Applying Feminist Logic To Other Crimes
Terrific piece by Ashe Schow at WashEx. An excerpt:
Feminists have been arguing that it's "victim-blaming" to suggest steps that women can take to reduce the risk of being sexual assaulted. But what if that same logic were applied to all crime prevention tips?It might go something like this:
Stop blaming the victims of theft
We should be teaching people not to steal, not telling people to lock their doors and windows.
Parking in well-lit areas, not hiding keys near the front door, avoiding websites that ask for your Social Security number -- these are all just ways that we blame the victims of theft. And it needs to stop.
Stop blaming the victims of violent crimes
I don't want to live in a world where I can't jog down deserted streets at night. I shouldn't have to change my normal behavior because someone wants to attack me or steal my iPod.
Telling me to be aware of my surroundings perpetuates "burglary culture" where it is somehow my fault that I got mugged.
And so on. Right on.
No, nobody deserves to be raped, but drinking yourself into a stupor in public imperils you. Advising people of this isn't victim-blaming -- it's helping them avoid being robbed, raped, or murdered.
It is wrong for drivers to hit pedestrians! Stop blaming the victims by telling them to look both ways and use the crosswalks!
Dwatney at September 23, 2014 3:10 PM
> No, nobody deserves to be raped, but drinking yourself into a stupor in public imperils you. Advising people of this isn't victim-blaming -- it's helping them avoid being robbed, raped, or murdered
We're in this culture now where to even suggest people don't abuse alcohol and understand their limits is taken as RapeCulture and VictimBlaming and INeedFeminismBecause
You live near UCLA, UCLA has 30,000 undergraduates, 15,000 female, 1:5 means 3,000 sexual assaults of those women in five years of attendance, or 600 per year or 2 sexual assaults per day in a 300 day academic year. That's 10 a week, 40 assaults per month.
Where is the Daily Bruin on this?
Where is the LA Times, why are they covering it up?
Where is Charlie Beck, where is Eric Garcetti?
Why is UCLA's most recent Clery report for 2012?
https://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/reports-statistics/jeanne-clery-act
In 2012, there were a total of 12 sex offenses, a categoy including Forcible Rape, Forcible Sodomy, Sexual Assault w/Object, Forcible Fondling, Sex Offense - not classified, Incest, and Statutory Rape.
12? The predicted 1:5 number was 600.
Even assuming that 90% of sexual assaults go unreported, that is still only 133 predicted sexual assaults on campus. 1/5th the 1:5 predicted number of 600.
With 2 sexual assaults occurring everyday, and 600 hundred occurring every year in a 1 square mile region, I think we need to call in the California National Guard.
Jerry Brown, where are you?
Barack Obama, where are you?
I think that the chancellors of all Universities should be held to Sarbanes Oxley like standards requiring them to sign and be responsible for Clery Reports and any discrepancy between what they report and what is observed via police reports or predicted via modeling.
When the chancellors are held responsible for 1:5 statistics or even the 12 sexual assaults per year, that's when we'll see crackdowns on campus sexual assaults, or on bogus statistics.
See also:
Go Home, Consent, You're Drunk
Elizabeth Nolan Brown|Sep. 23, 2014 4:15 pm
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/23/affirmative-consent-youre-drunk
And FWIW, I think that Clery Report legislation and any 1:5 program should mandate that schools make their Clery Reports available on line at a standardized URL and in a standardized XML or JSON format.
That way parents, reporters, and students can use apps to look up sexual assault numbers while touring campus.
jerry at September 23, 2014 3:14 PM
As I've said, it's not what you say, it's how you say it - and when.
(I should probably say, first, that I have never understood the "need" to get drunk in the first place, whether it's for the purpose of lowering one's own inhibitions or not. So I won't be talking about that.)
We already DO apply "feminist logic" to other crimes, and for good, sound reasons. (BTW, I don't quite understand Schow's inclusion of stranger abductions when we all know by now that those are pretty darn rare, whether for ransom or not - and parents who make their kids worry about them on a daily basis are likely NOT doing them any favors. Betsy Hart once said that maybe the real issue is teaching kids not to keep any "secrets" from parents, even if an adult says to do so.)
I think there's a very sad and dangerous confusion going on here - namely, between crimes of profit and other crimes. Why is it so surprising that they (usually) get approached very differently by society?
E.g., when it comes to drunk driving, we seldom or never suggest to SOBER drivers that they stay off the road at any given time - even on holidays associated with drinking. Why? Because we understand the need to keep an eagle eye strictly on the potential drunk drivers - and to strike fear into their hearts with that intensity. We don't want them to think that they will be given any leeway of any kind. Not to mention that sober drivers NEED to travel as much as anyone else.
We also do not make fun of black people when they say "I don't want to have to live in fear of violent racists" and refuse to restrict their general freedoms. (If white people were regularly in the habit of drugging black people's soft drinks so they could beat them up more easily, can you IMAGINE the uproar - especially if anyone were to suggest that the victims take more "responsibility" for avoiding that situation, whether among strangers or not?)
