Alec Baldwin has a point

[Ryika]

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.

The cancer example is actually the perfect example that disproves your point. Whether you deny you have cancer, or whether you accept you have cancer does not change a thing. Cancer will grow either way. Denial just increases the odds that you don't do anything against it, which is the same here. You can deny the existence of the problem, or you can accept that the problem exists and decide to stay inactive, both are the same thing, you are not actively contributing to the problem if you're not one of the guys doing the sexual harassment, you are, if you're wrong and the problem does exist, just not doing anything against its existence.

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?

No, my position is that a tag-team attack is required. Without public outrage, victims will likely not come forward because they don't know what is going to happen, but with public outrage and no victims having the strength and courage to come forward, it just makes victims feel more like they can't come forward because the horrible consequences that the activists are talking about are completely at odds with the reality of the climate that has been created - it lags behind, because it's still talking about the horrible reaction that the public will have, with nobody believing them and their career being ruined, even when everybody in the public is already on their side.

Instead, what is required is for public outrage to happen, and then some strong victims have to come forward to make it easier for other victims, and to show the people who were abusing their power and position that they can't get away with it anymore.

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.

I don't think it's strawmanning. You accept the notion that victims are in the best position to speak out, as most people do, but then say that they should not have to because that's unfair. My position is that yes, it's unfair, but they still have to, because activism can only get to a point where victims can come forward, not to a point where the problem gets solved.

 

[Senethro]

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

Yeah, but it is tiring to deal with. You look like you're responding for the sake of responding.

I don't think the existence of blackballing/patronage in industries is something that needs demonstrating.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The cancer example is actually the perfect example that disproves your point. Whether you deny you have cancer, or whether you accept you have cancer does not change a thing. Cancer will grow either way. Denial just increases the odds that you don't do anything against it, which is the same here. You can deny the existence of the problem, or you can accept that the problem exists and decide to stay inactive, both are the same thing, you are not actively contributing to the problem if you're not one of the guys doing the sexual harassment, you are, if you're wrong and the problem does exist, just not doing anything against its existence.

This statement is contradictory. First you say that "Whether you deny...or whether you accept... does not change a thing." Then you promptly describe the changed odds of trying to solve the problem that are caused by your denial. So clearly, you recognize that the denial does change something, which contradicts your statement that it changes nothing.

No, my position is that a tag-team attack is required. Without public outrage, victims will likely not come forward because they don't know what is going to happen, but with public outrage and no victims having the strength and courage to come forward, it just makes victims feel more like they can't come forward because the horrible consequences that the activists are talking about are completely at odds with the reality of the climate that has been created - it lags behind, because it's still talking about the horrible reaction that the public will have, with nobody believing them and their career being ruined, even when everybody in the public is already on their side.

This is also contradictory. You can't have a "tag-team attack" if you want the "activists" to stop talking about the problem, that you are denying exists. Also, "everybody in the public" is not "already on their side." For example, in Alabama right now, a higher number of voters are taking Roy Moore's side than disavowing him over his treatment of the women accusing him. Acknowledging that reality and criticizing it is not "completely at odds with the reality of the climate".

I don't think it's strawmanning. You accept the notion that victims are in the best position to speak out, as most people do, but then say that they should not have to because that's unfair. My position is that yes, it's unfair, but they still have to, because activism can only get to a point where victims can come forward, not to a point where the problem gets solved.

Note that "fair" was your word and I used it because that was how you framed it, but more importantly you are strawmanning me again. I didn't say that victims should not have to speak out because its unfair. First, its not a matter of whether victims should "have to" speak out or not. That's a red herring. Victims absolutely don't "have to" do anything. And as far as my point goes, it's not even a matter of whether they should speak out as I've already said that they are in the best, most compelling position to speak out. My position is that its their choice whether to speak out and you (the royal you) are in no moral position to criticize them for not speaking out. Praise the ones who speak out, sure... and leave it at that.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, but it is tiring to deal with. You look like you're responding for the sake of responding.

I don't respond if I don't think I have a point. I DO respond when I realize that the emperor has no clothes, such as in this case.

I don't think the existence of blackballing/patronage in industries is something that needs demonstrating.

No, it does not need demonstrating. When you however claim that it exists in a specific situation, then you have to bring concrete evidence for that.

This statement is contradictory. First you say that "Whether you deny...or whether you accept... does not change a thing." Then you promptly describe the changed odds of trying to solve the problem that are caused by your denial. So clearly, you recognize that the denial does change something, which contradicts your statement that it changes nothing.

This is not at all contradictory, you are just mixing "active" contribution with not doing anything against the problem. If you ignore that you have cancer, then you're not actively contributing to its growth, you're just passively accepting that it grows, or allowing it to grow passively by denying that it exists.

