Alec Baldwin has a point

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it's safe to assume that if someone says "you didn't answer the question" to you, then it means they wanted you to answer the question.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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

Full stop. The end. The rest is just more goalpost switching and strawmanning.

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.

OK. Let me substantiate it for you again. I'd like you to acknowledge you tried to 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". I'd also like you to acknowledge that we weren't talking about the latter at all, and were instead talking simply about whether denying a problem exists makes it worse or not. I'd also like you to acknowledge that "raping is worse than not advocating for victims" has nothing to do with the simple question of whether denying a problem exists makes it worse or not. That is why your "active/passive" distinction wasn't relevant. You were trying to change the argument to a discussion about whether raping is worse than not advocating for victims, which is, as you correctly state, a frivolous pointless argument as the answer is obvious. You brought up that argument as misdirection precisely because you realized that you were wrong... as you now, finally admit.

Also... the "I didn't call you a name, I called your argument a name" thing is pretty weak, old, tired defense. Obviously I've heard that used before, but its usually from newbies. Most mature posters understand that if you're going to throw around insults and name-calling that you can't hide behind that meaningless distinction without a difference.

 

[Ryika]

OK. Let me substantiate it for you again. I'd like you to acknowledge you tried to 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".

What the hell are you on about? I did not "try to change the argument" from one thing to the other, I acknowledged that what I said was not correct (meaning that yes, passive inaction makes the problem become worse) and moved to a statement that I feel comfortable with. That's not some fallacy as you seem to think, it's me correcting myself because you correctly pointed at an error in my post.

I do not agree with your black-and-white view of the world, so I did not and will not adopt your stance, and I have no responsibility to do so either, my responsibility is to acknowledge that there was an error in what I wrote and move to a position that I think is more reasonable - which is exactly what I did, and that's where the story ends.

If you don't want to differentiate between "doing a bad thing" and "not actively petitioning against a bad thing and therefor allowing it to grow", then that's your choice, I will make that distinction, and there's nothing you can do to make me forego that nuanced view in favor of your silly, simplistic concept of the world, plus, I have pointed out why that mindset does in my opinion not work in my last post which of course you ignored.

Also... the "I didn't call you a name, I called your argument a name" thing is pretty weak, old, tired, and frankly lame defense. Obviously I've heard that lame excuse before, but its usually from newbies. Most mature posters understand that if you're going to throw around insults and name-calling that you can't hide behind that meaningless distinction without a difference.

There is a saying in German about disassociating the person from their argument, it approximately translates into:

With enough practice, a stupid person can make an intelligent argument but will never understand its brilliance.
With enough conviction, an intelligent person can make a stupid argument and never come to understand its flaws.

 

[Kyriakos]

huh what now?

Partisan overload surely was among the biggest factors enabling Trump as potus. I don't think this is some point in contention.
Or are you contesting that the current state of partisanship is not by and large something built-in the system as it came to be, following also such charades as the Bill Clinton impeachment? (which i maintain did little damage to B.Clinton, but major damage re political tensions due to allowing for him to be presented as some martyr).

 

[Sommerswerd]

What the hell are you on about? I did not "try to change the argument" from one thing to the other, I acknowledged that what I said was not correct (meaning that yes, passive inaction makes the problem become worse) and moved to a statement that I feel comfortable with. That's not some fallacy as you seem to think, it's me correcting myself because you correctly pointed at an error in my post ... my responsibility is to acknowledge that there was an error in what I wrote and move to a position that I think is more reasonable - which is exactly what I did, and that's where the story ends.

That's exactly what I said you were doing. It's the same thing. I said ", you changed your argument because you realized you were wrong after I pointed it out to you." You then say "No I didn't, I acknowledged that I was incorrect (in other words realized you were wrong), because you correctly pointed at an error in my post (in other words pointed it out to you), so I moved to a position that I think is more reasonable (in other words changed your argument)" You don't see that this is just using different words to say the same thing? Whatevs, it seems like we are on the same page now and agree so that's great.

I do not agree with your black-and-white view of the world, so I did not and will not adopt your stance, and I have no responsibility to do so either, my responsibility is to acknowledge that there was an error in what I wrote and move to a position that I think is more reasonable - which is exactly what I did, and that's where the story ends.

If you don't want to differentiate between "doing a bad thing" and "not actively petitioning against a bad thing and therefor allowing it to grow", then that's your choice, I will make that distinction, and there's nothing you can do to make me forego that nuanced view in favor of your silly, simplistic concept of the world, plus, I have pointed out why that mindset does in my opinion not work in my last post which of course you ignored.