I find it appalling - not to mention CONTRADICTORY - when people who complain constantly about male-bashing turn around and cheer whenever someone says, in effect, that the average male will rape whenever he thinks he can get away with it, and that women should accept it, restrict their freedoms, and not demand that parents, teachers, and other authorities DO something to nip such psychopaths in the bud as early as possible. Same as we do for violent racists and drunk drivers.
lenona at September 23, 2014 7:01 PM
What Lenona said.
sofar at September 23, 2014 7:42 PM
> turn around and cheer whenever someone
> says, in effect, that the average male
> will rape whenever he thinks he can get
> away with it
No, c'mon, don't kid a kidder. If you were sincere, you wouldn't have to describe "people," "in effect," on "average," "whenever"... You'd be able to quote someone precisely from a particular occasion. You're already working a lot of fiction and supposition into this. I don't think for a minute that you're concerned that decent men will be pearl-clutchingly offended when they hear women counseled to protect themselves.
> and that women should accept it,
> restrict their freedoms,
Have you ever, ever in your life, whined about having to lock your car with as many richly-detailed scenarios about the motives of so many others? Can you explain to Amy why her inquiry about that "restriction of freedom" for everyone who parks downtown to do a little shopping isn't equally offensive?
> and not demand that parents, teachers,
> and other authorities DO something to
> nip such psychopaths in the bud as
> early as possible.
Wow. So, like, "parents, teachers, and other authorities" is a lot of people. And all of them are authority figures, beginning with the most intimate leaders any of us will have in our lives.
This to me is the quintessential impulse of the Obama voter:
Specifically, you will make them "DO" something... Something worthy of capitalization. It doesn't occur to you to say what, or even think about it too much, because once you've consolidated that much power over others, you're probably thinking the specifics will handle themselves. Right?
Amirite?
Um... Though... One error I see in this, aside from the ludicrous fantasy that these figures could —or could be made to— identify these troublemakers, is that you imply that every rapist is a "psychopath".
That's a little pungent, isn't it?
There are a lot of men in the world who won't rape, no matter what.
But every man on that planet, at some point in his life, struggles to keep his aggression from getting the best of his sexual nature... To stop making the wrong jokes, or flirting with the wrong women, or with giving offense to somebody somehow.
Not all of that behavior is "pathology," and not every transgression is something a reasonable woman shouldn't be expected to forgive.
Human nature, OK? Not policy.
You'll get better results if you concentrate on people's souls rather than rule-making.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 23, 2014 11:39 PM
Have you ever, ever in your life, seen someone "turn around and cheer"?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 23, 2014 11:40 PM
Lenona Says:
"I find it appalling - not to mention CONTRADICTORY - when people who complain constantly about male-bashing turn around and cheer whenever someone says, in effect, that the average male will rape whenever he thinks he can get away with it"
I do not believe I have ever seen such a thing.
Can you please provide an example of someone who constantly complains about male bashing only to going on and suggest that the average man is an opportunistic sexual predator?
I agree that such a stance is highly contradictory, which is why I am uncertain that there is a significant population of people who hold both positions simultaneously.
Artemis at September 23, 2014 11:45 PM
Artemis, ponder the rank hypocrisy of an actor marching against climate change and jetting off to a yacht. Contradictions ares rampant. There is no shortage of people who think they can run your life better than you can, despite evidence that they cannot manage their won.
MarkD at September 24, 2014 6:51 AM
won = own.
MarkD at September 24, 2014 6:52 AM
I said "in effect."
I.e., anyone who thinks women - but not other groups under the frequent threat of non-profit violence - should have to be constantly on their guard instead of demanding that the focus and work be put where it belongs is making excuses for predatory behavior.
I WILL say that there's at least one crime where society has a similar warped attitude - pedophilia. That is, I don't remember ever hearing a parent ask "how can I spot signs of pedophiliac tendencies in my teenager and nip them in the bud before I no longer have the right to force him/her into treatment?" No, we just cross our fingers; we lock them up AFTER the damage has been done, and we act as though no kid younger than a teen can be left unsupervised. (OK, so there's one silver lining to that - those little kids will be less likely to commit their OWN crimes, such as shoplifting. Merchants everywhere are likely grateful.)
lenona at September 24, 2014 6:55 AM
Oh, and thank you very much, sofar.
lenona at September 24, 2014 6:57 AM
Keep in mind most of the "rapes" that can be prevented with this advice are not forcible, and in my opinion not even rape.
They are voluntary encounter, sometimes initiated by women wt men equally as drunk, classifed as rape AFTER THE FACT so he woman in question can convince herself she 'not THAT kind of girl'
lujlp at September 24, 2014 7:15 AM
I WILL say that there's at least one crime where society has a similar warped attitude - pedophilia. That is, I don't remember ever hearing a parent ask "how can I spot signs of pedophiliac tendencies in my teenager and nip them in the bud before I no longer have the right to force him/her into treatment?" No, we just cross our fingers; we lock them up AFTER the damage has been done, and we act as though no kid younger than a teen can be left unsupervised. (OK, so there's one silver lining to that - those little kids will be less likely to commit their OWN crimes, such as shoplifting. Merchants everywhere are likely grateful.)
Posted by: lenona at September 24, 2014 6:55 AM
If you haven't actually *done* anything, it is a thought crime Lenona.
You ability to spot future pedophiles is no where near as good as you think it is.
Maybe we ought to do a little intervention, and have you watch *Minority Report* straight through 15 times in a row.
And as far as drunk drivers go, I frequently told my children they were not to be driving anywhere between midnight, and four in the morning, because that was the time most likely for drunk drivers to be leaving bars, and parties.