That's the same here. You can say that yes, denying that a problem exist may increase your odds at becoming a "passive contributor", but it in no way makes you an active contributor.

Your stance seems to be that by being idle you're somehow "actively" contributing, which is of course utter nonsense, as the idea of being idle is the very definition of passivity. Active contribution = "You do things that directly make the situation worse; Passive contribution = "You don't take action to make sure things don't get worse".

And even then that idea of every individual in our society being a passive contributor is pretty ridiculous when you consider how little influence we have on the world.

This is also contradictory. You can't have a "tag-team attack" if you want the "activists" to stop talking about the problem, that you are denying exists. Also, "everybody in the public" is not "already on their side." For example, in Alabama right now, a higher number of voters are taking Roy Moore's side than disavowing him over his treatment of the women accusing him. Acknowledging that reality and criticizing it is not "completely at odds with the reality of the climate".

No, you've misunderstood my point in the response to Senethro there. He said we should "Blame absolutely everyone for not creating an environment in which the victims felt they would be believed.", and my question to that was: "If creating an environment in which victims feel they would not be believed is something to be blamed for, do you then not share a lot more of the blame than the people who disagreed with you in this thread do?", not because I think people should be silent about the problem, but because it's a nonsensical statement. It is absolutely correct that by the standard he proposes, he shares more of the blame than people who just stay quiet, and that victims share a part of the guilt of being raped, because they too ultimately did not "create an environment in which the victims felt they would be believed". My simple point is that his statement in itself was nonsensical, there is no such thing as "societal guilt", especially not when the people we're talking about are sitting in their bubble in Hollywood.

If you want my unfiltered opinion about this kind of activism however: Talk about as much as you want or think is necessary, I think that's a great deed, because it will make victims come forward. Of course victims still have to come forward, that's what you're essentially working towards when you're doing activism, even if you don't realize it - you're not changing the minds of the perpetrators, you're not creating a world in which people are vigilant and prevent perpetrators from doing evil things, no, you're building the arena in which victims can step forward to become martyrs. It's kind of poetic in a gruesome way, if you think about it.

Note that "fair" was your word and I used it because that was how you framed it, but more importantly you are strawmanning me again. I didn't say that victims should not have to speak out because its unfair. First, its not a matter of whether victims should "have to" speak out or not. That's a red herring. Victims absolutely don't "have to" do anything. And as far as my point goes, it's not even a matter of whether they should speak out as I've already said that they are in the best, most compelling position to speak out. My position is that its their choice whether to speak out and you (the royal you) are in no moral position to criticize them for not speaking out.

Okay, I'm too lazy to go back and read through this thread again just to respond to this paragraph, so I'll take you by your word here, and assume that I've misunderstood you somewhere along the way. This mans we agree in this - great!

 

[Berzerker]

My position is that its their choice whether to speak out and you (the royal you) are in no moral position to criticize them for not speaking out. Praise the ones who speak out, sure... and leave it at that.

Why praise them? Can they criticize others who take hush money thereby allowing the rapist to continue unabated?

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is not at all contradictory, you are just mixing "active" contribution with not doing anything against the problem. If you ignore that you have cancer, then you're not actively contributing to its growth, you're just passively accepting that it grows, or allowing it to grow passively by denying that it exists.

That's the same here. You can say that yes, denying that a problem exist may increase your odds at becoming a "passive contributor", but it in no way makes you an active contributor.

This active/passive thing you're trying to insert now is just goalpost switching to avoid acknowledging the flaw in your argument. Denying that the problem exists (ie that women are being mistreated and also not believed or taken seriously when they come forward) leads to the problem getting worse. "Active/passive" is irrelevant.

Your stance seems to be that by being idle you're somehow "actively" contributing, which is of course utter nonsense, as the idea of being idle is the very definition of passivity.

This is textbook strawmanning. You introduced the "active/passive" distinction to avoid simply admitting that your argument was flawed, then attributed the position you just invented to me, declaring that I had in-fact taken the position (I didn't), then you summarily declare that "my stance" a position I never took, was "utter nonsense". Again, my position is that denying that the problem exists leads to the problem getting worse. That's it.

As for the rest, it seems like you are saying you agree with me now, so while that seems like an evolution of your position, its a good evolution so, I'll take it.

Why praise them?

You don't have to praise them if you don't want to. What I am saying is if you want to praise them for speaking up fine, but don't shame them for not speaking up.

 

[Ryika]

This active/passive thing you're trying to insert now is just goalpost switching to avoid acknowledging the flaw in your argument. Denying that the problem exists (ie that women are being mistreated and also not believed or taken seriously when they come forward) leads to the problem getting worse. "Active/passive" is irrelevant.

