What are the limits of "Slut shaming?"

[Vettrera]

Sorry, I wanted to merge it into an earlier post because I didn't want to clog the forums

Whether it's wrong or not isn't the point I'm making, we're all in agreement that it's wrong. I'm simply explaining that generalizations made based on small sample sizes are irrelevant and should not be counted as fact, and the only thing different about racial profiling is the fact that it has a tangible harm attatched to it. Look back to my Christian generalizations to see the problem. If he wants to make generalizations about Atheists, then I hope he sees the generalizations of Southern Baptists as fair and accurate. Except wait...he seemed to have a problem with generalizations (that weren't really generalizations) earlier in this thread

Yes, and no. I mean, there is a certain place in debate for lived experience and even anecedotal evidence, umm yeah, it may or may not be here.

I mean, after all stereotypes at the ones that endure the best often have a good degree of real world correlation. That said umm yeah it's tough to balance a discussion of personal expierience vs statistical reality.

I agree that anectdotal evidence is a good way at getting a point across, a good opener, a good attention grabber, and it definitely helps establish pathos (and in some cases ethos). The problem appears when people take this anecdote to be the "Be all End all" on the issue and act like it is the norm without further statistical evidence.

BUT TO LINK THIS BACK TO THE TOPIC.....
From what I see in the bible, misogyny is blatant and commonplace, and therefore I don't really see why several people in this thread that base their lives on Christian values see one of the main issues with porn is that is promotes misogyny.

Furthermore, there is no reason to generalize how people may perceive and respond to arguments made by those that value religion (though in my personal opinion, they are hypocritical or only work when we "hedge" on what does and what doesn't belong in the bible), especially in a harsh and demeaning tone that weakens the argument (i.e: "LIberals would call you anti-women for being against promiscuity in both gender" or "Atheists don't care about my arguments")

[ALMF]

All of my Christian friends except one, hate gays. Therefore I can extrapolate this data and assume that almost every Christian is a homophobe.
See the problem there? No. Ok, let's try this again.

All of the male Christians I know except one feel superior to females. Therefore, I should be able to deduce that Christians basically are all sexists.
Do you see the problem now?

It is not ideal that I think this way, however, in many ways, it is logical.

All of the liberals I know like whole foods,
That means that a good amount of liberals like Whole Foods.

The anarchists I know dress in black, a good amount of anarchists dress in black.

The people I know don't like punk rock, a good amount of people don't like punk rock.

The fish I see swim, a good amount of fish swim.

The atheists I know think Christianity is stupid, a good amount of atheists think that Christianity is stupid.

What's the problem with this thinking?
Nothing.

All the above reasoning is unexceptionable.

[Gaelic Celtia]

It is not ideal that I think this way, however, in many ways, it is logical.

All of the liberals I know like whole foods,
That means that a good amount of liberals like Whole Foods.

The anarchists I know dress in black, a good amount of anarchists dress in black.

The people I know don't like punk rock, a good amount of people don't like punk rock.

The fish I see swim, a good amount of fish swim.

The atheists I know think Christianity is stupid, a good amount of atheists think that Christianity is stupid.

What's the problem with this thinking?
Nothing.

All the above reasoning is unexceptionable.

That is undoubtedly the most horrendous and despicable "reasoning" I have ever laid eyes upon.


So by your logic most devout Christians I know or hear from are b igotted, hateful homophobes, therefore most to all christians are the same. Tell me, is this now true?

If you think you can overgeneralize and label an entire group of people based solely on your narrow personal expierience you are the most ignorant and arrogant being to ever walk the earth.

Here, ill leave this for you
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

[Llamalandia]

Yes, and no. I mean, there is a certain place in debate for lived experience and even anecedotal evidence, umm yeah, it may or may not be here.

I mean, after all stereotypes at the ones that endure the best often have a good degree of real world correlation. That said umm yeah it's tough to balance a discussion of personal expierience vs statistical reality.

I agree that anectdotal evidence is a good way at getting a point across, a good opener, a good attention grabber, and it definitely helps establish pathos (and in some cases ethos). The problem appears when people take this anecdote to be the "Be all End all" on the issue and act like it is the norm without further statistical evidence.

BUT TO LINK THIS BACK TO THE TOPIC.....
From what I see in the bible, misogyny is blatant and commonplace, and therefore I don't really see why several people in this thread that base their lives on Christian values see one of the main issues with porn is that is promotes misogyny.

Furthermore, there is no reason to generalize how people may perceive and respond to arguments made by those that value religion (though in my personal opinion, they are hypocritical or only work when we "hedge" on what does and what doesn't belong in the bible), especially in a harsh and demeaning tone that weakens the argument (i.e: "LIberals would call you anti-women for being against promiscuity in both gender" or "Atheists don't care about my arguments")

Yes, this is somewhat expected when one begins discussing religion, I mean, sure did God basically genocide the world with the flood? Sure. He also did a crap ton of good stuff too though, plus there's the whole eternal afterlife thing he offers which is a pretty good deal.

