West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
Defending people from what jess phillips and the feminist press have pulled here is fine, because the target doesn't matter. What matters is the perpetrators and their behavior is not good for society no matter who their victim is. You'd think that would be obvious, but apparently not.
Uhh... the way I see it, the target does matter. Even from a practical standpoint, if they go after someone already unpopular, defending them only lowers the chance other people will listen to you. I recommend calling them out when they target decent people.
I do then as well. Frankly the notion i'd pass up the opportunity is absurd.
Caracasus wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
He doesn't think it's funny to hurt people. That's a bad faith representation of what's going on. Jess phillips on the other hand, laughing when she derails mens issues being discussed in parliament, IS her finding it funny to hurt people. She also thinks it's brave and admirable to hurt people if her interaction with Layla is anything to go by.
So long as those people are men ofcourse.
Carl on the other hand finds a joke funny (or more accurately, finds laughing at the media and jess phillips' reaction to the joke funny because of what it says about how they process information, and their total lack of self-awareness. This is because he has a better and more optimistic view of them than I do, and assumes they lack self-awareness, rather than being actively malicious.). You being unable to separate reality from fiction is not a good look for you. See, if you find war films entertaining, it doesn't mean you are a violent psychopath who enjoys the suffering of others.
You get that, right? Apparently not, if we assume you are being serious and not merely acting in bad faith.
But those are the only options, and neither speak well for you being involved in political discussions.
Is there something else that could explain it? Or will this be some other disconnected nonsense attacking your critics rather than taking a moment to self-reflect?
I am pretty sure I remember quite a while ago now you made a point that stuck with me about the whole 'you're gonna get raped in prison' jokes that are prevalent when criminals get sentenced and how deeply unfunny that was and how it normalized something that should be taken very seriously.
It is a real shame to see you now turn around and justify a rape joke because it was made against someone you don't like.
Prisoners do not have power to enact legislation that would lead to recognition of rape for the issue it is, and then use that power to continue the status quo while suppressing criticism of that action through accusing critics of supporting rape in an act of DARVO. It is solely within the context of Jess Phillips being an MP and Carl protesting her behavior over mens issues that I find this acceptable. I don't agree with people doing property damage ordinarily either, but sometimes, when protesting, it is justifiable.
Given also that Carl has been fairly explicit about his reasoning, I don't actually see any problem here.
Intent, target, commentary, and impact are all different from the scenario you lay out.
The only similarity is the tool used.
Your level of essentialism here is similar to up and deciding we cannot depict Swastikas in textbooks because Nazi symbolism, or deciding that hammers are bad because you can use them to bash someones head in.
I do not object to rape jokes as a tool, I object to the circumstances of their use. It is the consequences of an action that make it bad, not anything else. I also have the good sense not to take the side of the politician who has done pretty much the same and worse to other people in this conflict.
It's like if someone called Trump stupid and suddenly everyone was outraged and badgering the opposition over how insults are not okay and its mean and we should be ashamed of ourselves because obviously being crass and rude and insulting is not acceptable. The hypocrisy can only be ignored for so long.