say something. Thank you for unlurking. 🙂
I’m the person Richard was replying to in the original thread. I’ve been following the comments but haven’t had time to sit down and type something out. I actually still don’t, and am doing this on my phone, which means this will be short and to the point, and probably a bit sloppy. However, I have wanted to step in ever since the original thread, so I’m doing it.
I personally am fine with frank discussions of sex and sexuality, and I didn’t find Richard’s post to be offensive in any way. Like him, in the circle I socialize in people talk about such things all the time. When I’m around other folks who don’t know me, they tend to see much of what I have to say as TMI. I don’t blame them and I don’t blame anyone else here for that reaction, nor do I think they’re “prudish” or “sex negative” for that reaction.
I also think Richard should have asked or else tested the waters better before he posted. That was his mistake, and he knows that. On the other hand, some of the replies to his comment got out of hand. We talk constantly here about being charitable and not automatically jumping on people who say the wrong thing or use wording that can be misconstrued. But none of that charitable-ness was applied to Richard. Initially Ophelia made a vague remark, but Richard didn’t realize what she meant by it and replied he was sorry she became embarassed. He obviously realized he’d TMI’d, but thought it was in a harmless sort of way that sometimes happens in such discussions. Then he was leaped upon, accused of being a one-hand typist, of calling people prudes, and was made to feel like he’d said something utterly perverted. To me, that’s sex shaming.
While I agree he made a rather large faux pas, he didn’t deserve some of the comments he received. One person even said something like “I wish I hadn’t shaken his hand” and another accused him of lying about having added a trigger, saying “You know we can check that, don’t you?” While he deserved to be called out, and it was absolutely necessary to remind him he’s not in his own space and therefore needed to be more discrete, he did not deserve those, shall we say, less charitable responses.
And I’m sure there will be those who disagree, and feel free to argue this if you feel it important to do so, I disagree that this is some sort of feminist issue. Yes, there are men who purposefully assert their sexuality in inappropriate spaces at inappropriate times. Yes, these men often count on women being compliant and use their discomfort at confrontation to get away with egregious sexual behavior. I know that quite well because I’ve experienced it. But I also think that just because it is a man saying it, it doesn’t give us leave to automatically draw that assumption without looking at context and intent.
Intent is not magic, but we also know that people fuck up and say stupid shit. Knowing who Richard is, looking at the content of his remark, the point he was trying to illustrate, and the fact that he did put a warning before it, and the fact that he knows whose space he’s in i.e., feminists, should clue people in that he wasn’t being one of “those guys”.
I honestly think those less charitable attacks were unwarranted and that those who made them are using a cloak of feminist speech to hide their sex shaming behind. That’s my personal impression, and as a kinky woman who’s also polyamorus I have experienced this type of shaming myself, so I’m aware of it’s existence and how it’s often framed.
This post probably isn’t as well written as it could be (since I’m on a packed commuter train, Tokyo trains are notorious) so feel free to ask for clarification.
Richard made a mistake, apologized, shit happens.
People like “Judith Tollofson” though make my skin crawl. Seems like they have their own problems to hide by obsessively overanalyzing every little thing.
William Durham wrote:
I’m not entirely sure that Ophelia’s suspicions about the writer in question aren’t well founded.
*Firstly, there appeared to be some Slymepit tricksters trying to cause trouble for Richard.
*It seemed that there was excessive offense taken by her at Dr. Carriers remarks, after all, she decided to read an article about porn and violence and opted to read past a warning. She could have stopped reading.
*She seemed to drop phrases that MRAs use to mock social justice folks like notpology, doubling down, keep digging while ignoring his apology.
*She seems to still not accept his apology by her above “notthank you for your apology”.
Maybe she is sincere, even so, it’s not unreasonable to be suspicious of something a little “off” and wonder if they could be trolling.
@abear
I see. I am guilty of naiveté when it comes to the types of trolls FTB attracts, and the defensiveness that might create.
Richard Carrier @19,
This question was not addressed to me, but I did find the answer. It seems to be just a plain old dictionary definition, e.g., from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solipsism.
