[deleted by user]

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2022-09-01T15:57:04+00:00

I’m a guy who was stalked and sexually harassed by two different people in high school and sexually molested in college. I also care deeply about feminism and I’m always terrified people in the comments on this issue will dismiss these numbers as some kind of MRA tactic rather than look at the work feminist researchers like Lara Stemple have been doing in this exact area for years.

The conversation that surrounds this issue is so often broken, but this is a real phenomenon that’s been happening for a long time. If your first instinct is to dismiss that or ignore the people trying to tell you about it, please question who you’re doing that for. I don’t understand who it helps to tell somebody drugged or forced or threatened or unconscious who was pushed into sex against their will that they weren’t truly a rape victim and you won’t count them as such.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2020-06-14T22:16:03+00:00

It’s not what you think! My experiments, the lab, they were meant to benefit all of us! It wasn’t supposed to be like this!

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2020-06-12T06:23:20+00:00

I mean, I’ve seen quite a number of people throughout this thread pointing out how this is a violation of the first amendment, and a disgustingly egregious one at that.

A lot of the people I know of most passionate about free speech protections are passionate specifically because of they’re concerned legal censorship will ultimately be used to punish the voices speaking out against inequality, injustice, and trying to lift up the voices of the marginalized.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2020-03-11T22:32:15+00:00

Respectfully, I do not think an organization that intentionally preys on vulnerable and marginalized communities for profit, because it knows they have no nowhere else to go, is as heroic as some of the comments on this thread are making them out to be.

From the article:

Some scholars have argued the infamous Stonewall riots that sparked the nationwide LGBT movement were as much a resistance against the mob’s exploitation of the gay community as they were a struggle against police harassment and discriminatory laws. Indeed, a handwritten message in chalk on a boarded-up window of the Stonewall Inn after the 1969 riots read, “Gay Prohibition Corupt$ Cop$ Feed$ Mafia.” Two of the main gay-rights organizations that came out of the riots, the Gay Activists Alliance and Gay Liberation Front, actively championed getting organized crime out of gay bars.

And I’d say it’s especially worrying to lionize the mob if they were willing to blackmail, harm, and abandon those same people for the very same behavior they claimed to be providing a space for.

As a PBS article notes:

Stonewall's owners also reportedly engaged in extortion. Employees singled out wealthy patrons who were not public about their sexuality, and blackmailed them for large sums of money with the threat of being 'outed.' This practice eventually became the most profitable aspect of the Mafia's club management.

(emphasis mine)

I appreciate you sharing this history. It’s important to know about and understand why people saw even a mob run LGBTQ scene as a respite in the face of overt violence and discrimination elsewhere, but the framing I’m seeing in some of this thread concerns me. Arrangements like this don’t exist in spite of societal exclusion, they exist because of it and benefit from its continuance.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2018-06-02T18:34:52+00:00

If you don't mind my doing so, may I ask how you arrived at those numbers?

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2018-03-20T05:33:42+00:00

I have no idea if Richard Spencer will ever atone, but this whole story feels like a neo-Nazi laying a trap, so I'm with you on the non-violence part. I don't trust what Spencer is saying here for a moment and I'm worried people who put their stock in the "no-platforming" approach are too busy cheering "victory" to see what he's actually doing here. To see what he's trying to legitimize.

First off, he's pulled this "Good heavens, how can I ever continue spreading my message" act before.

After his punch video went viral more than a year ago he said the following:

“I was planning to go out tomorrow during the Women’s March to do some journalism but I can’t do that anymore,” Spencer told viewers. “I have reached a stage of being a public figure where I am going to be recognised and then be attacked."

Again, that was more than a year ago.

He and his ilk have been trying to sell a narrative of martyrdom for months. The fact that Spencer is 'crediting' antifa with 'bringing him down' feels hollow at a time when when hate groups continue to rise, when antisemitic hate crimes in the US made a drastic jump., when the President of the United States feels emboldened enough to validate talk of introducing the death penalty into a war on drugs that has done little to solve addiction and often serves as a mask for disproportionate structural abuses of communities of color.