Smart parents fence out threats to the best of their ability, they don't try and fence themselves and their children in.
Isab at September 24, 2014 7:15 AM
Re pedophilia:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/09/stop_childhood_sexual_abuse_how_to_treat_pedophilia_.single.html
I haven't read all of it yet, but it looks like a good one.
lenona at September 24, 2014 7:28 AM
@Lenona, I think you are confused. Getting treatment for an adolescent who both recognizes and admits that they have an attraction to children, is not the same thing as predicting which people will become actual pedophiles, and heading it off at the pass, so to speak.
This is why the legal system in the US needs to remain focused on actual crime, and not *pre crime*
Isab at September 24, 2014 10:07 AM
> I said "in effect."
Right. You're floundering.
> anyone who thinks women - but not
> other groups under the frequent
> threat of non-profit violence -
New animal! Taxonomists to the fore!: What, the Hell, is "non-profit violence"? Is it meener than black-ink violence?
> should have to be constantly on their
> guard instead of demanding that the focus
You want control of "focus"?…
> and work
…And you want control of work?
> be put where it belongs
'Where it belongs' is our topic today, isn't it? Everybody gets to choose. Free-country kinda thing.
> is making excuses for predatory behavior.
Given 90-second increments of time with young coeds, I can kick out a few sentences which will convince them to make minor adjustments to their behavior as they walk across campus at night such that they can essentially guarantee their own safety. I don't have to identify anything in their nature to know which ones to talk to. My advice will work anyway.
I don't owe them that, but I can do it, I could do it for several of them in a single hour, and I've actually done it a few times in my life.
In 90 seconds, I can do nothing to dissuade her assailant. But even if I did, even if I (unknowingly) convinced a rapist to take the night off, you'd think it was a hollow victory.
You're confused, Lenona. Your problem is not with policy, your problem is thinking that you know what being a man is like. It makes you seem naive... Small-minded and provincial. Coddled.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 24, 2014 11:14 AM
It's like a more-elemental version of Amy's chirping about "civil liberties."
You think that men not raping is the norm. You're wrong. In primitive places and much of the developing world, rape is as normal as sunrise. Rape is how things work naturally.
The safety of women in the civilized West is synthetic. It's delicate and it's complicated. You're not expected to be theatrically grateful for it... You're merely expected to see it for what it is.
"Focus" and "work" happen for modern women in ways that your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother would have recognized as the provident hand of God.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 24, 2014 11:43 AM
Moar:
> I don't remember ever hearing a parent
> ask "how can I spot signs of pedophiliac
> tendencies in my teenager and nip them
> in the bud before I no longer have the
> right to force him/her into treatment?"
1st: Your tone is sarcastic. ("I don't remember ever hearing" vs 'I've never heard'.)
2nd: The fact that you didn't hear them didn't mean they weren't thinking about it.
3rd: Your presumption that parents hold a "right to force him/here into treatment" foremost in their thinking betokens a continuing fascination with authority.
4th: Your presumption that they SHOULD consult you on such matters is arrogant as well.
This isn't about rape, and it isn't about children... It's about your eagerness to take command of the fucking planet.
We'll call you if we need anything.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 24, 2014 1:29 PM
@Lenona
I would think most people complaining about misandry would think it misandrous to think that any man given the opportunity to rape would.
I find the thought highly offensive and you throw it around as if it is common knowledge.
I am sure if you try hard enough you will find the right policies to stop bad things from a happening to women. /sarcasm
Katrina at September 24, 2014 9:36 PM
I'm going to chime in with Isab. It is common knowledge to avoid driving when the bars close late at night. I got that advice from my parents as well as the cop who came to school. Most everyone I know got similar advice from their parents.
Risky behavior cannot be avoided 100%. But good parents alert their children when they engage in risky behavior.
Ben at September 25, 2014 6:31 AM
I don't know why I have to spell this out, but I was talking about what sort of warnings COPS tend to give the public about drunk driving. Namely, they remind people that "friends don't let friends drive drunk" and that any drunk who manages to sneak onto the road will likely get spotted and stopped by cops - especially on certain holidays, when more people drink. After all, drunk drivers are a threat to cops too - maybe cops have to drive more than some other people?
______________________________________________
I think you are confused. Getting treatment for an adolescent who both recognizes and admits that they have an attraction to children, is not the same thing as predicting which people will become actual pedophiles, and heading it off at the pass, so to speak.
This is why the legal system in the US needs to remain focused on actual crime, and not *pre crime*
Posted by: Isab at September 24, 2014 10:07 AM
______________________________________
Jeez, I SAID I hadn't read all of it.
I was only providing it as an example of how criminal behavior CAN be prevented in a civilized manner, if the teen's parents and others are given enough clues to tip them off. Of course, not everyone is willing to reveal what they're feeling and thinking - some because of fear and others because they do plan on committing crimes - but, as with drunk driving, it's everyone's job to make sure other people don't drive drunk, and that can include watching young people for signs of alcoholism and/or apathy, since they may well try to hide it. I'd love to find a list of what to look for in one's teen children that just might be signs of pedophilia, but I haven't found it yet.