Kainan @23,
Glad to know what you think of me, but it sounds like you are projecting. Otherwise you ought to apply for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge because you would have to be a mind-reader to have me pegged so well from just a handful of comments. In either case, best of luck to you.
abear @24,
For the record, I accept Richard’s apology; but I also recognize there are some aspects that are still problematic as I tried to describe in my previous comments. I personally was not offended by what Richard said, but I certainly recognize that other people were.
You can speculate as to my sincerity or motives all you want, but another option would be to simply address what I wrote directly. If you believe I got something factually wrong, please say so. If you believe my logic or reasoning is flawed, please point out the error. If you believe I am being unfair or unreasonable, please explain why or where.
But this passive aggressive stuff you are pulling really should be beneath all of us.
What? Judith Trollofson accused me of passive aggressive behavior?
I’m not offended, but still think you should give me a carefully crafted, sincere apology so I can tell you it’s not good enough.
Judith Tolloffson @17 writes:
Mostly there is an overreaction to what was an on topic discussion about pornography and sexuality. Some remarks seem to infer that some commenters were aghast at what was a frank description of fairly commonplace human sexuality. Comments like “eeewww” or comparing the remarks to adding feces to a cake certainly has the hallmarks of prudery . Are you saying that “the shoe not fitting” means you consider yourself sex positive? If so you really are churning out a lot of words demanding a proper apology (and telling richard not to dare try to defend himself) for something you weren’t offended by.
As far as a discussion on colon health; chances are pretty good that discussing bowel movements and the composition of stool would be completely relevant. If you find normal bodily functions “dirty” or otherwise are shocked at that sort of thing maybe you may want to decide to avoid the topic rather than getting offended at others discussing it.
I’m victim blaming by using the phrase “delicate flowers”? You realize the “fee-fees” and “male tears” are buzzwords misandrists use to mock suicidal men? How dare you?
“I don’t know where you are getting such a bizarre definition of solipsism. But even that bizarre definition does not describe FTB as a network.”
In turn, I don’t know where you’re getting that it’s bizarre- “solipsistic”- to mean egotistical (figuratively, that one’s narrow view is all there is). Is it that hard to disambiguate from solipsism, the epistemicological philosophical position? But I didn’t invent the usage- here’s the dictionary definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/solipsistic
And here it is in a sentence: “Social media threatens to imprison everyone in a solipsistic bubble.”
“…you are describing nearly every comment system of any substantial size on every blog, YouTube, and other venue anywhere online”.
As I said in my original comment- I’m making a banal point. I never said FTB was unique. Is versus ought, perhaps.
First time post, first time reader of just a few days ago, having searched out Carrier in regards to one of his books and finding this post and all the drama. So, I don’t have a history here, but I have to say that I’m not sure all the angst around Carrier’s post suggests a worthwhile venue to visit.
I did see the ‘offensive’ post, and while it’s not really my cup of tea (I’m not interested in what any man says about his own fluids), it seems that when a group is discussing sexuality and explicit porn, etc., there are times when personal aspects or proclivities can creep in and shouldn’t automatically be cause for running a guy out on the rails.
All the extreme parsing and re-parsing of apologies and explanations is tiresome and annoying. It seems this happens too often in online forums–people take exception or offense to one word or the other, and pretty soon, it’s an all-out slap-fest. Geez, the guy apologized and then that is torn apart, leading him to offer a huge genuflect to the gods of internet propriety. Now he has to tiptoe around to make sure he doesn’t cross the guardians.
Sure, an apology may have been needed, but if this had happened at a party in person, he would have been shut down in some way (or ignored), he would have apologized, and then the conversation would have continued. All the extreme caution does in this case is to limit the discourse. IMO, rules should be set, and anything else goes, especially in a venue containing the words “free thought”! If an unseen line is crossed, state as such and let it continue, without punishment. I bet Carrier won’t be posting much here any more, probably a loss given that he does seem to be someone who thinks about things a lot.
I’m sure I’m going to flamed until I’m a crispy carbon skeleton, so be it, have fun.
Do be aware only one person has been oddly parsing my apology, and others have been pointing out elements of her comments that suggest she may be a troll, or at best a wild outlier. So don’t over-generalize. Indeed, if she is a troll, she wants you to over-generalize and think she is representative of the community. (Also, no, this won’t have any effect on what I blog about or say in comments on my own blog, which is my space.)
abear, I’m glad I’m not the only one to suspect that this “Judith” might be a troll. I thought I was getting paranoid.