What you're missing here, is that I never disagreed with "the position you moved to" (ie your new argument). All I said was that your new position was irrelevant to the original point. You then tried to turn that into me disagreeing with your new position, which is strawmanning. So once again your claims about my "black-and-white view of the world" and "not wanting to differentiate between doing a bad thing and not actively petitioning against a bad thing" are all strawmen. I never took that position as I (and you) have observed its an absurd position. You just keep attributing it to me because you want to be right and me to be wrong about something. Again, I never took the position you are attributing to me.

There is a saying in German about disassociating the person from their argument, it approximately translates into:With enough practice, a stupid person can make an intelligent argument but will never understand its brilliance.
With enough conviction, an intelligent person can make a stupid argument and never come to understand its flaws.

Ironic.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think it's safe to assume that if someone says "you didn't answer the question" to you, then it means they wanted you to answer the question.

Ordinarily I'd agree, but note that there were multiple questions asked and I specifically stated that I want to know if the last question was directed at me before responding to any of the others. The reason I am asking is because I posted Post #83 in response to you, and Post#84 was made right after that asking the exact same question that I am zeroing in on. Since the post was right after mine, and the question was literally right under my comment but didn't quote anyone else, I assumed that it might be directed at me... But given the nature of the question and what is going to follow from my response, I wanted to be absolutely sure that the question was directed at me (and my family) personally, rather than being made in some abstract, rhetorical way. If its rhetorical then I'm declining to respond...again, given the nature of the question. When I asked in Post #85 whether the question was specifically directed at me, I was told "no" in Post #87. So I let it go. But now it seems like I'm being asked the question again, so again, I want to be sure.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Is there some weird temporal anomaly on this thread? It didn't look like this the last time I looked...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Is there some weird temporal anomaly on this thread? It didn't look like this the last time I looked...

No no, its not you, its me. I deleted the last one and reposted with more explanatory wording. My bad for the confusion.

 

[Ryika]

That's exactly what I said you were doing. It's the same thing. I said ", you changed your argument because you realized you were wrong after I pointed it out to you." You then say "No I didn't, I acknowledged that I was incorrect (in other words realized you were wrong), because you correctly pointed at an error in my post (in other words pointed it out to you), so I moved to a position that I think is more reasonable (in other words changed your argument)" You don't see that this is just using different words to say the same thing? Whatevs, it seems like we are on the same page now and agree so that's great.

I acknowledged that you have a point here already...

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

...to which you responded with...

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.

...which to me clearly sounded like you're missing the distinction between active and passive I was making there, which is why I then explained to you the distinction I'm drawing...

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.

...and after you had then responded with...

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.

...I explained a second time why I draw the distinction...

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.

...but you said it's irrelevant...

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.

...which is why I then came to the conclusion that this is your position...

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.

...which apparently it isn't, because in reality...

What you're missing here, is that I never disagreed with "the position you moved to" (ie your new argument). All I said was that your new position was irrelevant to the original point. You then tried to turn that into me disagreeing with your new position, which is strawmanning. So once again your claims about my "black-and-white view of the world" and "not wanting to differentiate between doing a bad thing and not actively petitioning against a bad thing" are all strawmen. I never took that position as I (and you) have observed its an absurd position. You just keep attributing it to me because you want to be right and me to be wrong about something. Again, I never took the position you are attributing to me.

...you were just petty and barraged me the whole time because in reality you wanted me to tell you more directly that you were correct in correcting me? This whole back and forth was not you disagreeing with my new position but instead just a big "Hey, hey! Hey, please acknowledge more clearly that you were wrong! I didn't actually hear you say it!"?

That might have been the most petty, idiotic, worthless and meaningless discussion I have ever had then.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

I didn't quote you the first time, it was just a general comment followed by the people I was quoting. This time I did quote you, so yes, the questions were directed at your specific comments.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I acknowledged that you have a point here already... you were just petty and barraged me the whole time because in reality you wanted me to tell you more directly that you were correct in correcting me? This whole back and forth was not you disagreeing with my new position but instead just a big "Hey, hey! Hey, please acknowledge more clearly that you were wrong! I didn't actually hear you say it!"?That might have been the most petty, idiotic, worthless and meaningless discussion I have ever had then.

That's sad actually, because my takeaway from this has been that we thought that we disagreed about a bunch of things... talked about it, and came to the conclusion that we actually agree about alot. Most of the latter part of our discussion has been me trying to get you to realize/acknowledge that I wasn't making the argument that you were accusing me of making. So I don't consider the discussion "petty, idiotic, worthless and meaningless" at all. I regarded it as finding common ground. Also, when you were mistaken about the argument I was making, and you thought we were disagreeing, you called that "idiotic"... but now when you realize that we weren't disagreeing, and are actually in agreement you find that "idiotic" as well? It sounds like you're just looking for a reason to use insults. Anyway, we seem to have that straight so lets move on to what you talk about... active/passive.