And, regarding warnings to potential victims, I've said before that everyone would really rather be warned than not warned as to how to avoid become a crime victim - it's all in HOW you say it. E.g., you do not suggest in advance that victims of careless or gratuitous violence will lose any sympathy or support if they don't take a bodyguard/chaperone with them everywhere - or if they don't avoid walking in public, since drunks might drive onto sidewalks.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-10-28/features/9410280005_1_chaperones-tea-sandwiches-public-areas
In this 1994 Miss Manners column, the so-called Gentle Reader implies that if a woman gets into her date's car without a chaperone, she should forfeit her right to take him to court after she's raped. As if she should automatically assume that that would always happen on an unchaperoned date, if the man has the opportunity. Somehow, I have the feeling that if people were saying that to MM, of all people, in 1994, many people today would still say it. (Isn't THAT writer's sentiment anti-male?)
What, exactly, is wrong with MM's response, I'd like to know? None that I can see.
Incidentally, another great quote of hers (not about crime, per se) was: “When a society abandons its ideals just because most people can't live up to them, behavior gets very ugly indeed.”
lenona at September 25, 2014 9:00 AM
And, as I mentioned in another thread, it's standard procedure (I hope) for white parents to take their small children to task each and every time they show signs of racism or even stereotyping, so boys and girls alike - but especially kids over 10 - need to go through the same parental procedure whenever they say something like "boys/girls are stupid."
Of course, teen boys also deserve to know how to defend themselves against the sort of everyday exploitation that so many parents don't even think about - such as when girls expect and pressure boys to do most or all of the inviting and paying on dates, and the boys get increasingly frustrated since they don't have ANY privileges - not that they can see, any way. That is, boys can be taught how to politely demand that the girls invite/pay half the time, without losing dates. I'm sure there are more examples.
lenona at September 25, 2014 9:24 AM
"I was only providing it as an example of how criminal behavior CAN be prevented in a civilized manner, if the teen's parents and others are given enough clues to tip them off."
This is EXACTLY what I was alluding to. Those *clues* to future criminal and anti social behaviors only exist in the breech, and in your imagination.
They are like tomorrow's lottery numbers. You can only connect the dots after the criminal behavior has already occurred.
Many people have crazy desires and fantasies that they never act on. A very small percentage do act on them.
Picking these people out is impossible, but a lot of people think they can, which is why you have nitwit school administrators expelling 6 year olds who chew a pop tart into the shape of a gun.
This is not a *gateway* thing where you go from chewing, to collecting, to shooting randomly into crowds. This....is.....idiocy.
The worst of the offenders are true sociopaths, who frankly, if you put them in counseling will have you hoodwinked about how reformed they are, in about two sessions.
You don't *talk* a sociopath into being a better person.
It takes someone incredibly naive and also well indoctrinated in psycho babble to think you can identify these people by looking at them or talking to them.
These people don't want to change. If they did, you wouldn't have to force them into counseling.
And if you hadn't read the fucking article in Slate, why did you link to it, like it was some kind of authority supporting your position? I read it months ago, if I recall correctly.
This is what I believe Crid was talking about when he said you come across as the worst kind of busy body control freak.
I get those vibes too. You are not a *reflective* person.
Isab at September 25, 2014 9:49 AM
> if the teen's parents and others
> I'd love to find a list of what> are given enough clues to tip
> them off.
> to look for > it's standard procedure (I hope)
> for white parents to
Clues! Lists! Procedures!
Once you get control of this planet, you're gonna administer human character with the highest Lenonaic proficiency!
But I'm kinda troubled by your reliance on magical principles—
> I'd love to find a list of what
> to look for in one's teen
> children that just might be
> signs of pedophilia, but I
> haven't found it yet.
And I'd like instructions for buying a perfect-condition Ferrari Dino for $17,000.
But the ugly part is that you're content to merely invoke science. If you can find some dickless weasel in a lab coat to say that something you see in teen children "might" be pedophilia, then boom! You can run with that! The Lenona Machine is Ridin' the Rails! Choo-choo.
> but I haven't found it yet.
> I'm sure there are more examples.In the perfect style of the Obama voter, you have "Hope"…
You're confident you'll find authority —or at least the pretext— to arrogantly move other people's resources to where you want them to be.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 25, 2014 12:02 PM
"And, as I mentioned in another thread, it's standard procedure (I hope) for white parents to take their small children to task each and every time they show signs of racism or even stereotyping, so boys and girls alike - but especially kids over 10 - need to go through the same parental procedure whenever they say something like "boys/girls are stupid."
Lenona, I really hope you don't have children. If you did you might know by now that you can mostly discipline a child to not say things or do things you find rude and offensive where you can see it or hear it,
But the *boys* *girls* are stupid thing is just kids figuring which gender they belong to and building bonds with their peers.
If I had drug my five year old off to the shrink every time she said *I hate you* we would both be in the looney bin right now.
As a parent you get a lot farther with shaping their manners than brainwashing them to think only thoughts you find to be appropriate. (It doesn't work)
This is why the kids of fundamentalist preachers run off to join the Hare Krishna's, and children of rabid atheists become devout Catholics.
Sticking it to the parents and their beliefs is part of growing up.
If you want your kid to become a white Supremacist, the surest way to make them do it, is by lecturing them every time they say something you perceive as racist.
Isab at September 25, 2014 3:51 PM
Once you get control of this planet, you're gonna administer human character with the highest Lenonaic proficiency!
