He digs swigs, he fancies swoots, he has a passion for those glutes! "Is it Rape?" is the dispute. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
70 ups - 0 downs = 70 votes
202 comments submitted at 01:35:03 on Sep 9, 2014 by rahlgo
He digs swigs, he fancies swoots, he has a passion for those glutes! "Is it Rape?" is the dispute. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
70 ups - 0 downs = 70 votes
202 comments submitted at 01:35:03 on Sep 9, 2014 by rahlgo
I wonder if 'Swiggity Swooty, Comin' over to converse with the owner of dat booty to establish whether they would enthusiastically consent to sexual intercourse' would be a more acceptable caption for that gif?
> 'Swiggity Swooty, Comin' over to converse with the owner of dat booty to establish whether they would enthusiastically consent to sexual intercourse while not inebriated by the effects of any mild altering intoxicant'
You almost raped someone there buddy. Close call.
It just rolls off the tongue like, whoa.
Initially, I thought Wyboth had to be trolling. Then I saw their post history. Then I saw this thread... Just, lol. A thousand times, lol.
It's not trolling?
For real?
He makes people agree to his rules of debate before he'll agree to discuss topics with you
"Greetings kind gentle sir. I see that you have challenged me to a duel of linguistic fortitude. So be it! But I must warn you, this is not my first time bandying about with the swords of rhetorical vigor. Oh no indeed sir! You are in for quite the thrashing! Now let us promulgate the rules of engagement..."
Oh reddit...
I'm wondering what to tag him with.
EDIT: I've went with "Rhetorical powerhouse - Debate doomsday device."
That is probably the saddest thing I've ever seen. The fact he took the time to make that is just wow.
I kind of understand where he's coming from, but yowsa.
I just don't understand it. Although I'm pretty sure he made up a sub for himself.
That's not uncommon for people who use the site a lot. Some people use it to collate all the stuff they post.
I should get one of those . Everyone would love /r/ComewiththeCapn.
But seriously I looked at it and I don't think he uses it for that.
>/r/ComeWithTheCapn
10/10 title, would add to dashboard
I just looked at it and one is his user history and he replies to the bot detailing his user history. This is just weird.
I swear I've read this exact comment thread before... ?
Mine is a private sub to save the creepy porn I watch.
Oh, it's that guy
Haha the name reminded of something
I think it's kind of conceited to have your own wiki.
Dammit, I knew I had seen that screenname post something moronic before.
Unwarranted self-importance warning.
Awesome.
That's where I recognize the name from!
Wyboth has a set of rules you're required to agree to before he'll engage in debate with you.
>\5. Check your privilege. If you are debating me over social justice or human rights issues (which are common topics for me), be sure to check your privilege. If you do not know what privilege is, or if you think it's a feminist dirty word, read this. Also, understand that your personal experiences are subjective. Not everyone has experienced what you have experienced, and some people have experienced things you have not. Keep this in mind.
Am I posting a gif of a small bird that dances? If so, I probably have rapist privilege.
Saw that afterwards yeah. Still kind of want to believe this is Poe's Law...
There's no fucking way this guy isn't a long-con troll. Nobody talks like this unless they're trying to get on TiA et al.
omg did you just misgender them
:o :o :O
"Honey when I get home we are gonna have sex" - me.
"Woo hoo!" - honey
Rapist thoughts as per Mr KnowsNotOfWhatHeSpeaks. Look just because he is a rapist and has these thoughts doesn't mean that us non rapists can't have them too. As per my example they are not automatically rapey. He is projecting something fierce.
Nobody has ever wanted to have consensual sex with him/her before so xey automatically think everything is rape.
> Really? You, of all people, should know, then, that it's not okay to just say "I'm coming for that booty." There's no asking for consent there, it's just declaring that you are going to have sex with the other person, whether they like it or not, and that is rape. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you're telling the truth.
lol damn i hope they didn't pull something reaching for this
pick your fights, bro/sis
I slammed down someone on Facebook for trying to bitch me out for laughing at a rape joke.
I'm a rape victim.
They shut the fuck up pretty quick.
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.
Dramaception
Rules of Debate
Hello! I am /u/Wyboth, and if I linked you here, you're probably about to debate me. Before we start, please read my rules of debate. If you do not agree to these rules, I will refuse to debate you. These rules exist to ensure that the debates I take part in are high quality, and do not devolve into a shouting match. If you agree to follow these rules, I will follow them as well.