The amount of pure aggression in “her” comments is astounding, even if it is slightly gilded by faux politeness.
I mean, that “cake with feces” description of Richard’s open and sincere apology must take the cake:
“What you are asking us to do here is enjoy the rest of the cake and just ignore the feces. No thanks, I’d rather just skip the cake entirely if I have to accept the soiled part with it.”
But notice one thing: “she” contradicts herself, because earlier “she” wrote:
“If I were the only person in the world aside from you, this would be over and done.”
So which is it, really? Would “she” have eaten the “cake” or not?
Then there is this pathetic blackmail attempt:
“On the off chance that you decide not to post this comment, I plan to cross-post it elsewhere along with a screenshot or archive showing it in moderation here.”
Then there is the implication that Richard is not a reasonable person:
“there is no possible way that any reasonable person could read that post and interpret that as an invitation to delve into their personal stuff like that”
Frankly, it’s almost like this personage was crafted by an MRA to go after Richard (and make people dislike feminists in the process).
BTW, “Will Li” (Willie/Will Lie?) is apparently a Slymepit troll. They have a nonsense text generator that produces texts like this. Here is another one, made according to the same structure with some different variables:
“”Reality is impossible,” says Laden; however, according to Justin Q. Aneris [8]
, it is not so much reality that is impossible, but rather the genre, and
eventually the defining characteristic, of reality. Thus, an abundance of
’woman as a toilet’ worldviews concerning preableist neocis-privileged theory
exist. The premise of sister-punishing puritanical theory holds that sexual
identity, perhaps predictably, has intrinsic meaning, but only if sexuality is
equal to truth; if that is not the case, white-knighting is created by
communication. The main theme of John C Welch’s [9] model of preableist
neocis-privileged theory is the role of the writer as micro-rapist. However,
Dworkin suggests the use of Coyneism to analyze and read ethical language.”
I personally have little opinion about the apology since I am not one of the people who were bothered by the unwelcome explicit content. I’m a person who is sensitive to that sort of inappropriate content . I am happy to see that this is largely a constructive situation though.
Re: “less charitable responses”.
No one gets to control how someone responds to unexpected or unwelcome sexual content or any other content. They will respond in a way consistent with their life experience. You can dislike how someone feels all you want but nothing replaces understanding why they feel that way if anyone is interested in long term solutions.
One of the side effects of living in a culture with people who have had a lot of negative experiences related to sex is rational negative emotional associations with sex. That negativity will come out when boundaries and sensitivities based on the world that exists are violated. One of those is a disgust reaction or feeling of threat when the unwelcome content appears.
Humor reduces emotions like disgust. So I am fine with some of what is seen as “uncharitable”. It’s plain old human ability to emotionally deal with an unwelcome situation. “Prudery” is a gross simplification.
@blondeintokyo
This seems contradictory. If there is a social pattern of behavior where men use their sexuality in such a manner that would seem to be something that feminism would be very involved with. Can you explain?
@Kainan
I saw Judith Tolloffson carefully explain how they saw a complicated and unpleasant situation.
(moving down to a different comment)
That there is aggression in their comments is irrelevant to the content in their comments. In a society that allows male and female people to be equally aggressive in whatever contexts are rules appropriate is a goal. Focusing on the emotions of women and other female people is a common means of dismissing or suppressing their concerns.
No contradiction, the bolded portions indicate private and social contexts. People are often willing to personally forgive things that they are not willing to in a greater social context when more is at stake. That is normal human behavior. The spectrum of public versus private and how we react along that spectrum matters and is a big part of this situation.
That an attempt to apply emotional pressure in a social context. Blackmail is a threat to reveal information and not a release of it so this is the opposite. It’s not really wrong to show examples of what someone does in parts of the internet meant to be broadly accessable.
Part of social change involves spreading around evidence of bad behavior. I personally thought that it would have been better to see if Richard engaged with the criticism first, but I don’t blame them because many people on refuse to face what they do.
I have no problem reading that as an appeal that Richard see that he was being unreasonable in that situation.