Naw, if I ever got control of the planet I'd kill 90% of humanity right off the bat and then get to work on things like character
lujlp at September 25, 2014 4:00 PM
MarkD Says:
"Artemis, ponder the rank hypocrisy of an actor marching against climate change and jetting off to a yacht. Contradictions ares rampant. There is no shortage of people who think they can run your life better than you can, despite evidence that they cannot manage their won."
Yes... the world is full of hypocrites.
That still doesn't absolve someone of the responsibility of providing evidence when they make a theoretical claim about the existence of a specific type of hypocrisy.
It is intellectually irresponsible to talk about hypocritical behavior of people because you can imagine such hypocrisy being possible.
Artemis at September 26, 2014 10:59 AM
> It is intellectually irresponsible
> to talk about hypocritical behavior
> of people because you can imagine
> such hypocrisy being possible.
Is there a difference between "intellectual irresponsibility" and regular irresponsibility?
Because if they're the same thing, you're adding extra words, which is something intellectuals don't do.
Your language is so dessicated… You're so terrified of the real world. You're not an academic, and probably never even a student, but you're always trying to turn the discussion to some sort of impersonal language exercise.
You have a diagnosis, right? There's a page of the DSM-V with your fingerprints on it, right?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 26, 2014 11:41 AM
To Isab: Why did you completely avoid the question of what parents, per se, as opposed to unrelated authorities, can and should do - if only so no one can accuse them later of ignoring the warning signs and or not doing something about them?
As I mentioned in another thread, Jeffrey Dahmer was torturing/killing animals at 7 - but since that was in the 1960s, it's more understandable that the adults around him didn't interpret that as a sign of worse things to come. Especially since he wasn't, say, 10 or older.
We have plenty of doctors' lists for parents, consisting of tips on how to recognize drug use/drug abuse in teens - plus other lists, if not so many, on how to recognize signs of mental illness, which kids/teens may well not want to acknowledge in themselves. Aren't signs of potentially violent criminal behavior even MORE important to recognize and act upon?
___________________________________
It takes someone incredibly naive and also well indoctrinated in psycho babble to think you can identify these people by looking at them or talking to them.
___________________________________
I'm well aware of that. I know from painful experience (from 10 years ago), that seriously delusional mental patients can seem perfectly intelligent and rational so long as you don't raise certain subjects of conversation - or if THEY don't raise them. That doesn't mean that they - or sociopaths, necessarily - can ALWAYS hoodwink psychologists.
And I certainly don't believe in overreacting to kids' rude comments - i.e., making mountains out of molehills. If they like using four-letter words and you've already said "please don't talk like that around me," and they break that rule, you can always calmly take away their privileges instead of screeching at them, since they were probably just trying to get attention. If it's a racist remark or a seriously hostile sexist one made in their teens, you can have a quiet discussion as to where those sentiments are coming from and then follow up with something similar to the above procedure - if needed, that is. (Yes, this is pretty much what my favorite psychologist likes to say.)
lenona at September 26, 2014 2:20 PM
And I'd still like to know what's wrong, if anything, with what Miss Manners wrote...
BTW, Lt. Jim Bullard from the Memphis Police Department wrote a book in 1977 with the humorous/sarcastic title: "Looking Forward to Being Attacked." It's mainly a photography book on self-defense. While the photos are predictably dated in style to the point of embarrassment, the principles are still perfectly relevant. The point is, while he's sympathetic to those who are fearful and would rather avoid confrontation, he does not believe in restricting your life - EVEN with regard to crimes of profit! He even praised one woman who, when a guy with a gun tried to rob her, YELLED at him to get a job, even as Bullard admitted that that could easily have turned deadly - his point was, her general ATTITUDE was right.
The book is also where I learned that you should never go with a kidnapper, per se - even if he has a gun. Why? Because if you refuse to budge, and he can't carry you, and he shoots you, he was going to kill you anyway - in a less public remote spot. It's about learning to be brave.
If you'd like to see the table of contents:
http://awfullibrarybooks.net/fun-with-crime/#more-909
lenona at September 26, 2014 2:47 PM
Crid asks:
"Is there a difference between "intellectual irresponsibility" and regular irresponsibility?"
Yes, there is a distinction.
It is intellectually irresponsible to put forth an argument that supports a certain position when you don't have the evidence to properly back it up.
Examples of "regular irresponsibility" include not paying your bills on time, failing to take your dog out for a walk before leaving the house for work, allowing your children to have a diet that consists of only candy and sweets, etc...
"Because if they're the same thing, you're adding extra words, which is something intellectuals don't do."
Right... and the remainder of your empty rant rests upon the proposition that there was no distinction between the two things.
You should have simply quit after asking your question.
As always, if you fail to understand something you falsely presume that no one else understands it.
What was all that blathering about Lenona being arrogant???
If she is arrogant, her level of arrogance pales in comparison to your own.
Never before have I met someone who knows so very little about the world and presumes to understand so very much.
Your photo should be put next to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
"you're always trying to turn the discussion to some sort of impersonal language exercise."
You are projecting Crid.
You are the one turning this into a discussion about the differences between "intellectual irresponsibility" and "regular irresponsibility".
You are ALWAYS the one twisting conversations into minute dissections of word usage, because I think you fully understand that when it comes to facts and evidence you never have any.
Please stop projecting your life time full of failures onto others.
You shouldn't have to be this bitter... I'm sure there is someone out there who cares about you.