Seriously consider the other person's argument, and be willing to alter your view based on the evidence or the reasoning. A good debate happens when two people present their points, then consider the opponent's points, and change their opinions accordingly. If you are only going to defend your own points, then it will simply be a shouting match, which I would like to avoid. I only want to debate people who are, as much as I hate the phrase, open minded enough to listen to the other side. Also, do not be afraid to admit your mistakes. Admitting that you are wrong is a sign of maturity, and I greatly appreciate it when people do this. When you insist that you are correct after you have been roundly debunked, you are only fooling yourself into thinking you are still correct. You appear as immature and delusional to everyone else.
Fulfill your burden of proof. If you make a factual claim, you must support it with evidence. If you cannot do so, I will ignore your claim. Try to do this in the same comment as you make the claim, so I don't have to ask for evidence in my reply, and wait for you to provide it. Using reasoning to support a hypothesis is acceptable, but factual claims must be supported with evidence, unless they are common sense. Evidence trumps reasoning. Do not shift the burden of proof to me by saying things like "You can't prove me wrong!" If you shift the burden of proof, I will end the debate.
Do not name-call or make ad hominem attacks. This is the lowest form of argument. Many angry and emotional debaters will do this if they feel like things aren't going their way, or if they are having a bad day. I (and you) should, of course, try to avoid needling each other to make each other angry, and if one of us has a burst of emotion, we can try to be more reasonable and polite in the future, but repeated or serious insults annoy me and will cause me to end the debate.
No bigotry. This includes, but is not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, body-shaming, ableism, ageism, adultism, and classism. Don't be rude to groups of people for no real reason. If you hate black people because you saw a vine of some of them being douchebags, you're probably not the right person to debate me. If you have a disagreement with someone, be personal; don't be rude to an entire group of people, and I will do the same. If either of us fail, the other can happily leave the debate.
Check your privilege. If you are debating me over social justice or human rights issues (which are common topics for me), be sure to check your privilege. If you do not know what privilege is, or if you think it's a feminist dirty word, read this. Also, understand that your personal experiences are subjective. Not everyone has experienced what you have experienced, and some people have experienced things you have not. Keep this in mind.
Avoid committing logical fallacies. Here is a list of common logical fallacies and their explanations. Committing a logical fallacy will not make you lose the debate, and it does not necessarily mean that your point is wrong, but it means that the reasoning through which you arrived at your point is flawed.
Do not be afraid to stop replying. I do not take that as forfeiting the debate, I take deleting your comments as forfeiting. I have grown tired of debates before, and stopped replying, so I understand if you do as well. You can choose to leave a courtesy comment explaining why you are leaving, but some redditors may mock you for leaving, so it is up to you.
Do not rationalize or perform mental gymnastics to avoid a conclusion. Both debaters may enter the debate with some incorrect assumptions. Admitting this wrongness means you're coming closer to the truth.
Do not try to change the topic of the debate to avoid a conclusion. This is another way to avoid a conclusion. It is immature for the same reasons outlined in rule eight.
If you do not agree to these rules, then debating you would probably not have been fun and interesting for me. If you agree to them, reply to my comment saying so, and we will begin.
These rules may be updated in the future. If they are updated in the middle of a debate with me, you do not need to observe the updated rules, only the version you agreed to at the start of the debate.
>Do not name-call or make ad hominem attacks.
That loser needs to go outside. Actually no, he should not. He would get punched in the face before he got to rule 2.
/u/Wyboth was a regular drama llama right? What was he famous for again?
Having a pre-published set of rules for debating him, which he insists everyone considers and agrees to before he'll argue.
Ahh right thanks, I am gonna use that right away
In addition to the rules, I was involved in the /r/xkcd kerfuffle.
You are all kinds of "special snowflake", and I'm so glad that the internet will preserve the laughable shit you post for when you grow up and realize how hilariously misguided you are.
I refuse to believe that Wybelle is an actual person. The only plausible explanation is that someone rubbed a magical fedora and this dude popped out.
Previous drama from Wyboth includes the debate contract debacle.
When I first saw that gif a couple months ago, I sent it to my girlfriend, she thought it was hilarious and said she'd be waiting.
This is obvious trolling by /u/Wyboth.
Wyboth is the one who makes people adhere to a set of debate rules before having a discussion.
http://www.reddit.com/r/wyboth/wiki/rulesofdebate
> Don't be rude to groups of people for no real reason.
Those sound like absolutely objective rules, purely designed to ensure a fair debate! /s
I already knew that, lol.
nuh uh
Your user name.
ಠ_ಠ
more like x_x
:( I'm still sad over that, and I knew it was coming because I read the books. I even said to my husband, "I really hope they change it from the books and Oberyn survives."
Nope.
SPOILERS man
I'm not so sure. Have you checked his/her link?
Well, if that's what you want to believe, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
You're the one claiming that posting an animated GIF is rape, pal.
