A conversation about conversations about bigotry

[Ecks]

Prem, I think the new guy already covered a lot of that. I think the big problem here is he is approaching the problem differently. Maybe the vitriol needs to be toned down a little. Continue the discussion and see if a little more can't be learned, but maybe dio so with the understanding that, y'know hes still on the same side.

Thats as much as I'm willing to wade in to this particular discussion, I an not learned enough (in general, I've been paying attention to the topic here) and I don't want to upset the already very delicate footing of this argument.

[Relm Zephyrous]

I think the points that sinvael makes will be answered in the below dialogue with premmy, in that he asks one major question, which is "Is making this distinction useful?". It is a valid question to ask, and he puts it well. I'll get to a more detailed answer to that question eventually, but I want to make sure the points, and specifically main question in this post I bring up here, are not lost in that answer.

Originally Posted by Premmy

My point is they're all equally as horrible and should be treated as such.


No the fact that they accomplish pretty much exactly the same thing by exactly the same means does.

Except that no, they are not. There are differences between say, an abusive relationship that extends for years with many acts of rape and assault, and a simple fondling on the bus. Both are bad, but stating that they are the same thing would suggest that undermines just how much psychological damage could go into a abusive relationship.

Originally Posted by Premmy

Yeah, except. Go up to a victim of a violent rape (assault/a+rape/b) and say "Would you have been alright if he had just raped you and not also beat the shit out of you?" and enjoy the violence visited upon you that you would deserve in that situation.

The phrasing would be "Would you have been 'better'?", not "Would you have been 'alright'?" because the word alright implies that the raping part amounts to nothing.

Originally Posted by Premmy

At this point we're arguing the "who got raped harder" point and that's just so very horrible I don't know how to respond. This is exactly the line of thinking that serves to perpetuate rape culture by giving victim blamers and deniers an "out". "Hey, at least you didn't get raped AND MURDERED" "hey, he didn't hit you or stick his dick in you so it wasn't really rape, or at least, not a serious rape"
At the end of the day it's pointless nitpickery that only serves to cause more harm.
It doesn't help "focus the problem" it just creates "sides" to take in a "debate"

Originally Posted by Sinvael

Specifically, by constraining the kinds of actions that can evoke 'rape', they rob those, lesser actions, of weight. If 'rape' is only sex forcibly coerced from an actively unwilling victim, sex with an unwitting partner (drugged) is less than rape. If sex with an unwitting partner is less than rape, sex with a mostly-incoherent partner (drunk) is less than that. And unwanted physical contact is practically acceptable. And mere solicitation isn't even worth batting an eye at. And thus, the culture of rape.

And here I think I can present the main point that should clear things up. The arguments being made against me are suggesting that, just because something is not the most horrible thing to ever exist ever, it is being dismissed out of hand. (I know you claimed that you did not believe this was an accurate representation of my position, Sinvael, but I have reason to believe it is at least likely Premmy 'does' think this.)

The logic here is only the logic of rape culture if you also allow that just because something is not the worst possible crime you can dismiss it 'just because' there is something worse that happens to other people. Which is an incredibly silly position to take.

Originally Posted by Premmy

I'm arguing that people who experience similar things suffer equally while you're arguing that some people suffer less than others. If we are interested in any way in helping to end suffering or prevent it, we'd address the "more severe" issues first. Treat the head wound before the rash.

This only applies if the same solution does not work with both (or all as the case may be) problems. However, all of the problems here generally have the same root-Sexism. Thereby, by reducing sexism, we reduce the amount of sexual assaults and rapes.

Originally Posted by Premmy

So basically, it is minimizing other forms of sexual violence to try and "Rank" them by the inherent nature of putting it "below" another form of sexual violence.
You can't say X>Y without minimizing y.

Yes and no. I am saying that it is not the most terrible thing ever. However, that does not mean it is not still terrible. But yes in that no matter what you put here, you are 'diminishing' something. If you say X>Y, then indeed you are saying that Y is less than something, which means it is not the most terrible thing. However, if you say X=Y, and X causes a far larger magnitude of suffering, then you are diminishing X by saying that it is no worse than Y.


So I guess the whole thing comes down to "Do you believe that if it is argued that something is not the most terrible thing ever, then it is by necessity not a terrible thing by that argument?"

[Sinvael]

Alright, insofar as nothing you've said is technically untrue, in and of itself, I think the thing that's getting a lot of people's hackles raised about your arguments is; what value, in the context of reducing any and all degrees of these kinds of behavior in our society, does preserving a constant awareness of the exact differences in degree between one behavior and another hold?