Artemis at September 26, 2014 3:31 PM
Lenona,
I'm not certain where your argument is going here.
There is no single set of behaviors that should be taken in response to risky scenarios.
The reason for this is that each individuals level of risk tolerance is different.
Some people may feel quite comfortable wandering the streets at night drunk and alone... while others would find this behavior to be too risky and hence avoid it.
The issue at hand is the following:
1 - What is inherently wrong with providing people with information about the risks inherent to specific environments?
2 - What is inherently wrong with providing people with information about how to mitigate those risks?
I think the only reasonable answer to each of these questions is that there is nothing wrong with doing either.
If someone isn't interested they can simply disregard what you are saying or ignore you.
Proper risk assessment begins by acknowledging that there are factors are that promote and diminish risk.
Artemis at September 26, 2014 3:44 PM
Crid,
One more thing, simply to demonstrate how foolish you are (which is no different than usual):
Here is a list of over 500 scholarly citations using the phrase "intellectually irresponsible":
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22intellectually+irresponsible%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C38&as_sdtp=
Please tell me again how academics never use such terminology.
I can't emphasize enough how little you know... it astonishes me every time we converse you can talk with such brazen arrogance about things you obviously know nothing about... and then assert that it is actually me or someone else who is ignorant.
The moment you understand how very limited your scope of knowledge is will be the moment you will start to learn.
Artemis at September 26, 2014 3:53 PM
> It is intellectually irresponsible
> to put forth an argument that
> supports a certain position when
> you don't have the evidence to
> properly back it up.
Normal people call that "lying," which is more to the point —more "intellectual"!— and faster.
> Here is a list of over 500 scholarly
> citations using the phrase
> "intellectually irresponsible":
And I don't like or admire any of those people any more than I like or admire you! The brains I like best are concise, then silent.
> You are the one turning this
> into a discussion about the
Amy lets us talk about whatever we want. You're eager to be right about tiny stuff. Did you ever go to school at all, or was it all at home?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 27, 2014 12:44 AM
Crid,
Are you off your meds or something?
Because you appear to have the thought process of a crazy person or someone suffering from dementia.
I honestly believe at this point that all of your criticisms of others are the result of projection.
For example, just now here is the exchange you have decided to have with me:
1 - "Is there a difference between "intellectual irresponsibility" and regular irresponsibility?"
You start nitpicking language choices for no apparent reason.
2 - "you're always trying to turn the discussion to some sort of impersonal language exercise."
You proceed to accuse me of turning discussions toward the minutia of language.
3 - I then point out the hypocrisy of this
4 - "Amy lets us talk about whatever we want. You're eager to be right about tiny stuff."
You then defend yourself by saying you get to talk about whatever you want and that it is I who want to be right about the tiny stuff.
You are a serious nut case.
You are ALWAYS the one to harp over the tiniest details in the hopes you will be right about something.
I honestly have no interest in starting such stupid conversations, but I'll be damned if you are going to go around acting all high and mighty when you are perpetually wrong about just about everything you say.
You are the master of harping over tiny and irrelevant details, you do it all the time... all the while projecting your own failure onto others as if they are the ones initiating this behavior.
Show some personal responsibility... you are the one who always instigates these stupid interactions.
If you hate them so much then you should learn to cut it out.
Artemis at September 27, 2014 1:31 AM
Also:
"And I don't like or admire any of those people any more than I like or admire you! The brains I like best are concise, then silent."
Luckily no one with half a brain cares if you admire them.
You are a nobody Crid... I understand that this may be a hard pill for you to swallow since you have such an inflated opinion of yourself, but someone needs to lay it out for you.
Unfortunately you are the worst kind of nobody... one who presumes to be the authority over who matters and who does not.
You know practically nothing about everything and presume to define what makes someone an intellectual or not.
Let me lay something out for you... experts decide who the other experts are.
Since you are such a fan of people being concise and then being silent perhaps it is time for you to keep your mouth shut for a while and let the adults talk.
Just like when you trot out this moronic gem:
"You think that men not raping is the norm. You're wrong. In primitive places and much of the developing world, rape is as normal as sunrise. Rape is how things work naturally."
You are an idiot Crid... plain and simple.
That you may have the tendencies to rape and pillage if not but for the threat of incarceration makes it no more normal than if an alcoholic were to claim that everyone loves being drunk.
You honestly think anyone should care for your admiration when you say things like this?
Here is a quick reality check... no one cares what you think of them.
As far as I can tell you are a horrid excuse for what should be a human being (to be honest I am kind of horrified to think we share the same species)... but you are so utterly demented you believe yourself to be the gold standard for human behavior.
Get a grip already.
Artemis at September 27, 2014 1:45 AM
Oh, I'm the worst!
So what's the deal? You're in group home in Reykjavik or someplace, right? 'Cause time zones.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 27, 2014 3:50 AM
Crid,
I wouldn't say you are the worst, but you are a troll.
There have already been several recent studies demonstrating that people who actively troll on the internet have tendencies associated with sociopathy.
This would of course explain why you contend that your native state as a man is that of a rapist... only someone with severe mental issues would believe such a thing.
That being said, I am forced to take you at your word when it comes to how you would behave if given the opportunity.
Artemis at September 27, 2014 2:42 PM
So you've never had a job or gone to a conventional school or anything.
Amirite?