Alright, let me clear things up. I didn't mean that they had actually raped someone. I meant the entire "swiggity swooty" thing ignores the other person's consent, and that's rapist thinking. It's not asking "Can we have sex?", it's declaring "I am going to have sex with you!" which ignores the others person's consent, or lack of it.
>It's not asking "Can we have sex?", it's declaring "I am going to have sex with you!"
It quite clearly declares that [subject] is comin' for dat booty. Now, we could argue about the legal precedent involved in comin' for dat booty, but I couldn't find much to support your position.
Pretty sure comin' for that booty is in the constitution or something
We hold these swoots as self-evident.
It was an animated GIF with a funny saying on it. No one is getting raped because of it.
You are being ridiculous.
thanks for the refill on the popcorn!
(◕‿◕✿)
･ﾟ ◔ ⌣ ◔ ･ﾟ
Oh you
Not directly, but it contributes a small amount to people disregarding consent. In other words, it's a part of rape culture.
I would have to disagree with you on that. Anyone who would read that and disregard content would do so even without reading that GIF.
There are far bigger issues to be tackling than a harmless GIF on the Internet. You have to pick your battles, Wyboth, and this ain't the one to fight.
Just my two cents.
> Anyone who would read that and disregard content would do so even without reading that GIF.
Perhaps Wyboth thinks if he keeps looking at that .gif he'll start disregarding consent. In which I case I wish he wouldn't project his feelings onto the rest of us and that he sees on competent counselor in the near future.
See my reply above.
If you think there's even a small chance you'll start disregarding consent because you see a GIF saying "coming for that booty," (a) please don't speak for rest of us and (b) see your school's guidance counselor ASAP.
Because you seem suspiciously confident that people might start disregarding consent if they see that GIF and you are included in the group "people."
More Comments - Click Here
I don't think you're understanding my point. Have you ever heard of something called microaggressions? They're tiny acts of aggression that, when by themselves, are insignificant, but when they build up, become incredibly infuriating. It's the same principle here. Things like this are subconsciously training people to disregard consent. It's just one tiny piece of it, but you have to tackle rape culture one tiny piece at a time, because that's how it shows itself. Does that make sense?
I understand where you're coming from, really, but I don't agree that this is part of it. I do not think this GIF is promoting rape culture, even at a subconscious level.
I do think your heart is in the right place, but if you want to tackle the major issues you need to tackle major issues. The GIF in question is ambiguous anyway; if you want to take a stand against lack of consent then go for images/GIFs that directly deal with the subject. This is not the best use of your time and detracts from what you're trying to accomplish here.
You've gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, okay Wyboth?
I know saying "this" is shitposting, but this is essentially what I was going to post.
There was a recent bestof that shows where you're coming from. Here the poster kind of gives the gist of it. Real rape victims don't give a shit about a gif that says swiggity swooty. They care about getting raped.
That comment is basically saying the same thing as Richard Dawkins' "Dear Muslima" letter.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Notasbad_as
>I don't think you're understanding my point. Have you ever heard of something called microaggressions? They're tiny acts of aggression that, when by themselves, are insignificant, but when they build up, become incredibly infuriating.
We have a word for people who fly into rages over minor slights. That word is "narcissist." One of them was in the news a few months ago.
> They're tiny acts of aggression that, when by themselves, are insignificant, but when they build up, become incredibly infuriating.
If you are in a position where the worst thing that's happening to you are "when by themselves... insignificant", you're pretty fucking lucky.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Notasbad_as
More Comments - Click Here
>Not directly, but it contributes a small amount to people disregarding consent.
Post evidence or retract.
>In other words, it's a part of rape culture.
>mfw
This paper by Viki, Thomae, Cullen, and Fernandez (2007) argues that "sexist humor provides a local norm that is tolerant to prejudice and discrimination. This in turn leads to men, especially those in acquaintance rape situations, to report higher levels of rape proclivity and victim blame; lower levels of perceived seriousness of the rape and recommend shorter sentence lengths" (123-4).
This paper by Romero-Sanchez et al (2010) affirmed the findings of Viki et al (2007), stating that "exposure to sexist humor (woman disparagement jokes) increases men’s self-reported rape proclivity compared to exposure to neutral humor" (2346). They theorize that "[e]xposure to sexist jokes creates a context in which men feel comfortable expressing negative ideas about women (negative behaviors)."
So, out of curiosity, I decided to follow up on your link to Viki, Thomae, Cullen, and Fernandez (2007). Originally, I was going to follow up more thoroughly on both papers, but investigating crucial aspects of the methodology of this paper ended up taking significantly more time than anticipated.