The first thing I want to point out, is that my position, "Denying the existence of a problem makes it worse" and your new position "Actively raping is worse than passively refusing to advocate" seem to be things that we agree on, so hopefully we don't go back to accusing each other of not agreeing to those things. So now, putting that comparison aside... do you see that actively denying that a problem exists, is different from passively refusing to advocate?

I didn't quote you the first time, it was just a general comment followed by the people I was quoting. This time I did quote you, so yes, the questions were directed at your specific comments.

OK. I have a wife and daughter. Do you have a wife and daughter? Let's start there.

 

[Ryika]

That's sad actually, because my takeaway from this has been that we thought that we disagreed about a bunch of things... talked about it, and came to the conclusion that we actually agree about alot. Most of the latter part of our discussion has been me trying to get you to realize/acknowledge that I wasn't making the argument that you were accusing me of making. So I don't consider the discussion "petty, idiotic, worthless and meaningless" at all. I regarded it as finding common ground. Also, when you were mistaken about the argument I was making, and you thought we were disagreeing, you called that "idiotic"... but now when you realize that we weren't disagreeing, and are actually in agreement you find that "idiotic" as well? It sounds like you're just looking for a reason to use insults. Anyway, we seem to have that straight so lets move on to what you talk about... active/passive.

It's entirely meaningless, because we have agreed on that the whole time. From the point that I corrected my statement, nothing of value was said.

The first thing I want to point out, is that my position, "Denying the existence of a problem makes it worse" and your new position "Actively raping is worse than passively refusing to advocate" seem to be things that we agree on, so hopefully we don't go back to accusing each other of not agreeing to those things. So now... do you see that actively denying that a problem exists, is different from passively refusing to advocate?

To clear that up first: The way you use active/passive here is different from how I used it. I used active in the sense that they're the ones doing bad things to other people in contrast to people who do not do bad things to other people, you're using it to differentiate between not caring about the issue, and thinking that it's not an issue. I differentiated between actions, you differentiate between opinions.

In that context, they're different in that both positions go hand in hand with different likelihoods for other actions. If a person sees what happens in Hollywood and in his head goes like "There is no problem, those are natural gender dynamics." (which they are, but natural <> good) and that's all he does, then no, there is no difference between the two. Even if he talks to his friends and goes like "Look at those power-hungry, young sluts cuddling up to those powerful men in hopes of getting something out of it. But now that they didn't get what they want they start complaining? Yeah, sure!" and his friends cheer and applaud for that.. even that makes no difference, unless one of them then absorbs that attitude and starts to treat the women in his vicinity like that.

Likewise, if a person who is passively refusing to advocate but acknowledges the problem, they're more likely to act in favor of possible victims in their vicinity.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's entirely meaningless, because we have agreed on that the whole time. From the point that I corrected my statement, nothing of value was said.

We disagree on that point, because it wasn't completely clear to either of us that we were in agreement, with respect to what was argued, and our positions on it. The fact that we were able to figure that out has value to me, even if it does not have value to you.

To clear that up first: The way you use active/passive here is different from how I used it. I used active in the sense that they're the ones doing bad things to other people in contrast to people who do not do bad things to other people, you're using it to differentiate between not caring about the issue, and thinking that it's not an issue. I differentiated between actions, you differentiate between opinions.

Yes you are partly correct. What I mean is that I agree that we were using active/passive in different contexts (which is what caused the latter portion of the argument). However I don't agree that you're differentiating between actions, while I'm differentiating between opinions. Expressing your opinion to others is action. It might not be violent action in the way that rape is, or the way that burning a car is, or dramatic expressive action to the level that chaining yourself to the pillar of a building is, but talking, writing, typing on the internets... its all action.

So going on TV (or the internets) and saying "These women are and their claims are bollocks! There's no problem at all!" is different from just keeping silent. There is also your subjective opinion, ie whether you believe, support etc the women or not, but that is a separate thing from whether you choose to verbalize your opinion.

 

[Berzerker]

OK. I have a wife and daughter. Do you have a wife and daughter? Let's start there.

You didn't answer the questions but you want me to answer yours instead? Lets start with mine.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You didn't answer the questions but you want me to answer yours instead? Lets start with mine.

Do you imagine that an imaginary wife and daughter are equivalent to an actual wife and daughter? If not, then I already answered one of your implied questions, which was "Do you have a wife and daughter?" The whole question you asked was based on an assumptive yes answer to the first part. You cant expect a person to answer realistically about a hypothetical about a wife and daughter that they don't have. So I already answered one of your questions. Now answer mine. Or don't... in which case I let it go.

