Alec Baldwin has a point

[Ryika]

Sorry, I'm not getting your point here. I can't quite follow your post from start to finish.

That's a bummer.

Another question then:
So you think every person in society is in part responsible for the atmosphere in which rape is pervasive and not punished, right?
How does this not mean that, if your argument is correct, victims share a part of the responsibility for the culture that enabled their own rape? Are you not, on a very low level admittedly, victim blaming victims of rape?

 

[Senethro]

Obviously I don't quite share your cynicism, but none of that is unreasonable.

However, you state that you don't think they're acting "irrationally", and also that you're not willing to "condemn" them for not wanting to go through the process. But neither of these are positions I supported in the question and it's not really what I was asking.

As far as irrational goes - even if you go as far as regarding them as acting completely selfishly and taking "hush money", there's nothing irrational about that. I don't think that's an accusation anyone has levelled at them, but certainly I haven't.

Cynicism would be saying that the problem is insoluble, not attempting to describe and contextualize the problem.

I made those statements about myself, not you.

As for not willing to condemn them for not wanting to go through a difficult process - I actually included that in the question. But again, regardless of your sympathies for them, that doesn't explain how they are exempt from the collective "blame" that you level at society as a whole. When they are in a position to at least try and make a difference, but choose not to, then they are surely contributing to the societal problem you speak of, no matter how sympathetic you are to their motivations.

So what? They're members of society and in that role they have as much "blame" as anyone but is it your intent to assign them an additional role that would accrue extra "blame"? Where is this question going?

Alternatively, we don't expect cancer patients to solve cancer. Those with depleted resources should not be expected to incur extra cost to solve a society wide problem. So why shouldn't sympathy be included anyway?

 

[Senethro]

That's a bummer.

Because I read it pretty much as Sommerswerd did and then you seemed to confirm this reading. I just don't know what to make of that.

 

[Ryika]

You ignored my question!

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well no, denying the existence of the problem does not mean there is no problem, it just means the problem does not grow. If all that matters is what victims feel is going to happen - as Senethro suggested - then speaking out about a problem, whether it's realistic, or hysterical, only increases the problem.

I disagree with this bolded premise entirely. Denying the existence of a problem absolutely allows it to grow. Ignoring a problem or denying that it exists often, (if not always) makes the problem worse. I'm also not sure Senethro suggested what you say either. It actually seems like Senethro disagrees with your premise as well.

Consider for a moment that your argument actually contradicts your other argument. That is to say that when you state that victims speaking up helps combat the problem while them keeping quiet contributes to the possibility of more victims... what you are saying is that them (the victims) hiding/denying the existence of the problem and allowing others to deny/hide the existence of a problem makes the problem worse, by allowing more people to be victimized... But then you're saying that no, actually denying the existence of a problem keeps it from getting worse... Don't you see that you're contradicting yourself?

My point however is not that we should thus stay silent, as that would mean that we can never "solve" - or at least lower the prevalence of - the problem, my point is that a solution cannot purely grow from that rhetoric, because that rhetoric just creates a self-fulfilling cycle - in the "worst" case, everybody would believe a victim if they came forward, but at the same time preaches about how we all need to be better, and victims would still feel like they can't come forward because the rhetoric is all they hear.

So to break that cycle, we still need victims who do the first step and come forward in the end, so this new attitude can actually manifest in reality. That's exactly what we've seen happen here, only after people started coming forward was the cycle actually broken.

That's why, while we should not fault individual victims for staying silent, we should absolutely argue for victims in general to come forward. It's again unfair that they have to play the martyr, but they're the only ones who can turn the change of attitude into actual change.

So here is my take on asking victims to be martyrs, defining their role in combating the problem, and what our expectations of them should be... I'd compare it to soldiers that have been grievously wounded in combat. What expectation/responsibility are you going to reasonably place on them for solving the problem of unjust wars, imperialism etc? Sure you could say that they are in the best position to speak out, make a difference etc... but I mean, a guy already lost his leg... hasn't he suffered enough? Hasn't he given enough? The rape victim has already suffered. Asking them for more isn't reasonable or, as you say "fair". And that's the point, its not fair, so no they don't have any responsibility and we don't have any moral leg to stand on claiming that they do. If they want to speak out, then fine but trying to attribute any blame or responsibility to them just isn't fair.

So, when will (more) people step forward to speak about Bill Clinton? Super-predators-tied.

So your response to this issue is... "But what about Hillary (the Clintons)?" Ok, that's pretty consistent at least, I'll give you that.

 

[Ryika]

I disagree with this bolded premise entirely. Denying the existence of a problem absolutely allows it to grow. Ignoring a problem or denying that it exists often, (if not always) makes the problem worse. I'm also not sure Senethro suggested what you say either. It actually seems like Senethro disagrees with your premise as well.

Yeah, it should probably be phrased as "You don't actively contribute to the growth of the problem".