So your position is that there is no distinction between a rapist and a person who just isn't interested in activism against rape? That's utterly moronic.

This is textbook strawmanning. You introduced the "active/passive" distinction to avoid simply admitting that your argument was flawed, then attributed the position you just invented to me, declaring that I had in-fact taken the position (I didn't), then you summarily declare that "my stance" a position I never took, was "utter nonsense". Again, my position is that denying that the problem exists leads to the problem getting worse. That's it.

It's actually not strawmanning, I just didn't understand how idiotic your stance is.

As for the rest, it seems like you are saying you agree with me now, so while that seems like an evolution of your position, its a good evolution so, I'll take it.

No, I've always agreed with you on this. Go back to post #63 to see that I've been arguing for this position long before you even responded to my post. You just looked at my response to Senethro and didn't realize I was showing a flaw in his argument, not giving my opinion on what should be done.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So your position is that there is no distinction between a rapist and a person who just isn't interested in activism against rape? That's utterly moronic.

It's actually not strawmanning, I just didn't understand how idiotic your stance is.

Another strawman. Once again you concoct a position from whole cloth, attribute it to me, despite the fact that I never said any such thing and then declare that fabricated position as "moronic" and "idiotic". I'll add that your name calling towards a position that you made up is a little ironic, since you're actually attacking your own ideas and erroneous conclusions.

Again, you raised the "active/passive" red herring in the context of and in response to, my pointing out that denying the existence of a problem makes the problem worse. You were originally trying to claim that denying the existence of a problem does not make the problem worse. When I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning, you switched the goalpost to "active/passive" which was irrelevant to the issue of whether denying the existence of a problem makes it worse or not. When I pointed out the goalpost switch and how it was irrelevant to the issue, you then switched the goalpost again AND strawmanned, by accusing me of equating rape with "not being interested in activism", which had nothing whatsoever to do with why I said the "active/passive" distinction wasn't relevant. So now I guess that you can say you're "Too lazy to go back and check" how your argument has evolved and you'll just take my word for it...

You basically tried to completely change your argument from "denying a problem exists doesn't make it worse", to "actively raping is worse than passively refusing to advocate for victims" ... and then declared that I'm "idiotic and moronic" for not agreeing with the new argument that you just switched to.

 

[Ryika]

Again, you raised the "active/passive" red herring in the context of and in response to, my pointing out that denying the existence of a problem makes the problem worse.

You were originally trying to claim that denying the existence of a problem does not make the problem worse. When I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning, you switched the goalpost to "active/passive" which was irrelevant to the issue of whether denying the existence of a problem makes it worse or not. When I pointed out the goalpost switch and how it was irrelevant to the issue, you then switched the goalpost again AND strawmanned, by accusing me of equating rape with "not being interested in activism", which had nothing whatsoever to do with why I said the "active/passive" distinction wasn't relevant.

Of course it was relevant. You're right that I originally said that it does not make the problem worse (technically I said "does not make it grow"), and I acknowledged that that's not entirely right, because compared to the alternative of working against the problem, it does allow the problem to get worse, that's why I altered my statement to the more correct point of view that it is passive contribution.

You still disagreed with that however, at which point I do not think you're reasonable anymore, because again, that passive/active distinction is huge. You're passively contributing to EVERY problem in this society that you're not actively petitioning against, let's randomly take male prison rape for example. A huge problem. When have you actively argued against that the last time? When have you put it into public discourse the last time? 10 years ago? Never? Well, there you go, you're passively contributing to the prevalence of male prison rape by your inaction!

Of course you're not actively arguing against things that would contribute to solving the problem, so there is nothing to fault you for. It is for activists who care about this topic to come forward, and your job is to not stand in their way when they do, and as long as you do that, whether you think it's actually a problem or not, is irrelevant.

You basically tried to completely change your argument from "denying a problem exists doesn't make it worse", to "actively raping is worse than passively refusing to advocate for victims" ... and then you can declare that I'm "idiotic and moronic" for not agreeing with the new argument you just switched to.

Just to be clear: I neither called you idiotic or moronic, nor do I think you are. I called your position that, and I think it still is. Either that, or we're seriously talking pass each other here.

I think what is going on is that it stung a little that I correctly pointed out that you just can't bear admitting that you made a poor argument. So now you're seething, lashing out, calling names in your anger, and trying to strawman outrageous positions onto me so you can mock me for these made up positions.

I think my position holds just fine. You accuse me of strawmanning again, but then you don't actually point out what you meant by the things you said. You now for the second time accused me of bringing in the active/passive destinction as a deflection tactic, even though I think the difference is quite obvious, and you have done nothing to actually argue against the idea, you've just called it a red herring without substantiating your claim that it is meaningless, while I have, for the second time now, explained why I think the difference matters.

