A conversation about conversations about bigotry

[Sinvael]

I think in my last post I failed to contextualize the point I was trying to make. It was not my intent to present the position I outlined as a counter to the idea that there may, perhaps, be value in the kind of discussion Relm wants to have. Rather, I think the position I described is not entirely dissimilar to the frame from which some of the posters here enter this discussion, and I wanted to point out where that frame leads them to become hostile when Relm has insisted on the importance of distinguishing between and categorizing various acts and behaviors related to the issue of rape culture.

To iterate the point here; from a position in which one is predisposed to think of such distinctions in terms of their reinforcement of rape culture, the insistence that they are important is one which they are likely to immediately respond to with hostility, as it signals that the other person perhaps doesn't understand or agree with the reality and/or severity of the problem. You've stated, and I believe you, that you agree it is a problem and it requires attention. However, this:

Of course, I have full reason to believe that merely talking about the morality complexities behind all the issues involving sexism has been highly offensive in some fashion to people as evidenced by the highly emotionally charged responses and implications of thinking that I am morally bankrupt for merely thinking deeply about the morality of these issues. Otherwise shiney wouldn't have gotten any reports. I really am curious why this is offensive to people.

suggests that you have not grasped where the offense to your attempts to generate discussion is originating. Perhaps in clearly laying out an explanation that may be at least partially true I have clarified that somewhat?

To build on that, while it's not my place to tell anyone how to post I'd like to reiterate this:

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.

and this:

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 invite you to consider whether, having broached this topic and encountered resistance, it might not have been more productive to have thoroughly clarified your reasons for inquiring as they relate to the topic at hand, as opposed to repeating a distrust of statistics,

spooky statistics

drawing abstract comparisons to indirectly related topics,

Let me draw a fictional corollary to explain why it matters.

There has been an outbreak of prostate cancer in males, by straight up tenfold. This is a massive health concern. Still, I don't see why it matters in the slightest whether it's true of all males, some males, males located in the state of Florida, males located on a particular college campus, or males located in any place where they'd happen to have the opportunity to interact with females in any way, shape or form. I just don't see how that would be relevant to solving the problem.

and making offhand remarks that appear to seek to derail/diminish the present discussion.

So what would you prefer to talk about?

... I wonder how long it'll be until the social subforum returns to its usual self.

Note that in the first two of these examples, I'm not suggesting that those are poor tools in discussions generally, but that in discussing an issue with individuals who have a clear emotional investment in said issue, it may be to the better to be specific and thorough in describing your reasons for inquiry, and to avoid seeming to attack a piece of evidence that is supportive of their position when you do not disagree with their basic position.

Finally, I'm going to have to admit that I'm not personally all that well versed in the kind of hard data you seem to be looking for, and while I'll leave it to someone who is to confirm or deny if they wish, I'm inclined to be skeptical as to whether a significant volume of such information exists presently - specifically because so little meaningful progress has been made in gaining general acceptance of the reality and import of these issues - and that what information does exist may be tainted by the very modes of thought that we've established as contributing to the existence of rape culture in the first place - and that this may contribute to the apparent opinion of those who've looked into the matter deeply that we are not ready to have the discussion you're asking to have.