Almost immediately, I came across the following statement:
> Surprisingly, research has also shown that a number of men report some proclivity towards committing rape (Malamuth, 1981)
I didn't think it was all that surprising given that the number of men in question wasn't specified, and some number of men are rapists (which raises questions about why they phrased things like that, but I digress), but I decided to follow up on the reference to see how they determined this, and what that number was.
According to the citation, Malamuth (1981), Rape Proclivity Among Males, 35% of males indicated any likelihood of raping (that is, in response to the questions asked, they responded with anything other than 1 ("not at all likely") on a scale of 1 to 5 in response to the questions asked.
So, given the importance of the details of the questions which were responded to on that scale, it raises the question: what were the actual questions asked? Well... this paper doesn't specify. From what I see, it cites Malamuth and Check (1980a); Malamuth, Haber, and Feshbach (1980); Tieger (1981); Malamuth, Reisin & Spinner (???); and Malamuth & Check (???) as the source for the claim:
"In an attempt to identify individuals who may possess a relative propensity to rape, males were asked in a series of studies to indicate the likelihood that they personally would rape if they could be assured of not being caught and punished".
So, I moved on to this layer of references. Malamuth & Check (1980a in the aforementioned paper), titled, "Penile Tumescence and Perceptual Responses to Rape as a Function of Victim's Perceived Reactions", didn't specify what these questions asked were, but referenced a work, Malamuth et al (1980a).
This paper, "Testing hypotheses regarding rape: exposure to sexual violence, sex differences, and the "normality" of rape" (which is the previously mentioned Malamuth, Haber, and Feshbach paper) discusses such a questionnaire, but doesn't provide a list of questions. It also doesn't cite a source from which it drew those questions. As far as I can tell, it appears to be the origin for this questionnaire, but fails to provide any details thereof. The results make vague allusions regarding what the questions might be referring to, but are useless in any attempt to recreate the methodology of the paper.
It is difficult to take seriously any paper which cites such work, as it is impossible to verify the applicability of the questions used to assay the "proclivity to rape".
Worse, you find things in the results of Malamuth et al which raise questions about the applicability of the questions and what they say about men (specifically, men who were a subset of a sample of UCLA intro to psych students in 1980 or 1981). Particularly, recreating relevant details of Table 2 of that work, you find no statistically significant (p < .05) difference between men and women in each of the following ratings:
ratings of victim:
* responsibility
* trauma
* resistance to rapist
* could have avoided victimization
* percentage of women who would enjoy victimization if no one knew
ratings of rapist:
* identification with
This suggests that the questions used - which were, again, never specified, are likely to be flawed. While many of the questions wouldn't necessarily have been expected to produce differing results on their own, the fact that all of these questions produced statistically insignificant gender differences suggests that there are likely significant problems with the wording of the questions used.
Given that this is the second reference in the linked paper, and the first is to provide a citation for the claim, "Sexual violence has been shown to have negative effects on women's psychological and social lives", and the Malamuth work is repeatedly cited in the paper, I find it hard to justify further investigation into the claims of this particular paper, as the authors appear to have grossly failed to do due diligence. It should be considered an embarrassment to Current Research in Social Psychology that this paper was accepted for publication despite such a glaring flaw, and this was literally the first significant claim in the paper.
If I may make a polite suggestion, in the future you may wish to avoid citing this paper.
EDIT: not sure why my bullet points aren't working properly, but redoing them didn't help. Fine, asterisks it is.
If i had money for gold right now, you would get it.
More Comments - Click Here
Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You're saying Malamuth, 1981 didn't state what questions they asked, correct? Because Viki et al, 2007, does in the appendix on page 131. Furthermore, you're saying it is dishonest to link to Malamuth, 1981, so the entire results of Viki et al, 2007, can be ignored? First of all, Viki et al, 2007, only cites Malamuth, 1981, in the introduction, when they are simply rehashing previous research on the topic of rape proclivity. If all of your qualms are with the Malamuth paper, then that has nothing to do with the Viki et al paper, because they only cited Malamuth as earlier research done in this field. Even if Malamuth is flawed, that doesn't change the findings of the Viki paper at all, as you are suggesting, so what you are doing is very intellectually dishonest, if I am understanding you correctly.
More Comments - Click Here
The studies do not seem to be largely inaccurate, at least in any way I can think of right now, but I do see though, that the standard deviation seems to increase as bad views on rape increased, indicating to me that there are in fact those men who are influenced by jokes, but also a notable number who are not and maintain that rape is wrong. I think the issue now is that they seem to use a relatively strict definition of sexist joke, which I do not think this specific gif would meet. In fact, there are several things that some people consider sexist that are not at all as overtly sexist as the jokes.