But yeah, so the bible and promiscuity, hmm, yeah, depends I mean, certainly there's a double standard in it favoring dudes, however, don't forget Mary Magdalen the prostitute redeemed by Jesus.

The reality is the bible isn't and never was meant to be a literal and completely internally moral law code, or narrative. It's meant to be open to various forms of interpretation and people can have good faith disagreements on things that are largely a matter of well...faith.

[Gaelic Celtia]

It is not ideal that I think this way, however, in many ways, it is logical.

All of the liberals I know like whole foods,
That means that a good amount of liberals like Whole Foods.

The anarchists I know dress in black, a good amount of anarchists dress in black.

The people I know don't like punk rock, a good amount of people don't like punk rock.

The fish I see swim, a good amount of fish swim.

The atheists I know think Christianity is stupid, a good amount of atheists think that Christianity is stupid.

What's the problem with this thinking?
Nothing.

All the above reasoning is unexceptionable.

Also tell me if this is true;

The WbC are a hateful organisation

Thw WBC are Christian.

Therefore, all Christianity is a hateful organization.

Is using examples pertaining to you starting to clear things up?

[Grenartia]

Well, people need to know societies boundaries. However, bullying is not the answer. We should educate people on how and, most importantly, why, to make moral choices.

Remind me again, why is it a "boundary"? And how exactly, is it 'immoral'?

[Grenartia]

How? I'm against promiscuity of both genders, equally.

"Slut" is a gendered term. It refers predominantly to women, who have been vastly disproportionately shamed for sexual behavior, compared to men.

You can't really use it in a non-sexist way any more than I can use "kike" or "chink" in a non-racist way.

Well, to be honest, you can use "chink" non-racistly. A chink in somebody's armor does not refer to a Chinese person wearing the armor.

[Grenartia]

Not necessarily.



Huh. Weird.



So, you can remember my religion, but not my pronouns.

Sowwy

Its ok.

The limits of 'slut shaming' is if they break an actual law, including harassment.

I'm one for sexual freedom but I would never restrict those assholes ability to spout hate. This is because if we did, it would also hinder our rights to freedom of speech.

I'm in favor of social, not legal, consequences for slut shaming.

Sure, someone may be free to call someone else a slut. But the rest of us are free to call the person doing the slut-shaming a sexist shithead.

Exactly.

Y'know, I've always been confused as to how a Holy Book gives others the right to publicly and privately degrade individuals who are a) not hurting anyone and b) utilizing their right to bodily autonomy in the ways they see fit.

While said Holy Book has some pretty good advice every now and then, I don't think that advice includes being an ass to others.

Someone likes to hit nails on the head, dear mad'am. I think that someone is you.

Indeed. Methinks Blassy is a carpenter.

It is not ideal that I think this way, however, in many ways, it is logical.

All of the liberals I know like whole foods,
That means that a good amount of liberals like Whole Foods.

The anarchists I know dress in black, a good amount of anarchists dress in black.

The people I know don't like punk rock, a good amount of people don't like punk rock.

The fish I see swim, a good amount of fish swim.

The atheists I know think Christianity is stupid, a good amount of atheists think that Christianity is stupid.

What's the problem with this thinking?
Nothing.

The blacks I know commit crime. Let's stop Vettrera for no reason other than that he has a suspicious pigment.

All the groups of blacks I know are gangs. Therefore, all groups of blacks are gangs. So lets shoot those two black guys crossing a bridge. They probably knocked off a convenience store or something.

(cookie goes to anybody who correctly guesses the incident I'm referring to.)

[Sefard]

There are no limits.

[The Batorys]

There are no limits.

Lolwut?

[Sefard]

There are no limits.

Lolwut?

It's just words. There is really no problem.

[Grenartia]

There are no limits.

No limits to slut shaming?

Fuck that shit. In the rectal cavity. Thoroughly. With a rusty, acid-lubed cactus.

[Sefard]

There are no limits.

No limits to slut shaming?

Fuck that shit. In the rectal cavity. Thoroughly. With a rusty, acid-lubed cactus.

We found a limit.

[Grenartia]

Lolwut?

It's just words. There is really no problem.

Except words have meaning, and especially when used in this context, can negatively affect those who they're directed at. Which is a form of harrassment.

[Sefard]

It's just words. There is really no problem.

Except words have meaning, and especially when used in this context, can negatively affect those who they're directed at. Which is a form of harrassment.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

Really, if you cannot discount words than you need to work on yourself at a personal level.