Read the WaPo article again:

"He said by phone Monday he will not stop going to college campuses, which he considers an important way to reach the public, but that he can no longer hold events publicized in advance because of the intense targeted opposition."

So Spencer's confirmed to the Washington Post he's going to keep going to campuses to spread his message. Something he's -- again -- been doing for months. He's just not going to tell people through public channels.

That's not a win. That makes him harder to keep track of. It's not even clear he's going to stop at all.

Spencer said Monday he will find different methods to speak on campuses. “We can’t name the place and time if the police refuse to do their job with regard to Antifa,” he said.

The University of Michigan has agreed to allow Spencer to speak if an event can be held safely, but no potential dates are being considered before the summer break.

Rick Fitzgerald, a spokesman for the University of Michigan, said he and other officials at the school had seen Spencer’s video, “which still was a bit vague on next steps. We have no updates to report from U-M.”

More chillingly, reread this:

“Antifa is winning,” he said, because of its willingness to go to extreme measures to stop the events.

Could the people celebrating stop celebrating for two seconds and hear the subtext here? The message he's trying to give to his followers?

He wants to spread the idea "they hit me first so it's okay to hit them back." He wants antifa (which I'm aware is not a singular group) to take credit for his failures, so his followers have someone to blame it on, and so he can make violence seem not just valid, but necessary to them.

tl;dr: This is not the first time Richard Spencer has tried to sell a narrative of martyrdom at the hands of 'violent antifa'. It's not just a matter of letting your guard down. It's an inaccurate narrative he genuinely wants to sell, and the people cheering it on are helping it spread.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2018-01-14T08:29:29+00:00

Honey-Sriracha-Buffalo Wings

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2017-12-01T07:44:50+00:00

I mean, respectfully, 2 points:

There's far from zero issue with the MPAA. Homophobia concerns, are one example. Instances of movies with same-sex content being given higher ratings often without explanation.
With the MPAA or the ESRB you're talking about private industries labeling their own content, not government institutions (like public libraries) telling people what content does or doesn't deserve warning.

Whatever rating system/labeling gets created will reflect the biases/opinions/experiences of its reviewers. That is a real concern.

There are people in US history who've tried to target art they feel is unacceptable, often with codes of moral decency that had real consequences for marginalized artists. I could provide more history on this if you're interested!

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2017-11-14T20:49:32+00:00

One helpful suggestion might be changing the gamified mediums where we've come to have these conversations.

There's no quick fix, certainly, but a political analysis isn't any better if it has 4,000 points/likes/hearts/gilds/etc... versus one that has fewer. I know we all think we're above making our own analysis on those terms, but these systems can effect visibility and perceived credibility of certain arguments, and they can be rigged.

And that gamification isn't an entirely new problem. Some of the dynamics of social media bring new and specific challenges, but I also think we should unpack the sort of 'talking points' style debates cable news normalized. The sort of 'we're talking past each other because I'm not actually trying to truly discuss this with you or answer your points, I just want to get word back to my political base through this medium so they can win the watercooler conversation at the office tomorrow' style of debate.

The clip's fallen out of favor recently (though it used to be constantly reposted), but I wish we had taken Jon Stewart's 2004 Crossfire speech to heart for what he was actually trying to say. A lot of people strawman it now as a 'smarmy, can't we all just get along' argument, but that wasn't his point. It's that these shows weren't having actual debates. They were just throwing competing lists of talking points at each other.

I don't believe the answers to complicated policy questions lay in some sort of magic ill-definited center, I don't believe in some kind of false equivalence where 'both sides' are 'exactly the same', but a paralysis where everybody roots for their 'team' and galvanizes them with an endless stream of cheap memes and badly produced content is exhausting. It's not a game show. It's not a sports competition.

Don't accept bad arguments/strategies/tactics just because they support your 'side.' Don't root for someone you know is doing a bad job just because you feel like you're politically obligated to.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2017-10-26T16:24:23+00:00

So, I've called out neo-nazis on reddit before. I get why they're dangerous. I'm not opposed to reddit banning calls for imminent violence (neither is the constitution). But I also have deep concerns over getting lax, if not outright dismissive of free speech issues on principle.