No one is trying to tell anyone how they should feel. What I pointed out was the irony of a person who has been calling for others to be charitable, being uncharitable herself and also applauding others who were similarly uncharitable.
Feminism has nothing to do with this particular incident because as I explained, Richard wasn’t attempting to do what he was being accused of attempting to do. A guy being attacked because he misjudged the room and said something overtly sexual to the wrong group of people is not a feminist issue.
abear @26,
My comment about feces on the cake was in reference to Richard’s apology and had nothing at all to do with any sexual kinks. In other words, you are completely mis-characterizing what I wrote, and then claiming that your mis-characterization is somehow evidence of prudery. This is a strange way to prove your case.
Absolutely unequivocally yes, I am sex positive. And it’s not just that I consider myself to be that, but that you would almost surely also consider me sex positive as well if you actually knew what I believed.
More mis-characterizations. I never demanded any apology (proper or otherwise) and I most certainly never suggested that he not try “defend himself.” Are you deliberately mis-characterizing things I wrote, or is this just something that you are unable to control? Or what? Please explain.
As to the number of words I have written, the idea that such is evidence that I am offended is pretty ridiculous; but if that’s the type of narrative that you find convincing, you are welcome to it I guess.
Oh look, more mis-characterizations. I never said or implied anything of the sort.
Not, it’s not the phrase itself, it’s the fact that you are explicitly and repeatedly blaming the victims, i.e., those who boundaries were transgressed. You continue to do so even now, even to the point of completely mis-characterizing what I wrote in order to justify your charges of prudery and such like.
You do realize that Hitler used words too right? Clearly that makes you a Nazi. /abear logic
JT wrote:
Golly Judith! It looks like you were accusing me of being a victim blamer by using buzzwords. If you didn’t mean it why did you write it?
Which victims are you talking about? Ophelia didn’t even appear to be particularly offended until the highly excitable heterophobe Josh,and you (who wasn’t really offended) chimed in. She even allowed a bunch of trolls into the comments to make light of the situation. She then accepted Richard’s apology, which apparently on someone else’s behalf you just don’t think was good enough.
You didn’t “demand” an apology? I guess you just repeatedly and aggressively suggested it then.
You didn’t suggest he not defend himself? When he tried to explain that he didn’t intend offense you jumped all over him and inferred that invalidated his apology.
You talk about “victims” here. Are you saying there was damage done to anyone beyond some temporary embarrassment? Seems like hyperbole for what was a sort of goofy social faux pas.
Kainan @29,
Sounds like you are projecting again. Any aggression you perceive is a figment of your overactive imagination, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
I did eat the rest of the cake, and I said so explicitly; but I also think that soiled piece in the corner is worth pointing out. This would only seem contradictory if you have an all-or-nothing, black-or-white view of the world that permits no shades of gray.
So you consider it “blackmail” if I tell you that I will be publishing my own comment elsewhere in the event that you decide not to publish it? Hilarious, absolutely hilarious. Sounds like you have not even the first clue what “blackmail” really means, because this ain’t even in the same ballpark. Not even same game, really.
That said, falsely accusing someone of blackmail is defamatory. Would you please retract your accusation?
Richard Carrier @28,
I’m sorry if my comments are unwelcome or out of place and I’ll not bother you again if you prefer it that way.
You’re just wrong. And kind of making feminists look bad. I don’t see how that’s useful even to your own stated goals. But you are welcome to continue doing this if you think it’s productive.
Richard Carrier @28,
I don’t know how to parse this, but perhaps that was the point. If you can be more specific I’d be happy to address whatever it is you think I’m wrong about. If on the other hand you were making a comment about me as a person I guess I’m not sure how to react to that. Would you mind clarifying?
Very curious thing to say. Kind of hurtful too, but I guess I am asking for it in some way. Is there any way you could be more specific and say in what way do you feel I am making feminists look bad? Also how do you think you make feminists look?
I also wonder how you feel about such hyperbolic accusations from abear @13 implying that people are trying to silence you. How does that make feminists look? Or do you agree and feel that you were being silenced? What about the continued accusations of prudery (or worse) backed up by blatant mis-characterizations (e.g., @26). How does that make feminists look? What about the accusation @29 that I somehow “blackmailed” you by saying I would publish my comment elsewhere if you didn’t? You think that makes feminists look rational and reasonable? Or do you agree that I actually “blackmailed” you in some way?