I'm in college. I've seen guys tell girls they're gonna go for that ass. And then the girl says no, and then the guy accepts that it turns out he isn't gonna go for that ass. Even though it may not have a question mark at the end of it, there are people who use such a phrase as a question anyway. I've seen other people 'ask' for consent to go somewhere else and fuck by saying that they want the other person--again not technically a question, but it is treated as if it were a question by both parties. Note that "let's have sex" isn't technically a question either. Does using that phrase contribute to rape culture?
An analogy. I can ask to borrow someone's phone in 2 ways (at least).
Could I borrow you're phone?
Gimme your phone for a minute.
The latter is not a question, technically. But it is often used in place of the above question, with the same meaning as the above question.
While I appreciate the fact that you've actually provided academic citations, I have three problems with your conclusion:
You haven't established that the joke was actually sexist, and
This is the exact kind of argument which people like Fredric Wertham relied upon, and I'm sure that I could find an academic paper that would agree with him and his intellectual descendants.
If feminists actually believed the whole "jokes cause IRL harm" theory, they wouldn't be making jokes about castration/misandry/etc.
TL;DR: It's a goddamned GIF. Let it go.
Can we please stop with the down voting? They just provided a source of their beliefs.
Whether or not those studies are reliable, accurate, or indicative of what they're saying orwhatever the fuck idk, but they don't deserve to be downvoted for this.
Although there is a paywall so that's kind of a dick move, scientific journals suck like that
If he could just chill for a bit...
More Comments - Click Here
Thank you, you get it. This is SRD, though, and most of the overlap comes from TiA, so any feminist opinion is going to be downvoted.
More Comments - Click Here
I resent that I, and others, seem to be seen as so wishy-washy in my conviction that rape is wrong that an abundance of gifs on the internet that indirectly imply rape could in fact cause me to turn into a rapist.
>Not directly, but it contributes a small amount to people disregarding consent. In other words, it's a part of rape culture.
Rape culture doesn't exist.
It does, but this gif isn't it. The shit that happened in Stubenville: that is rape culture.
I'll break burden of proof convention for a minute and link you to this, because you probably don't know what rape culture means.
There's a difference you twit.
I could almost call you borderline autistic and it wouldn't actually be an insult.
> and that's rapist thinking
And here I was, thinking you actually had to do an act to be guilty of rape... Silly me, actually using legal definitions and shit.
FFS, stop putting words into my mouth. I said "rapist thinking." That means they are thinking like a rapist would. That does not mean that they actually raped somebody. You people are ridiculous.
So you're saying rapists think of cute birds making jokes? Way to support rape culture.
(That's the problem you have when insisting your definition that many others disagree with is the only right way to see it).
how people like you are real
Mmm, you give such good popcorn.
I'd love to debate you on this but unfortunately I don't have your rules handy
Here you are.
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.
Oh my god it's Wyboth. I'm... Almost beside myself. The boy (philosopher) king himself.
Oh yeah that's not trivializing rape AT AAAAALL... /s
Three comments down and they are being offended on someone's behalf.
Le victim defener.
SnapShot
(mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
I think Wyboth might be a bot. He uses the same two and a half sentences to defend his statement.
Is there no appreciation in these comments for that wonderful title?
/u/Wyboth here. Ask me anything serious.
Edit: If your question turns into a debate, we will both have to follow these rules. This is to ensure that I don't debate someone ridiculous.
Edit 2: I'm going to sleep. I'll get back to the reasonable ones of you in the morning.
You... oh my gosh, you really do have your own rules.
Do you get into debates that frequently to where that's really necessary?
I suggest you check your privilege before asking a question like that.
Excuse me, you are not following the rules.
Please move to the back of the line.
You just implied that there'd be a whole queue of people willing to fight /u/Wyboth. Banned from debating /u/Wyboth - infringement of Rule 3. You just implied he's disagreeable.
Imagine being a teenager with a smattering of reading on a few subjects. Now imagine coming to really solidified positions on issues. Then imagine being challenged on them.
You can react by either (a) saying "wow, there is some legitimate disagreement", or (b) developing your own rules for debate to insulate your positions against being challenged.
It turns out that it's easy to "win" every debate when you can create a false dichotomy of either "they were persuaded" or "they didn't listen/check their privilege/meet their burden of proof."
Pretty much. Whenever I express a feminist opinion, there's always someone there to challenge it. A lot of the time they're completely ridiculous or they don't give up trying to prove themselves right, even when they're losing, so I made those to try to avoid debating those types of people. That lead to another drama blowup the first time I linked them, but now they're working very nicely.