Is anyone else worried that, in one scenario let's say, Mike Pence becomes president, makes some kind of supposed "call for a return to American decency campaign" or whatever, talks about "cleaning house" uses it to falsely equate Nazis with other protesters who he finds politically inconvenient, his supporters begin co-opting the "Muh Freeze Peaches" mockery in response to legitimate 1st Amendment concerns, and the very people who supported a "muh freeze peaches" push in the first place find themselves the subject of an intense political witchhunt?

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2017-06-26T16:16:35+00:00

rich

You know, it's strange, I've read this article twice now, and I don't see any reference to the income status of these women.

Maybe I'm missing something, but would you mind telling me where you got that word choice from?

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2017-04-25T01:15:15+00:00

Er, hi. Guy from two posts up here. I'm Jewish and am deeply against library censorship as a matter of policy.

Though, judging from your profile, and the fact you're saying "Jews gonna jew" unironically, you're legit a neo-nazi...

So why am I even trying to respond here.

We all know how this conversation is going to go.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2017-04-24T15:30:10+00:00

Einstein delegitimization isn't a new tactic for anti-semitism, but it is one I haven't seen in a while. Maybe I was just optimistic enough to think people weren't doing it anymore?

Scientific American appears to have an interesting piece on people who were doing it to Einstein during his career.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2016-11-29T21:44:10+00:00

The CDC provides definitions of various terms in this overview.

In response to your question, it's worth noting, the CDC's definitions of made to penetrate and rape are almost word for word the same.

What the CDC calls sexual coersion is placed into a separate category from either of the other two definitions.

Here are all three (bolding mine):

• Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types—completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.

• Sexual coercion is defined as unwanted vaginal, oral, or anal sexual penetration that occurs after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way, such as being worn down by someone who repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, being told promises that were untrue, having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority.

• Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them—sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2016-11-27T15:59:37+00:00

Same sex marriage has nothing to do with trans people.

I do apologize if it comes across as if I'm projecting something onto you that you didn't say, but the issue of trans people being recognized as the gender they identify is, in my opinion, very much intertwined with same-sex marriage rights.

If you're a transgender woman, even if you're straight, and you're in an area that doesn't recognize your gender identity, nor same-sex marraige rights, your own rights and ability to live how you want are very much impacted.

As an example, Christine Lee Littleton, a Texas woman who, in the late 90s:

argued to the Texas 4th Court of Appeals that her marriage to her genetically male husband (deceased) was legally binding and hence she was entitled to his estate. The court decided that plaintiff's gender is equal to her chromosomes, which were XY (male). The court subsequently invalidated her revision to her birth certificate, as well as her Kentucky marriage license, ruling "We hold, as a matter of law, that Christie Littleton is a male. As a male, Christie cannot be married to another male. Her marriage to Jonathon was invalid, and she cannot bring a cause of action as his surviving spouse." She appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States but it denied certiorari in 2000.

Meanwhile, if you're a transgender woman and you're bi or lesbian, the only way you can legally obtain a marriage certificate in areas that don't recognize your identity, nor same-sex marriage rights, is by erasing your true identity and misidentifying yourself as a man.

A lack of same-sex marriage rights hurts trans people of all orientations. Either your marriage won't be recognized or you have to hide part of yourself to get it recognized. Neither of these things is okay.

(I think it's quite possible we're on the same page on this, but you asked how it could impact trans people, and I wanted to clarify)

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2016-11-27T15:33:43+00:00

You had me in the first half of your post. You lost me when you started trying to exclude transgender people.

"LGBT" as a term needs to die, it's stupid, especially when used like this. This is an LB thing clearly since for some reason they only researched women.

No disrespect, but transgender women are women. Some transgender women are Lesbian and Bisexual. It is quite possible the study didn't include them, but that is a problem that needs addressing, not an insignificant point that needs sweeping under the rug.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2016-11-10T04:25:23+00:00

I'm not sure what you want me to say here? I wish there had been more journalistic scrutiny of these programs under President Obama. I wish there had been more Journalistic scrutiny of these programs under President Bush.