[Threlizdun]

Except words have meaning, and especially when used in this context, can negatively affect those who they're directed at. Which is a form of harrassment.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

Really, if you cannot discount words than you need to work on yourself at a personal level.

This thread is about someone who fucking killed herself because of slut shaming. No, that old adage is bullshit. Emotional abuse is absolutely still abuse. If you fail to understand this, then it is you that need to work on yourself at a personal level.

[Grenartia]

Except words have meaning, and especially when used in this context, can negatively affect those who they're directed at. Which is a form of harrassment.

1. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

2. Really, if you cannot discount words than you need to work on yourself at a personal level.

1. Incorrect and meaningless drivel.

2. Or, how about this: If you feel the need to harrass somebody with words in the first place, its you who should work on yourself at a personal level, and not your victims.

[Sefard]

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

Really, if you cannot discount words than you need to work on yourself at a personal level.

This thread is about someone who fucking killed herself because of slut shaming. No, that old adage is bullshit. Emotional abuse is absolutely still abuse. If you fail to understand this, then it is you that need to work on yourself at a personal level.

Eh no. Tis a shame she committed suicide dishonourably, but that is a choice only she made. No one forced her into it and no one convinced herself of it.

[Aquillus]

Except words have meaning, and especially when used in this context, can negatively affect those who they're directed at. Which is a form of harrassment.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

Really, if you cannot discount words than you need to work on yourself at a personal level.

Or, more simply, people can stop bullying others for no reason.

[Threlizdun]

This thread is about someone who fucking killed herself because of slut shaming. No, that old adage is bullshit. Emotional abuse is absolutely still abuse. If you fail to understand this, then it is you that need to work on yourself at a personal level.

Eh no. Tis a shame she committed suicide dishonourably, but that is a choice only she made. No one forced her into it and no one convinced herself of it.

Yes, the people who made her life a living hell absolutely convinced her of this. Jesus, she fucking died. What the hell is the matter with you?

[Sefard]

Eh no. Tis a shame she committed suicide dishonourably, but that is a choice only she made. No one forced her into it and no one convinced herself of it.

Yes, the people who made her life a living hell absolutely convinced her of this. Jesus, she fucking died. What the hell is the matter with you?

Nothing. People can go on all day with their nonsense. But at the end of the day, you have to decide to defend yourself or make the necessary changes to ensure your wellbeing rather than simply saying, "Well fuck it", and killing yourself.

That being said, when you go into society, there is a basic standard of decency individuals are expected to meet. There is a reason why people are shamed for their actions, and that reason is because more often than not, said behavior in question is not acceptable or healthy.

[Aquillus]

This thread is about someone who fucking killed herself because of slut shaming. No, that old adage is bullshit. Emotional abuse is absolutely still abuse. If you fail to understand this, then it is you that need to work on yourself at a personal level.

Eh no. Tis a shame she committed suicide dishonourably, but that is a choice only she made. No one forced her into it and no one convinced herself of it.

Why are you so adamant on blaming the victim, and not those who pushed her to doing what she did? Even if, some some reason, you think that the bullying had no bearing on her action, surely that does not condone bullying in the slightest?

[Sefard]

Eh no. Tis a shame she committed suicide dishonourably, but that is a choice only she made. No one forced her into it and no one convinced herself of it.

Why are you so adamant on blaming the victim, and not those who pushed her to doing what she did? Even if, some some reason, you think that the bullying had no bearing on her action, surely that does not condone bullying in the slightest?

I'm not blaming the victim for anything. She made a choice, and now she is dead. End of story there.

I agree bullying is unacceptable. However, it is more reasonable for people to defend themselves and stand up for themselves than it is to expect that people are suddenly stop bullying because of already hilarious and discounted people expect them or have movements and organizations to teach them to stop.

Ideally, no one bullies. Realistically, the bullying stops when you show you have confidence in yourself and no one is taking that from you. It stops only when you believe and show that you are stronger than their nonsense.

[Constantinopolis]

From what I see in the bible, misogyny is blatant and commonplace, and therefore I don't really see why several people in this thread that base their lives on Christian values see one of the main issues with porn is that is promotes misogyny.

Well, I haven't posted in this thread before (or read it, for that matter), but count me as one of those many Christians who oppose misogyny and find it to be one of the biggest problems with porn.

As for the Bible, I find its overall message to be one of universal equality and respect for all human beings. If you disagree - well, it is common for people to disagree about the overarching message of a book with over a thousand pages, hundreds of stories, dozens of authors, and multiple running themes. So we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

[The Batorys]

Except words have meaning, and especially when used in this context, can negatively affect those who they're directed at. Which is a form of harrassment.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

Really, if you cannot discount words than you need to work on yourself at a personal level.

Pretty much everybody knows that that saying is bullshit.

I don't think you are posting sincerely.