At this point I’ve said what I felt needed saying in regards to the OP, and I do again thank you for allowing me the right to say it here.
In terms of my goals, most of which I would hope are your goals too, unfortunately I feel now that some things written by abear and Kainan ought not go unchallenged, and that it would be more damaging for in the long run for that to happen.
I’m only speaking for myself. I’m only answering your question. And what I said has already been adequately covered in this thread.
@Brony
“That there is aggression in their comments is irrelevant to the content in their comments.”
Thanks for acknowledging the aggression in “her” comments, something “she” has failed to do.
And yes, aggression is absolutely relevant in social context (esp. with all the trolls around). It’s often a sign of things lurking underneath.
“Focusing on the emotions of women and other female people is a common means of dismissing or suppressing their concerns.”
It has nothing to do with anyone here being male or female.
There is adequate aggression and inadequate aggression (as pertains to its cause). There are also reasonable levels of aggression and unreasonable levels of aggression.
Even supposing that “Judith’s” aggression were reasonable in context because of the supposed initial offense, its level is not. It is not adequate to the level of the supposed offense.
“No contradiction, the bolded portions indicate private and social contexts. People are often willing to personally forgive things that they are not willing to in a greater social context when more is at stake.”
The contradiction is staring you right in the face: “No thanks, I’d rather just skip the cake entirely if I have to accept the soiled part with it.” vs. ““If I were the only person in the world aside from you, this would be over and done.”
“I” in both cases. Applies (also) to private context in both cases.
“That an attempt to apply emotional pressure in a social context. Blackmail is a threat to reveal information and not a release of it so this is the opposite.”
An attempt to apply emotional pressure in a social context is emotional/social blackmail.
“I have no problem reading that as an appeal that Richard see that he was being unreasonable in that situation.”
That’s not what the words actually say.
@ “Judith”
“Any aggression you perceive is a figment of your overactive imagination, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.”
That’s not a fact-based response, just pure denial. Deal with the arguments. The quotes I have cited show your hostile intent.
“Hilarious, absolutely hilarious. Sounds like you have not even the first clue what “blackmail” really means, because this ain’t even in the same ballpark. Not even same game, really.”
How about a plain dictionary definition?
“to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.”
You tried to force Richard into publishing your comment by indicating that you would post it elsewhere if you didn’t post it, basically trying to “shame” him into posting it.
There is no other function your “PS” could have served. Obviously you have a physical ability to post it elsewhere. Everybody does. Everybody knows that everybody does. No need to write about that.
When people do explicitly write “if you don’t post it, I’ll post it elsewhere”, they a) are trying to emotionally force someone to do it; b) they don’t think very highly of that person, because they think that person might hide their comment because of less than pure motives.
So the fact that you wrote it shows your hostility towards Richard and yes, it is absolutely emotional blackmail.
You haven’t addressed the inherent hostility of your “cake with feces” analogy. Why choose such a shitty analogy?
You haven’t addressed your quote implying Richard is not a reasonable person (as opposed to a reasonable person who’s made a mistake). Again, hostility.
And of course the fact that you’re carping on small things, writing whole “dissertations” about them, while most people have moved on.
These are the reasons I suspect you might be a Slymepit troll. An eloquent one, for sure.
Ah, further evidence of your inability to recognise boundaries.
* Doesn’t understand why picking up women at places he’s employed to speak at might be problematic
* Can’t bring himself to refrain from sex with someone who is intoxicated and only “pick up” sober women
* Violates boundaries and follows it up with a condescending ‘notpology’
I’m sure your creep badge is in the post.
Now this is a Slymepit troll.
The “all inebriation negates consent” trope = Slymepit
The “referring to a post by x explaining why y is wrong as x saying x doesn’t know why y is wrong” trope = Slymepit
The “assuming all gigs and venues are the same, and the same as a workforce environment” trope = Slymepit
The “no one can ever ask a co-worker or customer or contractor or industry peer out” trope = Slymepit
The “failing to link to anything because it would give all this away” trope = Slymepit
The “all apologies are notpologies” trope = Slymepit
The “creep badge insult” trope = Slymepit
Kainan @36,
Are you attempting to call into question my gender/identity? Otherwise is there a reason you keep putting “she” and “her” in scare-quotes?