 

[Senethro]

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

No, it does not need demonstrating. When you however claim that it exists in a specific situation, then you have to bring concrete evidence for that.

I can't tell if you're reading carelessly or what, but in a few lines you've managed to move your goalposts and claim I said something I didn't. Took some paragraphs with Sommerswerd.

 

[Ryika]

I can't tell if you're reading carelessly or what, but in a few lines you've managed to move your goalposts and claim I said something I didn't. Took some paragraphs with Sommerswerd.

Taken out of context. The first quote is referring to examples from the stand-up industry, the second quote is referring to the world in general.

The latter does not need demonstrating because there are more than enough examples I am - and probably most people as well - aware of. In contrast, the stand-up scene is very much de-centralized, there are tons and tons of night-clubs to which Louis CK has no connections with, and it is completely unreasonable to assume that he would be able to influence the industry. There is no example that i am aware of that exists where a well-known comedian has seriously had a grip on the industry, the idea that he could end careers is just absurd to me. You don't seem to be aware of any examples either, because otherwise you would have named them.

 

[Berzerker]

You don't have to praise them if you don't want to. What I am saying is if you want to praise them for speaking up fine, but don't shame them for not speaking up.

You didn't answer the questions: why praise the ones who spoke up? Can they criticize others who took hush money instead thereby allowing the(ir) rapist to continue unabated? If they're deserving of praise, then the ones who took hush money are not, right? And if we're criticizing the 'conspiracy' of silence - "society's" to blame - then why would the recipients of hush money most responsible for the silence get a pass?

When criminals escape justice because of silent victims and witnesses, why do you blame the people who were ignorant of the crimes because of that silence? If your wife or daughter was raped by someone who paid off other people to avoid justice, you'd be okay with the hush money? Not me, and it was your wife or daughter, not mine...

edit: Rose has my support on this one

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rose-mcgowan-turns-felony-drug-possession-warrant-000847520.html

not on her 'conspiracy' comment though

Weinstein lawyer Lisa Bloom apparently investigated McGowan's sexual past to discredit her

 

[Berzerker]

Sean Hannity pulls support for Moore as sponsors pull their support for Hannity

 

[Kyriakos]

Sean Hannity pulls support for Moore as sponsors pull their support for Hannity

It is good to be acting out of idealogical reasons.

 

[Ryika]

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.

Btw @hobbsyoyo, do you think Louis CK did something wrong, or do you just think my stance on their status as victims is false?

And inspired by that other thread, do you think Bill Clinton did something wrong?

What's your opinion on... I don't know... presidential bj's? Are they something to like a person for, or something to condemn?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Whatabout whatabout whatabout

And of course one of the whatabout's was Clinton haha

 

[Kyriakos]

Whatabout whatabout whatabout

And of course one of the whatabout's was Clinton haha

It is a rather problematic taboo, though, to keep Bill out of this, as if he isn't one of the most powerful people in the US. Protecting the victim only makes sense when the victim is without power, no? Moreover, if you hail some oligarcho-plutocrat as a "victim" (i mean of the unjust impeachement; he is a victimizer in other things, including re to the topic at hand)... it leads to various oddities, which- when institutionalized via partisanship- ultimately led to Trump as Potus.

 

[Ryika]

Whatabout whatabout whatabout

And of course one of the whatabout's was Clinton haha

Not sure what you're on about. Our other discussion was already over, you've given your opinion, I have given mine.
Now I'm just interested in your stance on this related subject. His case seems very similar to what Louis CK did.

 

[Senethro]

... it leads to various oddities, which- when institutionalized via partisanship- ultimately led to Trump as Potus.

huh what now?

 

[Sommerswerd]

You didn't answer the questions: why praise the ones who spoke up? Can they criticize others who took hush money instead thereby allowing the(ir) rapist to continue unabated? If they're deserving of praise, then the ones who took hush money are not, right? And if we're criticizing the 'conspiracy' of silence - "society's" to blame - then why would the recipients of hush money most responsible for the silence get a pass?

When criminals escape justice because of silent victims and witnesses, why do you blame the people who were ignorant of the crimes because of that silence? If your wife or daughter was raped by someone who paid off other people to avoid justice, you'd be okay with the hush money? Not me, and it was your wife or daughter, not mine...

You asked this last question before right after I made a comment and I asked you specifically if you were asking me to answer the question, because I wasn't going to answer it unless it was specifically directed at me. So I ask again... Are you specifically asking me to answer this question or is it just rhetorical? Your response will dictate how I respond to the rest.