Right. Okay.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 28, 2014 1:26 AM
The issue at hand is the following:
1 - What is inherently wrong with providing people with information about the risks inherent to specific environments?
2 - What is inherently wrong with providing people with information about how to mitigate those risks?
Artemis
_________________________________
As I've already said twice, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Almost every parent and teacher would agree, since that's what they say all the time to kids.
It's perfectly polite, when you're teaching a class in person (as a cop, maybe), to provide young women with a simple list of information as to how serial predators tend to pick their victims - and what the percentages are regarding this or that. Just as you, as a cop, might tell the public which holidays tend to encourage more drinking - and thus "create" more drunk drivers on the road. It would also be a good idea to let young women know just what the statistics are regarding alleged attacks (as well as convictions) committed by popular athletes - or, for that matter, rich, popular, non-athletic BMOCs, maybe.
What's NOT so polite (and thus what makes young people mad, defensive, and contrary in their behavior) is when you phrase the information in the form of Dos and Don'ts. Aside from telling people to stop their friends from driving drunk - and telling them not to RIDE with drunk drivers, again, cops don't dump the responsibility of avoiding danger on drivers who already stay sober. (Not to mention that staying sober won't protect you from a date who probably thinks, like the writer to Miss Manners, that any woman without a chaperone has no serious right to say no.) Likewise, if cops are in the habit of telling black people to stay away from KKK neighborhoods, as opposed to simply TELLING them where those neighborhoods are and letting them take it from there, I've never heard them talk like that.
I'll add that if you're writing a book, as opposed to giving a lecture, you might get away with writing Dos and Don'ts - but don't count on it.
lenona at September 28, 2014 12:07 PM
Oh, and I'd love to know which parenting books - if any - give lists of questions for parents to ask sons as to what sexual favors the boys think girls owe boys and when - and where did the boys get those ideas. Painful for parents? Obviously. Necessary? Obviously. As I mentioned above, parents can make it clear that boys don't have to put up with financial exploitation by girls - the boys just can't expect sex as payment, that's all.
lenona at September 28, 2014 12:14 PM
Probably the same ones that teach girls not to dick tease in order to get favors/material goods from boys.
Where do boys get theses ideas? Often from the girls themselves.
lujlp at September 28, 2014 12:25 PM
Lenona,
I would be perfectly fine with the notion that outside of police officers, educators, parents, and guardians that most people should just keep their mouth shut in terms of dispensing advice.
In general it would be none of their business and dispensing such advice would make them a busy body.
The problem that you have failed to address is the following one:
Many current campaigns revolving around rape prevention involve instructing other members of society to actively jump in and get involved AFTER the dangerous situation has presented itself
That is also well and good... but it leaves open the following issue.
If you want to encourage people to put themselves into a dangerous situation as a solution, then those same individuals now have a vested interest in preventing that dangerous situation from evolving in the first place.
Simply put, if it is important enough for everyone else to mind their own business in terms of preventing the dangerous situation from evolving... then it is obnoxious and rude to expect them to put themselves in harms way.
These two things go hand in hand.
It simply is not reasonable to put every other member of society in the position of being a personal body guard if they don't get the associated right to lecture the individuals put in their charge about safety... that is part of the job description of a body guard.
Artemis at September 28, 2014 7:20 PM
"Aside from telling people to stop their friends from driving drunk - and telling them not to RIDE with drunk drivers"
This by the way is a perfect example of what I mean.
If it is the friends job to stop their friend from driving drunk... potentially ripping the keys out of their hands and getting into a physical altercation to do so, then they also have a vested interest in preventing their friend from getting drunk in the first place.
In addition, if they find their friend is getting drunk too often and trying to drive when they are intoxicated they have every right to lecture them on their reckless and risky behavior.
Artemis at September 28, 2014 7:25 PM
Are you licensed to drive an automobile?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 28, 2014 9:12 PM
Simply put, if it is important enough for everyone else to mind their own business in terms of preventing the dangerous situation from evolving... then it is obnoxious and rude to expect them to put themselves in harms way.
Posted by: Artemis at September 28, 2014 7:20 PM
_______________________________________
I have never heard anyone say that you, as a bystander, have an obligation to risk life or limb to rescue someone if you really don't want to. (Last I heard, even an Olympic swimmer is not always[?] legally obligated to rescue someone who's drowning.) That's NOT the same as being expected to dial 911 - or to run for help. Neither puts you in danger. You can always turn your back - or hide behind a corner - when dialing. Same goes for stopping your friends from driving drunk - if you're afraid of getting hurt by a very strong, drunk friend, calling 911 and the resulting humiliation for your friend just might result in a long-term change for the better.
______________________________________
If it is the friends job to stop their friend from driving drunk... potentially ripping the keys out of their hands and getting into a physical altercation to do so, then they also have a vested interest in preventing their friend from getting drunk in the first place.
_________________________________________
Um, I could be wrong on this, but I have the impression that drunk drivers are far more likely to cripple or kill someone else than to suffer that fate themselves. In other words, when you stop friends from driving drunk, you're protecting OTHER people - namely, strangers - from getting hurt. Therefore, you're not trying to control or restrict the behavior of the unknown victims; you're just stopping your friends from committing CRIMES. In the same vein, if you know your friends are more prone to violence toward people or others' property when drunk, it would be fair to expect you, as a bystander, either to keep the friend from drinking too much or at least prevent any violence - again, by dialing 911, if necessary.
lenona at September 29, 2014 1:16 PM
Lenona,
I am having some difficulty parsing your logic here.