Consider for a moment that your argument actually contradicts your other argument. That is to say that when you state that victims speaking up helps combat the problem while them keeping quiet contributes to the possibility of more victims... what you are saying is that them (the victims) hiding/denying the existence of the problem and allowing others to deny/hide the existence of a problem makes the problem worse, by allowing more people to be victimized... But then you're saying that no, actually denying the existence of a problem keeps it from getting worse... Don't you see that you're contradicting yourself?

No, I don't think I'm contradicting myself here. The difference is still the case that a person can bring to the table. A victim can bring an actual case, with evidence, against a specific person. That's guaranteed to have some effect other than maybe in the most severe cases of power imbalance. A person who just preaches how bad everything is and how we all need to change stuff is in effect just a fearmonger until the moment actual victims come forward and break the silence.

So here is my take on asking victims to be martyrs, defining their role in combating the problem, and what our expectations of them should be... I'd compare it to soldiers that have been grievously wounded in combat. What expectation/responsibility are you going to reasonably place on them for solving the problem of unjust wars, imperialism etc? Sure you could say that they are in the best position to speak out, make a difference etc... but I mean, a guy already lost his leg... hasn't he suffered enough? Hasn't he given enough? The rape victim has already suffered. Asking them for more isn't reasonable or, as you say "fair". And that's the point, its not fair, so no they don't have any responsibility and we don't have any moral leg to stand on claiming that they do. If they want to speak out, then fine but trying to attribute any blame or responsibility to them just isn't fair.

Yeah, but life doesn't operate on fairness. That's the funny thing about you guys, you think things are bad, you want change, but then you argue that it is more important that victims get "fairness" than it is that we prevent future victims from becoming victims by blocking the ideas that would create change. You want results, but you don't actually want to foster the cultural narrative that gets results, instead you argue for the exact opposite and believe in this magical fantasy world where rape and sexual assault just vanish if we all just want it enough.

It is simply a fact that, if you want actual change, then some people will likely have to bite the bullet and go the extra step. That is, as I stated before, not something we should request from individuals, it is not something that we should condemn victims for if they don't have the strength or will to do it, it's not something that is "fair", but it is totally something that as a society we should encourage if we want change, and it is a statement that we should be aware of - victims who stay silent, that's exactly what a rapist wants.

Because let's be honest here. What's currently happening, with people speaking up, everybody being morally outraged and people telling the world about the terrible things they've done don't mean anything in the long run. The current hysteria will die down sooner or later, and then it's either back to square one - which is exactly where you're leading us - or it's into a future where victims speak out and thus prevent the cycle from continuing. Because the rapists certainly won't, and the public only can because people speak out about what happened to them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I made those statements about myself, not you.

Yes I know, but I'm saying I don't disagree with either of the two statements and my question didn't posit that I did, so your answer didn't really address what I was asking

So what? They're members of society and in that role they have as much "blame" as anyone but is it your intent to assign them an additional role that would accrue extra "blame"? Where is this question going?

It's not going anywhere, and I think I've already asked the question as clearly as I can. I'm not trying to assign any role to them, I was asking if you think they are exempt from the same group responsibility that you assigned to "absolutely everyone".

Alternatively, we don't expect cancer patients to solve cancer. Those with depleted resources should not be expected to incur extra cost to solve a society wide problem. So why shouldn't sympathy be included anyway?

Yes but, as I said in the question, I think victims have more power to actually make a useful change (or at least attempt to do so) than the vast majority of people do, as they can actually speak out about what happened to them. That's something I, for example, can't do. And I can't do much else. The analogy to cancer patients isn't really a very good one at all.

And sympathy doesn't come into it because whether or not you think someone should be expected to do something has no bearing on whether or not they're able to do it. And my question was about whether or not you thought they were able to do it, or were somehow not included in the group of "everyone" that you feel is to blame.

 

[Berzerker]

its poor taste to criticize people for enabling serial rapists with their silence...?

Lets criticize "society" instead

is it poor taste for a rape victim to criticize everyone else who took hush money?

 

[Berzerker]

justifying hush money enables rapists...and these enablers want to lecture others about morality?

 

[Kyriakos]

Depends on the particulars. I mean... i would tend to be sympathetic to someone who remains a victim, yet opted to at least make something out of it (money). Obviously it is an ignoble decision still, but it can be a personal drama as well (the illusion that if you take money out of someone who victimized you, you at least have the satisfaction that it is identified by the victimizer as despicable behavior, etc).

I would not have as much sympathy if the victim took money due to being firmly twisted by now. Cause you can only identify one primarily as a victim long enough -- up to the point they become victimizers, or if they are very obviously on a road to no return re having been twisted.

That is a separate issue to the actual victimizer, who - obviously - deserves only scoff and antipathy.

 

[Ryika]

Kind of random, and maybe a bit too late in the discussion, but what exactly do we define a "victim" as? Where does the definition of "victim" end and where does "You're a person with agency who made a dumb decision." begin?