You've alluded, in extremely vague terms, to your position having some, nebulous value in approaching the enactment of some corrective measure, but as the existence of this thread testifies, these issues and others like them are constant, real pressures on real people's lives right now. I think most of the people in this thread, and particularly the one's who've been inclined to get tetchy with you, are far more concerned with an immediate, practicable solution. This leads them, naturally, and I think logically, to want to aggressively spread awareness that all of these behaviors, regardless of technical differences in degree of impact are unacceptable in that they contribute, however minisculely, to an unacceptable status quo.

Can you admit that, from that position, it could be seen as undermining their goals to constantly say, "wait, now hold up, yes these things are all aweful things that we should stop, but we're not really saying they're the exact same thing, are we?".

Basically, you've said that there is some reason that preserving these rigid distinctions holds value: What is it?

To ground this in something specific you've said:

The logic here is only the logic of rape culture if you also allow that just because something is not the worst possible crime you can dismiss it 'just because' there is something worse that happens to other people. Which is an incredibly silly position to take.

This statement, in a vacuum, is not untrue. However, in the context of real people, silly positions are frequently, fervently held to by real people. Real people demonstrably buy into this kind of argument, that because something objectively aweful is less bad than another objectively aweful thing, it is practically more acceptable. Given that that is the case (or perhaps you'd like to argue that the majority of the people that make up the society we're discussing the state of would adhere to scholarly standards of rational debate?), can you not agree that there is a logic, if not the logic you most naturally gravitate to, in aggressively and unilaterally declaring that these behaviors are unacceptable, with the direct goal of reducing the generally perceived acceptability of all said behaviors? And that constantly quibbling over the semantics of exactly how unacceptable individual examples of these behaviors are is a potential obstacle to those goals?

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Ecks

Prem, I think the new guy already covered a lot of that. I think the big problem here is he is approaching the problem differently. Maybe the vitriol needs to be toned down a little. Continue the discussion and see if a little more can't be learned, but maybe dio so with the understanding that, y'know hes still on the same side.

I'm going to respond to statements made directly at me. Snake explored an idea I presented(in true snake style) and so did Sin.That's not really going to stop me from expressing it the way I do and did. Sin's post right above me expands the "it's just pointless nitpickery" idea and that's cool.

But I can say all that, Or I could just say "Quit obsessing over shit that doesn't matter because it distracts from the shit that does" You want three snakes and a Relm in this thread?
Is that what you want?

IS IT?

[Sifright]

I think every one is kind of missing the point here.

Relm has already said

"All those actions you've listed are terrible, some are worse than others but they are still in and of themselves terrible."

The discussion has moved beyond the question of the existence of a problem and is now about the particulars and attempting to understand the root problem, coming with that discussion is also the importance of differentiating between different terrible things to try and get a better understanding of the situation.

I personally am of the opinion society is so fucked up looking for a single root cause or looking for the largest significant contributing factors isn't a sensible idea and that we should go with a scatter gun attempt at dealing with the problem, I can understand why relm is asking specific questions though.

To reiterate, every one currently discussing this topic has said "Society has problems"

If your attempting to nix discussion and say nothing more can be said or done about it then the thread ends right there and then, or we can talk about the specifics.

I don't know how reasonable what i've said is or isn't and please correct me if i'm wrong relm or others.

[Relm Zephyrous]

Originally Posted by Sinvael

-can you not agree that there is a logic, if not the logic you most naturally gravitate to, in aggressively and unilaterally declaring that these behaviors are unacceptable, with the direct goal of reducing the generally perceived acceptability of all said behaviors? And that constantly quibbling over the semantics of exactly how unacceptable individual examples of these behaviors are is a potential obstacle to those goals?

Well, talking in this thread isn't the way to get the information out. I can see how aggressively putting the information out there can be helpful, and potentially how this might slightly impinge on it. However, keeping distinctions isn't that hard of a thing to do. And keeping these distinctions not only keeps us morally clear on the situation, but allows us to avoid the more murky problem below.

Originally Posted by Sinvael

Basically, you've said that there is some reason that preserving these rigid distinctions holds value: What is it?

(This will answer Premmy too, because Premmy 'asks' the same question, but unlike Sin Premmy assumes an answer and doesn't want and/or care if I respond to it.)