On the one hand you are saying that a bystander should be expected to directly intervene in the potential crime of drunk driving on the basis that someone *might* get seriously injured.
Yet at the same time you are saying that the only expectation for a bystander witnessing a sexual assault in progress right in front of them or about to take place is to run away and get help from someone else or to dial 911 and leave it at that.
Furthermore, you equivocate here by confusing the conversation with the distinction between and obligation and an expectation. This is immaterial because we are only talking about social pressures here in which obligations and expectations are essentially the same thing.
I am curious why you seem to be suggesting that bystanders should be expected to take a more active role in preventing drunk driving than in preventing sexual assault?
The only conclusion I can come to is that you see this as a way out of giving bystanders the right to dispense advice to those they are socially expected to protect.
Just out of curiosity, what would you think of a person who watched another human being being sexually assaulted and just hid in the corner to dial 911 and did nothing else?... would you think differently of a man or a woman who took this action, or would the gender of the bystander not matter?
Artemis at September 29, 2014 10:34 PM
Lenona,
One more thing since you seem unfamiliar with the currently anti-rape campaigns that are going on:
http://itsonus.org/#videos
http://itsonus.org/#pledge
I have provided you with links to the current "itsonus" campaign which makes it abundantly clear that everyone should be expected to identify situations where sexual assault is likely to occur and to directly intervene to prevent sexual assault from taking place.
My argument is as follows:
If people in general are going to be charged with the responsibility of actively identifying dangerous situations other people are entering into and the responsibility of directly intervening on their behalf as their protector... then this responsibility comes with the associated right to dispense advice to others on the kinds of situations to avoid in the first place.
The two go hand in hand.
I will note that nowhere in this campaign do they allude to intervention consisting of a phone call or running away for help from someone else... the campaign has a decidedly more direct tone than this.
Artemis at September 29, 2014 11:18 PM
Do you have a driver's license? Ever been in an airplane? Ever subdue a drunk?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 30, 2014 12:07 AM
Crid,
Can you please stop acting like a petulant child for a moment... adults are trying to have a conversation.
Are you really this desperate for my attention?
Artemis at September 30, 2014 8:30 AM
C'mon, adults have genders, and you're sexually indeterminate. But we're fascinated by your perceptions of the world! We wonder what it's been like for you as you've tested them! Swooooooooo...
Ever drive a car? Fly in a plane? Deal with drunk?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 30, 2014 2:49 PM
Crid,
The questions you ask are not genuine... in fact nothing about you is genuine.
Everything you write suggests that you are an empty shell... and then you purport to project that emptiness onto others.
All of the things you ask are trivial and yet you act like they are critically important.
Everything you say is nothing more than a distraction and a waste of time.
You know this, yet you continue to do this constantly which suggests that you do not view your time as having any value.
You just enjoy pissing into the wind as a hobby.
Artemis at October 1, 2014 2:48 AM
> not genuine
Yes, sincerely: Are you licensed to drive?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 1, 2014 8:44 AM
Crid,
Stupid and/or insincere questions will never receive a serious response from me.
Haven't you learned this already?
It seems like you lack the capacity to integrate new information.
Artemis at October 2, 2014 8:59 AM
If you have no experience with…
…or with any of the topics under discussion, I think your opinions might be weighed differently than if you let your readers make generous presumptions.We gotta represent... We gotta be true to our school.
We live on a big planet, not within a tight terrarium.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 2, 2014 2:07 PM
Crid,
You keep talking about other individuals being sheltered or lacking experience because their opinions happen to differ from your own on one topic or another.
The most funny and ironic part about all this is that for you to believe this suggests that you have been utterly sheltered for all of your life and only exposed to individuals who share your same perspective on life.
Men and women who actually have the kinds of diverse life experience that you keep alluding to over and over again know that the world is full of individuals with heterogeneous perspectives.
That you cannot conceive of other individuals in the world who think differently than you do and who have substantial life experiences of their own only demonstrates how severely limited your own scope really is.
You're belief structure is not substantially different than that of a person who has been raised within a very small town and hence has difficulty fathoming how a person from a big city might view the world differently than they do.
What I find so amusing about you is that instead of recognizing your own limitations you always project them onto other people.
You really need to get out more and talk to people outside of your echo chamber.
Artemis at October 3, 2014 1:46 AM
TLDR- Family, work, friends, life, I'm good.
Do you have a driver's license?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 3, 2014 11:26 AM
Crid,
Based upon your behavior here I do not believe you.
Prove it.
This by the way is precisely why these conversations you seem to adore so much go absolutely nowhere.
It requires an element of trust that doesn't exist on the internet. Nothing you can can be verified... just like nothing I say can be verified.
So the simple reason I know your question is ultimately insincere is because when I have answered such questions from you in the past you have always responded with an accusation that just because I say it doesn't make it true.
So your feigned curiosity is just a distraction.
You already know that in all likelihood I have a drivers license... you just want me to say I do so you can get to the next step in your perverse game where you tell me to "prove it" because you don't believe me.
So I'm just going to preempt you and ask that you prove that you have family that cares about you, that you have a job, and that you have friends.
I'm not convinced any of those things are true.
Artemis at October 6, 2014 8:16 PM
Leave a comment