More particularly, are those two girls in their twenties who visited Louis CK in his hotel room, where he asked them whether he can masturbate in front of them, to which they then agreed, still "victims"? Because I have a hard time believing that a person in their twenties can have so little agency that they cannot bring themselves to utter a simple "No." to a request.

I can understand that for the intern that's a problem as she is directly dependent on him, but the two women he invited to his hotel room? Come on, let's not kid ourselves here.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That narrative falls apart when you factor in the power dynamics. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if pure shock played into it. This is the kind of thing his stage act is all about and its conceivable that they thought it was a joke until it happened. In any case it's also conceivable they thought their careers would be over if they turned him down and certainly if they spoke up about it.

All of these points though are pretty obvious and already covered to death so I'm not sure why I have to repeat them.

 

[Ryika]

What power dynamics? They were not his employees, he had absolutely no influence on their careers. I could give somewhat of a benefit of the doubt that maybe they felt like he has, then they went on and spoke about it with people afterwards by their own account, so they surely weren't afraid of repercussions. I can somewhat buy the "heat of the moment"-argument, but even then, if you think it's a joke and the idea grosses you out, you go "Uhh... no, please don't?", not "...sure, let's see where this leads to!". It's just ridiculous.

Not that his behavior wasn't creepy, but come on, come on, the continuous push to remove agency from young women and invent ever-more situation in which people act freely but are then later declared to have been in a situation where they couldn't actually act freely, is ridiculous. I mean, come on. Come on.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What power dynamics? They were not his employees, he had absolutely no influence on their careers.

Hahahahaha wut

The most influential comic in the industry has no power (real or perceived) over up-and-coming comedians? Srsly lol wut

 

[Ryika]

The most influential comic in the industry has no power (real or perceived) over up-and-coming comedians?

Exactly, he has no power over them. What's he going to do? Tell their fans not to enjoy their comedy skits? Go around and tell every night club owner in the country not to allow them to perform? Yeah, that's totally going to happen.

And "perceived power"? What does that even mean? "Power that doesn't actually exist"? These people are adults, are we really going to give a damn about the horror fantasies that they've made up in their head? How is Louis CK to blame for the stuff that they made up in their mind if they didn't even communicate it to him and instead just consented to what he asked for? Come on.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Man masturbates. Women most affected.

 

[Kyriakos]

Paying women to masturbate in front of them has a decidedly austrian vibe

 

[Senethro]

Go around and tell every night club owner in the country not to allow them to perform? Yeah, that's totally going to happen.

Yeah, it does.

I'm limiting my replies to you because I think you use Valessa to say things you don't actually mean or believe, but this kind of fits in with your apparent understanding of consequences and employer networks. In reputation based industries with high attrition rates and a small number of people make the most reliable profits then recommendations for or against between performers and bookers absolutely do carry weight.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, it does.

Okay. Give me an example of a situation where that happened.

I'm limiting my replies to you because I think you use Valessa to say things you don't actually mean or believe

That's on point though. I'm Devil's greatest advocate.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, it should probably be phrased as "You don't actively contribute to the growth of the problem".

That would also be incorrect. Denying the existence of a problem can absolutely contribute to the growth of a problem. Think about cancer, for example. As for this specific case, denying that the abuses/assaults/ etc are a problem allows the perpetrators to continue thinking that their behavior is excusable, or normal or that they won't suffer any consequences, so they continue to do it and more people follow suit based on the same assumptions, which makes the problem grow. Denial also perpetuates that atmosphere where victims feel that they won't be believed or taken seriously.

No, I don't think I'm contradicting myself here. The difference is still the case that a person can bring to the table. A victim can bring an actual case, with evidence, against a specific person. That's guaranteed to have some effect other than maybe in the most severe cases of power imbalance. A person who just preaches how bad everything is and how we all need to change stuff is in effect just a fearmonger until the moment actual victims come forward and break the silence.

We agree that a victim is has a more compelling position than a pure activist. That's true in every case I'd say and I've already said as much IIRC. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're discussing, is whether victims should be criticized for choosing not to place themselves in the line of fire. I say no. I can't tell what you are saying because you changed the subject a little bit. But it seems like your argument is that only the victims (and nobody else) can help solve the problem by speaking out about it. Everyone else makes the problem worse by speaking out about it. Is that your position?

Yeah, but life doesn't operate on fairness. That's the funny thing about you guys, you think things are bad, you want change, but then you argue that it is more important that victims get "fairness" than it is that we prevent future victims from becoming victims by blocking the ideas that would create change. You want results, but you don't actually want to foster the cultural narrative that gets results, instead you argue for the exact opposite and believe in this magical fantasy world where rape and sexual assault just vanish if we all just want it enough.

Who does "you guys" include? This whole paragraph is some pretty heavy strawmanning if it is directed at me. See my question above about your position.