Well... I'm just going to be honest that it comes off as rather off-putting to link your own rules for a debate.
I'm not saying they're not fine rules and that they're not well thought out; far from it! But starting off with that statement doesn't really help your case.
But hey, that's just how I see it. Just figured I'd let ya know.
I understand; I've been told that before. It's a simple case of the benefits outweighing the costs, because I've avoided wasting time with a lot of people by using them, and I always regret not linking them. There's a chance that I may turn away a reasonable person by looking self-important when I link to the rules, but there's also a chance that person will understand the usual quality of reddit debates, and understand the need for them.
Also, thanks for actually reading them, and not just scoffing at me for writing them in the first place and calling me an ableist slur, as others have done.
> It's a simple case of the benefits outweighing the costs, because I've avoided wasting time with a lot of people by using them, and I always regret not linking them.
Holy Asperger's, Batman. "You must sign the contract before I will even consider communicating with you". You didn't notarise it, communication discontinued.
[deleted]
No personal attacks.
[deleted]
You can check the sidebar to see a full list of rules.
http://i.imgur.com/ExIqChP.gif
You've literally raped someone!!!!
Rapist scum!
Fuck your rules.
Have you ever given thought to the fact that constantly throwing around the words 'rape' or 'rapist' actually takes away from their meaning? Misogyny is a great example of this. It gets used so often and with so little regard to its meaning that it's almost completely lost its meaning in many people's minds.
Fuck your rules.
Exactly. When everything is rape, nothing is.
See, this is such a simple, much more concise way of putting it. I've never actually had this conversation before, but I'll remember that.
>Fuck your rules.
Whatever. If this turns into a debate, I still expect you to follow them (unless you meant you're not going to follow them, in which case, don't bother replying).
>Have you ever given thought to the fact that constantly throwing around the words 'rape' or 'rapist' actually takes away from their meaning?
Absolutely. A lot of people throw it around as a synonym for wrecked or destroyed (think DOTA), and I'm opposed to that for the same reason you seem to be. "Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?" Not in my mind, and let me explain why. I called them a rapist because they were promoting part of rape culture (I didn't mean that they had actually raped somebody). If it's actually relevant, and not just being used for edginess, then I don't think it's being misused.
Again, if you're not going to follow the rules, don't reply. If you reply again and say nothing about the rules, I'll assume you're agreeing to follow them, and you meant you just don't like them.
[deleted]
I want to reply, but you're not going to follow the rules, so I won't.
Thing is, I'm not debating you. Your rules don't apply. But fuck them anyway.
You're not replying because you don't have shit to say.
This exact argument, "You're leaving because you're out of replies", is one of the reasons I wrote Rule 7. I'm leaving because I clearly stated that I wouldn't debate who doesn't agree to the rules, and you said just that.
I've already said that we're not debating, so your rules don't apply. Not every exchange of words or ideas is a debate. You wrote that rule for this exact purpose, because you need an out for when you're backed into a corner. The very fact that you try to impose rules of your own is not only absurd, it's narcissistic. It's obvious that you can't stand to be proved wrong and those rules allow you to avoid taking that ego hit. You're going to find out soon that you can't just make up your own rules in life and expect people to follow them. Until then, feel free to prance around in your little dream world as if you actually fucking matter.
How are you doing today?
^(If you respond to this post you're communicating to me that you're signing a contract that says you're in debt to me $500.00 (five hundred US Dollars)^), ^(to be paid back in no less than 30 (thirty)^) ^(days after your initial reply.)
Oh, I'm doing pretty we...
Goddamnit!
Wait, are you saying that you define rapist as someone who allegedly supports a facet of rape culture?
Are you okay? Are you all there mentally? Serious question.
Yes.
Surely you jest. Surely there cannot be a real person whose first "rule" is "be willing to change your mind," all the while be closed minded themselves and shouting the same nonsensical thing over and over again (in this case a person promoting "rape" with a gif of a bird). I just... This cannot be real. Sometimes I have to just stop and ask, "Perhaps I'm just a sentient character in a Christopher Buckley novel."
Rape culture, not rape. The gif promotes not asking for consent, and instead "going for the booty", which, if you don't have consent, is rape. That gif alone won't make someone rape someone else, but it's one of thousands of influences (called rape culture) that do cause otherwise good people to rape other people.
Nothing causes good people to rape other people. Because good people don't rape other people. Bad people rape other people. And they rape them because they are bad, not because they saw a few pictures on the internet that maybe had something to do with rape.