Yes, you are right, I do purely deny that you have any idea what is going on in my head, and I most certainly don’t need any argument to know that you are wrong about my intentions or motivations. Nor, by the way, did you support your initial insults with any facts or arguments yourself.
If someone transgresses your boundaries, who gets to decide what level of aggression you are allowed to display?
You may repeat this nonsense as many times as you like but it doesn’t make it any more true. You accused me of trying to blackmail Richard and I will ask you yet again to please retract this potentially defamatory statement.
All I did was say I will publish my own comment elsewhere in the event that he chooses not to publish it; so what do you think he stands to lose had he chosen not to post my comment and I published it elsewhere instead? What strange harm do you imagine would befall him in that event?
So you see yourself as the decider as to what other people need to write about. It’s all starting to make sense now.
Please, by all means, continue to suspect to your heart’s content. You certainly seem to thrive on it.
Judith, just FYI, many here think you are a troll, a sock puppet for a man posing as a woman to try and stir up trouble with feminists by posing as an anti-feminist fantasy of an over-demanding and over-picky feminist who can never be satisfied. In order to discredit feminism.
The reason they think this is because this happens a lot in feminist comment threads. In fact, posers like that are becoming an increasingly common troll tactic. And you have been sounding almost exactly like them. Hence their suspicions.
And I will add evidence they weren’t even aware of: you are using an IP address spoofer to hide your location. Which means you may be running more than one sock puppet in this thread. Just FYI.
@Kainan
I see no problem with how she views things. I have been forced to have a flexible definition of aggression due to how women and men (and other minorities) tend to be treated differently on average with respect to forcefulness in argument. Society has lots of excuses to dismiss the arguments of forceful women so I often just talk about aggression.
I’m pretty sure that Judith did not use the word aggression in their mind like many do when they criticize. Mere criticism is a form aggression and most people don’t see it that way, and why it does not bother me that Judith did not see the word as applicable to themselves.
Your initial criticism of Judith was aggression. Should I simply dismiss you as excessively aggressive and unreasonable? (which I believe you are, but I prefer to address your substance) Should I refrain from considering my criticism as a form of aggression? I think not.
Aggression is only relevant to parts of the context of a social interaction. I simply note the aggression for analysis of context at different levels of the discussion and move on to the substance.
I don’t have a fundamental problem with people trying to infer “things lurking underneath” which I will interpret at motivations, intentions and goals that are not readily apparent (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). I do that all of the time myself but apply standards to what I am willing to use. But there are some complicating factors that I always keep track of that you have an obligation to address if you want to be convincing beyond people who already agree with your emotional impressions of Judith.
1. Bad motivations, intentions and goals don’t necessarily make an argument wrong. Those things are important in a social conflict sense (the part of the context of social interaction I mentioned). That matters, I choose to participate in social conflict designed to facilitate social change myself. But it does not matter to content.
2. There is a social tendency to see assertive critical women and people asserting things related to feminism as unreasonably aggressive. I simply will not accept a claim of unreasonableness or “more than adequate” without evidence. I would not accept it on principle and doubly so because of the larger social issue. So when I see such a substance-less claim I often question it.
3. Accuracy is an issue and a certain minimal amount of work is necessary to provide evidence supporting your simple assertion that there are problematic motivations, intentions and goals, and that this matters to the arguments Judith is making. All you have at the moment is an assertion and adding the bit about reasonableness and adequacy is still an assertion as you have provided nothing about what you see as reasonable or as overly-adequate and most importantly why. I do not see Judith as unreasonably aggressive.
4. “Troll” is meaningless unless defined. Most of the time when I see people use the word they are simply referring to perceived social disruption. Social disruption is caused by well meaning people, people engaging in determined criticism, people who “just enjoy it”* and more. I have no reason to believe that any disruption cause by Judith is “trolling” as determined criticism will cause disruption.
*Which also does not matter because the purpose of play is practice for real things and “trolling for fun” is play at social conflict suggesting that people “just trolling” are engaging in aggression against sociopolitical opponents. They certainly are not likely to want to disrupt things they care about. I do not believe in “just a troll” or “just trolling”.