One of the reasons I insist on us keeping in mind the distinction is because if we treat all of these crimes as equally horrible, then how do we go about punishing these crimes? If we go by the amount of suffering caused and the severity, then we are indeed making distinctions between which ones are more severe. Which if people have it in their minds that they are all equal, will lead to outcries almost universally of the criminals getting off easy because they did not get life in prison or the death sentence.

However, if we decide to weight them all equally as crimes, then if we do not weight to the farthest end of the scale we are allowing some crimes to go underpunished. And if we put everything, even the lightest groping or fondling, with a life sentence, as much as some feminists might want that to be the case, greater punishments are not always the best way to stop violence. Because if you're getting life in prison for a accidental ass grab, and she's gonna call the police, there is technically nothing worse legal wise that can happen to you if you rape and kill her right after that. Technically you still have the chance to get off free.

So making all the punishments equivalent provides incentives for sexist acts by way of "if I already did this, there's no worse punishment for going all the way to 11". And making all the punishments uneven and weighted to suffering, and other factors like keeping people from gaining incentive to do more by lack of extra retribution, makes it morally reprehensible to those who would say that those all are morally equivalent.

To sum up, no, I do not have a problem with protests pushing out aggressively that all of this is horrible and needs a massive change, as long as there is still a reasonable dealing with it in the back and a memory among the population that there 'is' a hierarchy. However, as you yourself implied Sin, most people do not stick to the 'scholary standards of rational debate', and most people will thusly fight against the mere idea that these are different. Premmy called the mere mention "just so horrible that I don't even know how to respond" which gives a pretty good example that no, people do not keep this in mind. And this distinction actually serves a fairly critical role in the large scale.

[Sinvael]

Sifright makes a good point, and I'd like to clarify that what I've said has been intended to get Relm to consider why people are reacting in a negative and trending-hostile way.

Regardless of what Relm's intent is or what Snake's intent is, or Prem's, or any other individual member, there isn't going to be meaningful discussion if, in the process of trying to gather information or form consensus, you are, wittingly or unwittingly, presenting your case in a way that is, by its nature, likely to provoke a hostile reaction, rather than responses to your actual queries. For example, Relm initially entered the discussion attempting to clarify the accuracy of some statistics that were posted. Obviously, we all saw how that went. For what it's worth, obviously mistakes happen, and I don't think anyone at this juncture believes Relm was trying to defend rape or rapists. Where I think Relm could benefit from stepping back and gaining some perspective, is in considering why his arguments are receiving the kind and amount of negative response that they are, and attempting to present his concerns in regard to the larger issue in a way that avoids those anxieties. And perhaps, if he can't figure out a way to do that at this juncture, he should withdraw from the discussion and gather the information he's looking for for himself before presenting a case.

This is starting to sound like I think Relm should just stop talking, so let me clarify that I really do want to know what he has to say on this subject, but right now, he's not found a way to express what the value he claims for maintaining cognizance of the difference between degrees of a spectrum of behavior we have all agreed is abhorrent is, and his insistence on doing so without providing a detailed context for such is only causing further aggravation.

[shiney]

Again, please remember the 15-30 minute suggestion - we keep getting reported posts in relation to this thread, and I don't want to have to shut it down but I am more than happy to do so if tempers continue flaring and tension builds.

[Nique]

Aggravation? Yeah ok im pretty aggravated but this is still probably the chillezt conversation about this kind of stuff we've had in a while.

Yeah I see the z in there im not changing it because fuck you

[Sinvael]

One of the reasons I insist on us keeping in mind the distinction is because if we treat all of these crimes as equally horrible, then how do we go about punishing these crimes?

This is, I think, the thing I felt was missing from your previous posts; a context in which maintaining these distinctions is meaningful. I think this is not a bad reason for doing so, but I think this concern, while eventually important, is premature in the context of this issue.

Right now the problem, which Snake and Prem and so forth have been trying to elucidate, is that we currently have what you are describing here, where different degrees of the general category of offense exist and there are structures that are nominally intended to address them appropriately, and that it isn't working. Their solution, of advocacy that these problems really are problems and really are horrible things that the current system is allowing to happen, is a preliminary step towards the ideal you've described.

The challenge, at this juncture, is one of getting things to a point where people, generally, agree that all of these things are horrible things that deserve the punishment the system claims they should have - the very thing which the earlier statistics show is not currently true to an acceptable degree, and without which, making distinctions in the interest of fairly punishing people who currently go without any punishment at all, is meaningless.