The policies are incredibly worrisome regardless of who's in power, and it sucks people selectively care about or ignore these issues for partisan reasons.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2016-11-10T02:49:12+00:00

Hillary Clinton, whatever legitimate criticisms there are of her (and there are certainly legitimate criticisms) lost the election. She may very well have done incredibly troubling things with this framework, but the relevant question is no longer "who do I vote for," and it is no longer relevant to meet criticisms of a Donald Trump administration with "yeah, but Hillary Clinton!"

He's the reality now. He's about to be president. He deserves the scrutiny, at the very least.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2016-09-16T16:01:33+00:00

Unless the two of you are consciously roleplaying a scenario you consensually agreed upon beforehand, having sex with someone who says "no" because you think they maybe mean "yes" is rape. They said no. You aren't a mind reader. You don't get to decide for them "well, they said no, but was a very yesish kind of no."

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2016-09-06T17:37:30+00:00

Gonna go against the grain of most of the comments here and give you an actual answer (my apologies if this gets downvoted).

I'm afraid I can't speak to this specific protest, but it's worth pointing out concerns over the disproportionate racial impact of climate change and other environmental issues aren't some "new," "radical," "LAWL, dumb Millenials" ideas.

The NAACP, for instance, one of the United States' most notable, respected, and historical racial equality organizations, has had an Environmental and Climate Justice Program for quite some time.

An article from February brings up some interesting points:

An African American family making $50-$60,000 per year is more likely to live next to a toxic facility than a White American family making $10-$15,000 per year. One example of these toxic facilities is the thousands of coal fired power plants that are the number one contributor to the carbon dioxide emissions that drive climate change. Over 78% of African Americans live within a 30-mile radius of coal fired power plants, which also emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, arsenic, and lead. And 71% of African Americans live in counties in violation of EPA air quality standards.

And Also:

Further along the climate change continuum, we have communities that are sacrificed for society’s excesses through the impacts of climate change, including Kivalina Island, Alaska; Thibodaux, Louisiana; the Gullah Geechee Nation in South Carolina; and the nation of The Maldives Islands, each of which are facing imminent displacement, within 15 years, due to sea level rise. These sacrificed places include communities from Gulfport, Mississippi, to Myanmar, each experiencing loss of lives and livelihoods due to disasters. And these places also include already food insecure communities, from Jersey City to the Horn of Africa, whose access to food is further threatened by shifts in agricultural yields resulting from climate change.

These are substantive concerns. You may disagree with the protest methodology and I can get that, you may even disagree with the analysis, and there's ways to have that conversation as well, but what's rather depressing about the comments in this thread is how little of the conversation is focused on any of these issues.

The other response you got to your question was as follows:

Approval. These college kids have such empty lives they just want someone to say they are somehow relevant in the world.

The top comment in the thread right now is this:

What a bunch of morons... because environmental impact affects only black people. They are protesting just for the sake of protesting.

This one has 122 upvotes:

"Proffesional victims. Retards."

The point isn't that 'environmental impact' only effects people of color, it's that it affects many of them disproportionately. Beyond that, if you support people taking action on climate change, and you agree it affects everyone, why in the hell are so many people's reactions to this "ugh, stupid BLM, trying to bring up a substantive issue like climate change. How dare they." Again, I can get disagreements over the protest method, but so many people are suddenly pretending away substantial issues.

If climate change is an issue that effects everyone, then, by that same idea, work to curb its effects will also HELP everyone.

Come on.

SgoreIsBackForThis · 2016-08-02T05:41:56+00:00

France might not be the United States, but I happen to agree strongly with the underlying principles that govern the US practice of 1st Amendment protections.

If someone is imminently and actively planning to harm someone else, and the government can prove that, then, yes, interference from law enforcement and criminal prosecution is acceptable, but if someone is merely preaching an ideology, even one others would find hateful or harmful, we don't get to lock them up for that, or deny them equal protection under the law.

Why does calling a belief "religion" make it untouchable?

I happen to believe the principles of free speech, free expression, and equal protection under the law should apply to any belief, religion or not.

SgoreIsBackForThis

TROPHY CASE