Then please explain why Judith is being unreasonably aggressive. I am allowed to take larger patterns of sexism into account when another person says that someone is being too aggressive and/or unreasonable on a feminist issue and they do not defend the assertion.
Additionally, if you believe that taking motivations, intentions and goals into account is acceptable I’m allowed to do that you too. Your first comment was nothing but an emotional impression that allowed me to see that you have strong negative personal feelings about critical women when it comes to sexual content. That could be interpreted different ways so I’m asking questions. I will probably not get into your motivations farther than pointing out possibilities that make a desire for investigation reasonable though.
First I don’t think you meant to word that this way. If the aggression was not adequate to the level of the offense than that means that more aggression was required.
Second, assuming that you believe the aggression to be more than adequate, why? I do not see it your way at all. People who can’t deal with a determined and emotionally effective opponent often say this. It’s always boring and uninformative to me as a claim on its own.
abear,
I did mean it and I already explained what I meant by it. I’ll put it in bold this time so you don’t miss it again: It’s the fact that you are explicitly and repeatedly blaming the victims, i.e., those who boundaries were transgressed.
Already explained. I’ll put it in bold this time so you don’t miss it again: It’s the fact that you are explicitly and repeatedly blaming the victims, i.e., those who boundaries were transgressed.
Well at least you are moving in the right direction, if only by inches. In any case, you are still mis-characterizing what I wrote. What I said was that if it were me, I would try a better apology. Here is what I wrote:
“If it were me I’d line it up and try again. Maybe have it vetted by a trusted neutral and objective party this time. Make sure it’s 100% excuse free and 100% free of any hint or implication that it’s someone else’s fault or that I were somehow justified. I’d include an apology for my previous weak tea apologies as well. But that’s just me, YMMV.”
So now point out the demand or the aggressive suggestion please. Or else admit that you are just making shit up (again).
No I didn’t. Not in the least. It’s no wonder you never actually quote me verbatim, because my actual words don’t support the narrative you are trying weave here.
No, I’m not saying that. I have no way to know what damage was done to anyone else, if any. But then that’s really the point, isn’t it? There is no way to tell how people will react, which is why it’s so important to establish and respect the boundaries to begin with.
Are you saying that you feel qualified to decide, on behalf of other people, how much embarrassment they should be able to withstand?
Goofy social faux pas that go unchallenged, or inadequately challenged, can lead to bigger problems down the road. Also,what might be just a social faux pas in one context might be a more serious transgression in another.
If you see it as hyperbole fine, that’s you. I see it differently.
Leaving aside the opinions of people at the Slymepit, it is unquestionably part of the Social Justice Warrior dogma (for want of a better word) that a sexual encounter between a man (sober or otherwise) and an inebriated woman is an act of rape on the man’s behalf. To try to walk back this concept to suit your own personal preferences is hypocritical.
No, it isn’t. That’s a myth. Perpetrated by the likes of the Slymepit.
That you don’t know this is either a testament to you being a delusional anti-feminist, or a dupe thereof.
Only inebriation that eliminates capacity to know what’s going on produces rape. All leading feminists are in agreement about this. Including (contrary to Slymepit mythology) Rebecca Watson who has explained this explicitly.
Richard said:
I don’t understand. Seriously, I am confused by your wording. Are you saying that us Pit people believe that:
1. all inebriation negates consent
4. no one can ever ask a co-worker or customer or contractor or industry peer out
5. failing to link to anything because it would give all this away
6. all apologies are notpologies
Numbers 2, 3, and 7, I simply don’t understand at all. What is the trope being described? I cannot parse it.
Please answer my queries and clarify your claim.
Yes. This accurately describes Slymepit rhetoric. Whether you believe it is questionable. But it’s what you often claim. Especially when you are trolling. Like here. The post I’m responding to is a classic Slymepit troll post. Indeed almost the Platonic model of one.
Examples of these kinds of bullshit tropes in both the posts and ensuing comment threads here and here. Including demonstrations that Slymeptitters often don’t really believe the things they say (like, again, here). Which makes their saying them (instead of actually defending what they believe) so self-defeating as to be laughable.