Conversely if, instead you imagine that an imaginary wife and daughter are equivalent to an actual wife and daughter. Then I decline to answer any of your questions... and again, let it go.

 

[Berzerker]

You answered a meaningless question I didn't even ask and ignored these questions. Why praise the ones (rape victims) who spoke up? Can they criticize others who took hush money instead thereby allowing the(ir) rapist to continue unabated (for decades)? 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?

Al Franken has joined the list of molesters now

 

[Senethro]

Berz this is getting uncomfortable to watch. Why are you so invested in this? Do you think it should be a punishable crime or what?

Why are you looking at a powerful perpetrator and a less powerful victim and getting really hopping mad about the victims role?

 

[Berzerker]

Watching people enable rapists is not uncomfortable? Maybe you'd think about it differently if your loved one was raped by a criminal who spent decades avoiding justice by paying people hush money. I cant believe you guys, y'all accuse "society" of enabling rapists while justifying the hush money that enables rapists.

I already answered your 2nd question and the first is obvious, the lack of investment allowed Weintein to rape women long after he should have been jailed or worse - yeah, that makes me mad. As for the 3rd, criminals are typically more powerful than their victims. Hey, everyone should just take money to keep quiet. To hell with all the future victims! Watching you guys is more than uncomfortable.

 

[innonimatu]

Man, I cant believe how many movies I wont be able to watch any more without thinking about these pervs

The whole thing has been rather... amusing.
/cynical me

The constant flow of new allegations is such that things risk eventually turning into a witch hunt, and then sliding over into passivity again. Which forces me to agree that those who say that victims should have spoken up are right: they should. I can understand why they didn't, and abstain from criticizing them individually for bad decisions under likely though conditions (most of them, probably).

But as a social ideal, as a rule for decent human behavior, yes victims should speak up. Even if it costs them. To put their material comfort (fear of retaliation) over and above the common good is selfish at the least. It is the sum of all the "small" individual selfish most of us do and tolerate, that produces the kind of "f-you, i've got mine" society we complain about living under today. Morally, I have no doubt that it is wrong. That this kind of action, remaining silent in the face of crime or abuse, is something to be ashamed of. And perhaps something people need to be shamed about, for things to improve.

But, @Berzerker, of course, we all fail at standing up for common good in many ways, do we not? Saints are a very rare breed... For an example, how can the population of a city live with seeing homeless people drifting about every day without restructuring society to put an end to the conditions that created them? How can people tolerate things such as the "opiods epidemic" you probably heard about, all the suffering it caused, without demanding immediate action to put away the medics that prescribed them , the pharma executives and workers that produced and distributed them knowing filly well the damage they were creating, all for the sake of their own personal profit?
Hush money, and selfishness. I'd hazard saying that the takers of such money acted as they were "expected", trained to act. The clean-up that must be done necessarily starts with questioning the legitimacy of personal profit versus the common good. So yes, those who have been saying that "society" is to blame have a point, though they fail in not being specific. The point is that this present society deems profit virtuous enough to justify causing a lot of harm to get it.

 

[Berzerker]

But, @Berzerker, of course, we all fail at standing up for common good in many ways, do we not? Saints are a very rare breed... For an example, how can the population of a city live with seeing homeless people drifting about every day without restructuring society to put an end to the conditions that created them? How can people tolerate things such as the "opiods epidemic" you probably heard about, all the suffering it caused, without demanding immediate action to put away the medics that prescribed them , the pharma executives and workers that produced and distributed them knowing filly well the damage they were creating, all for the sake of their own personal profit? Hush money, and selfishness. I'd hazard saying that the takers of such money acted as they were "expected", trained to act. The clean-up that must be done necessarily starts with questioning the legitimacy of personal profit versus the common good. So yes, those who have been saying that "society" is to blame have a point, though they fail in not being specific. The point is that this present society deems profit virtuous enough to justify causing a lot of harm to get it.

Indeed, I cant throw stones without breaking my own windows... I have my sins too. I hope to have changed my evil ways, but not nearly as much as I'd like. If I saw a Mafia hit I'd be scared to death of speaking up. Not just for myself but for my family and friends. But I'd like to think I'd turn down hush money, not that my continued silence is acceptable with or without a financial incentive to keep quiet, but fear seems a more valid motivator than cash.

I found Rose McGowan's comment about taking millions being downright disgusting but 100k was worth 20 years of her silence bizarre. And the saints would be more likely to forgive the criminal - you cant speak up if you forgive them (remember Reginald Denny?), I think Jesus was crucified next to a murderer and he was accepting of him. Hell, Paul was running around murdering his followers.