When you think of rape, are you thinking of jumping out of the bushes rape? Because that isn't the most common type of rape. About 2/3 of rape victims knew their abuser, so stranger rape isn't as common as people think. It's also important to note that sexual assault is defined as any sexual act performed without the consent of the other party. As this video explains, some people will take the lack of a no as a yes, when that still isn't consent, and that makes them a rapist (or sexual assaulter). These people wouldn't be evil, just un/misinformed, but their actions would still carry the same consequences.
You are a literal rape apologist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist
http://i.imgur.com/fwVEbLj.jpg
Never thought I'd see the dictionary argument from the SRS side.
It doesn't matter what type of rape; good people don't do it. One doesn't accidentally rape someone. Most people would have rapists thrown in jail forever, or have them castrated, or put in front of a firing squad because rape is one of the worst crimes and not something one can commit accidentally.
Listen bud, as someone who is into SJ themselves, I do believe your idea that "people can accidentally rape others" is itself a contributor to rape culture.
I believe rapists know they are rapists. See here why.
Basically only a complete lack of empathy would allow a person to believe a non-consensual sex act was consensual, and when you state that "normal" people can accidentally rape someone, you are quite frankly giving rape apologists something to work with. While good people don't rape, good people do defend rapists thanks to rape culture. The post I linked outlines how that happens, but the gist of it is that "rape can happen by accident" is the core belief that rape culture revolves around.
Why do you assume there is no consent? We do not know whose booty the subject is going after. It could be his girlfriend that just said, "Come over and have sex." Furthermore, the context of the gif in this instance is merely a humorous reference to a cartoon. Your outrage lays on unfounded assumptions you yourself have projected.
Let's also examine the language: "I am coming for that booty." Here the main verb is coming. That is the action. There is no further verb that states what action will be carried out upon arrival to the booty. Furthermore, There is no possession of the booty implied by the action preformed by the subject. It in fact implies less action (and less consent) than a girl saying, "I want to rip his clothes off." Or do you think that also promotes "rape culture?"
lmfao, this may be my favorite comment of all time
> We do not know whose booty the subject is going after
classic
If the bird in question was a female coming after a male booty would you still consider it rape?
SWIGGITY SWOOTY
I'D LIKE TO HAVE CONSENSUAL RELATIONS IF YOU AGREE
SWIGGITY SWOOTY
I'D HAVE CONSENSUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT BOOTY
Yes.
Edit: Not asking for consent for both, not necessarily rape.
People don't always have to actually ask for consent. People in relationships form their own language and understanding. Even strangers can figure out consent without saying the words sometimes. If someone says what's in the gif, they're likely in a position where the person they're saying it to thinks it's cute and is part of their dynamic. Rapists don't have catch phrases.
That's quite a big assumption.
How about the rest of it? The idea that not everyone needs specific consent language before sex.
>Rape culture, not rape. The gif promotes not asking for consent, and instead "going for the booty", which, if you don't have consent, is rape. That gif alone won't make someone rape someone else, but it's one of thousands of influences (called rape culture) that do cause otherwise good people to rape other people.
Aside from the genocide, Hitler was a great guy!
What are you even trying to say?
Wow, just wow. This is a whole new level of Reddit I have fallen into. And I've found many many many deep disturbing places here.
This is off topic so I understand if you don't want to answer, but I had a wee duke at your user page and saw that you moderate a sub called adultism. Assuming that institutional discrimination against young people is real, what would you change to address the issues that you perceive to exist?
Good question; I'll answer it. A big problem is stereotyping, specifically of ignorance, apathy, and irresponsibility. I'd change the way youth are represented in movies, TV shows, etc. and also the way they are thought of by non-youth (if that's allowed in this hypothetical scenario). Another problem is treatment under the law. I'm really tired right now, so I don't want to really go into detail here, but I'd want to move back some of the ages at which youth earn rights. I'm probably missing some things, but that's where I'd start.
> I'm really tired right now, so I don't want to really go into detail here,
Yeah, we all know you have school tomorrow.
College.
Doesn't make you any less of a little shit.
College kids are worse, because they actually think they're savvy.
I'm always curious about this when you post your rules. Your first rule is about considering the other person's viewpoint, but focuses entirely on someone else considering your viewpoint and conceding after they have been debunked.
How would you seek to prove someone has failed to consider your viewpoint, as opposed to simply disagreeing with it?
How do you ensure objectivity in determining whether a viewpoint has been "roundly debunked"?
How would one go about challenging whether you are following the rules?
Also, on the burden of proof, have you actually spent the time to create a factual basis for your rules themselves? I don't mean to go all Hume on you, but rule #5 demands one "check their privilege", which assume without evidence (a) that privilege exists, (b) that privilege influences people's views, and (c) that privilege makes a "privileged" person's viewpoint on an issue somehow less valid if left "unchecked."
> I'm always curious about this when you post your rules.
Wait, this isn't a one-off gag? This is actually something they do repeatedly? Oh, dear.
Yep. His rules (and everyone else's rejection of them) come up every so often, he gets around when it comes to starting fights and then hiding behind his whole "I'll only continue discussing this if you agree that I win no matter what" shtick.
Their rules are nothing but an out for when a "debate" isn't going their way.
You seem reasonable, so I'll answer your questions.
>How would you seek to prove someone has failed to consider your viewpoint, as opposed to simply disagreeing with it?
This depends a lot on the situation. I think it'd be better to give you some examples of when someone fails to consider someone else's viewpoint, rather than attempt a comprehensive definition:
Person A: 9/11 was an inside job!
Person B: Here's an article that explains how the towers fell.
Person A: I'm not reading that! That was probably written by an Illuminati shill!
Here, A commits the genetic fallacy, so they're also in violation of rule 6. The author of the article isn't important, it's the content of the article and the evidence it shows that's important. By refusing to look at that, you're refusing to consider the argument.
Another example:
Person A: NSA spying violates my freedoms!
Person B: But you do understand that it helps make you safer, right?
Person A: It goes against what America stands for, and I won't allow it!
If they had said "Yes, but I consider my freedoms to be more important," then it'd be different, but in this case, it's almost as if B never spoke.
Usually, it's pretty obvious when they don't consider your viewpoint. I hope those examples helped.
>How do you ensure objectivity in determining whether a viewpoint has been "roundly debunked"?
Really, there isn't a way to be completely objective, but I try to be as close to that as possible. I consider something to be roundly debunked when every point made has been shown to be false with good evidence. For example:
Person A: The gender wage gap is just bad statistics! It wouldn't exist if they factored in what jobs people chose!
Person B: Here's a report that uses Bureau of Labor Statistics data that splits apart mens' and womens' salaries by occupation, and it still shows that women are paid less.
That'd be a case where they were roundly debunked, so if they continue to make the exact same claim, they'd be violating Rule 1.
>How would one go about challenging whether you are following the rules?
All they have to do is say what part of what I said violates what rule. I'll take their challenge seriously, and evaluate it. However, if I think I didn't violate my rules, that doesn't automatically mean I'm not holding myself to the same standards they are. It's possible their call-out was flawed (and I'll explain why I think so), or that they're just simply trolling, and in that case, they know they're being unreasonable. For example, if someone said "You think this support group should only be for women? That's discrimination! Rule 4! Rule 4!" it's hopefully obvious that their callout is disingenuous.
Regarding your last paragraph, somewhat. I do have some resources that make a compelling argument for the existence of privilege, etc. Whether those actually prove it are up for debate, as is if it can actually be proven to exist in the first place. Aside from Rule 5, I haven't had people challenge the factual basis of the rules themselves, so I haven't bothered too much.
Anyways, I hope that answers your questions well enough.
So, just to clarify, you are both a participant in the debate and the final arbiter of any potential or allege rulebreaking?
Huh.
That sounds an awful lot like a conflict of interests, ya know?
Is it possible for any human to be objective and not abuse that power?
Is it possible for you to not evade even the simplest of questions? For you to actually say something with all these words you've been typing?
I'll rephrase it: is it possible for anyone, any human, to be a member of a debate and be the arbiter of the debate, and not abuse that power?
It's not necessarily a a matter of intent. Why do you think scientists put so much effort into removing personal bias from their experiments? They're certainly not going to intentionally change the results.
Yes, that is correct. I do my absolute best to be objective. People will pre-judge and say I'll be unfair, but they're talking out of their ass, because they haven't even bothered to see if I actually am unfair.
No, the very fact that you are a participant and the arbitrator is inherently unfair, but you're too fucking narcissistic to see that.
Do you believe that it is human nature to abuse any power given to a person?
I'm sorry I'm not debating with you. You're breaking my debating rule #1 - No debating with narcissists.
hahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is pokemon rape if the ones you catch aren't consenting to going into your balls?
Can Alakazam consent?
In order to get kadabra to evolve, you have to trade it to another person. Does this make it a gang rape?
~~human~~ Pokemon trafficking
Wondertrade is just poke-trafficking!
Are you a narcissist?
No, but people will tell you I am.
Hi Wyboth.
Why do you think only 16% of men and 23% of women in the West identify as feminist? Do you think it's because of misinformation, because people have genuine disagreement with many feminist ideas, or because far too many feminists carelessly throw around words like misogyny, privilege, and rape which is annoying?
I'd say the first two. Only a few feminists are guilty of the last one, so that may only be true for a handful of people.