NationStates

Oh hey, it's one of those "gotcha" arguments that fails instantly upon any inspection.

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:'kay. I still say "dunno, don't really care to play the assumption game".

Well, let’s see what was done to address her concern:

“I was shaking with fear,’’ she said. “Literally, I remember thinking to myself, ‘What am I going to do?’” She said she reported the incident to Mr. Pelletier.

The campaign committee said that “the challenge of finding staffer housing is one that plagues every large campaign.” It said it knew of one instance that was brought to the attention of senior leaders, including Mr. Weaver, the campaign manager, and that both Mr. Weaver and the chief operating officer “ordered that staff never be housed in coed hotel rooms again.”

Huh, well the campaign addressed her concern by... explicitly making sure she was housed with strange women instead.

Wonder if she had the same problem again. The article doesn’t mention it.

To be exceedingly fair, the article may have had a bias that she didn't. Not probable, but possible.

Cekoviu wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, let’s see what was done to address her concern:



Huh, well the campaign addressed her concern by... explicitly making sure she was housed with strange women instead.

Wonder if she had the same problem again. The article doesn’t mention it.

To be exceedingly fair, the article may have had a bias that she didn't. Not probable, but possible.

Again, [X].

If this solution wasn’t to her satisfaction because strange women are not ok, she almost certainly would have cried foul when it was proposed.

Galloism wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:To be exceedingly fair, the article may have had a bias that she didn't. Not probable, but possible.

Again, [X].

If this solution wasn’t to her satisfaction because strange women are not ok, she almost certainly would have cried foul when it was proposed.

No, yeah, I definitely agree. It's just slightly possible that the article could have not mentioned that. Again, very unlikely and I think the simplest answer is, as usual, correct.

Neanderthaland wrote:Oh hey, it's one of those "gotcha" arguments that fails instantly upon any inspection.

Tbh, when you understand that failure to be sexist in favor of women and against men in our society is seen as equality, and equality is seen as sexism against women, a hell of a lot of the news makes more sense.

Cekoviu wrote:Oh my god, this OP is a disaster. Before even dissecting it, let's point out that you're picking out a very small portion of a quite long article

Because it's the portion I wanted to talk about. Hence the subjectline. The rest can be saved for another thread. Feel free to make it now if you like; I don't hold any copyright over the concept of NSG threads about portions of this article.

Cekoviu wrote:First of all, one woman is suddenly the entire Left^TM?

If this is considered more damaging to Bernie Sanders' campaign than its invoking is to all criticism of Bernie Sanders' campaign, then yeah, I'd say she speaks for a near majority, if not outright majority, of the left.

Cekoviu wrote:If anything, I'd argue that she's being very non-left with her behavior. Stereotyping a group of people because some of them did bad stuff and treating them differently from opposing groups is not pro-equality, it's the opposite (and not left-wing as a result).

The original definition of left-wing is "less traditional, in the context of the French parliament." Whether it is extendable beyond the French parliament is debatable, but it's certainly more objectively definable than the idea of who gets to say what counts as "equal" when you're comparing differing circumstances with differing causes and differing effects. Differing priorities alone render a matter of opinion which are worse.

Cekoviu wrote:Second of all, trans women are women and not men, not all trans women have penises and misandrist notions about men's potential for rape are rarely about their genitalia (with the only real proponents of this being themselves TERFs).

That still didn't answer what else, if anything else, it was about.

Cekoviu wrote:That's all fine and dandy (well actually, it's quite creepy and a significant violation of privacy, but whatever), but as she said, it was a "run-down house." They're not gonna have the budget for a bunch of security cameras anyway.

Security cameras are a 1-time investment. Maintenance; the thing that prevents it from being "run-down;" is ongoing.

And without these, how do you intend to deter sexual assaults between the sexes OR among the same sex? Or any other sort of crimes in shared bedrooms?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:First of all, one woman is suddenly the entire Left^TM?

If this is considered more damaging to Bernie Sanders' campaign than its invoking is to all criticism of Bernie Sanders' campaign, then yeah, I'd say she speaks for a near majority, if not outright majority, of the left.

What? That doesn't seem to follow.

Cekoviu wrote:If anything, I'd argue that she's being very non-left with her behavior. Stereotyping a group of people because some of them did bad stuff and treating them differently from opposing groups is not pro-equality, it's the opposite (and not left-wing as a result).

The original definition of left-wing is "less traditional, in the context of the French parliament." Whether it is extendable beyond the French parliament is debatable, but it's certainly more objectively definable than the idea of who gets to say what counts as "equal" when you're comparing differing circumstances with differing causes and differing effects. Differing priorities alone render a matter of opinion which are worse.

"Less traditional in the context of the French parliament" is either useless or highly subjective, actually. If you define it as the French parliament at the time of the revolution, it's no longer applicable. If it's defined as current, then its definition is at the whims of whoever is in charge or has been in charge the longest. There are a couple of different definitions of "left" and I tend to combine them for these purposes, such that a decreased support of hierarchy puts one further to the left. In this situation, it is very clear that the support for a social hierarchy is non-nil.

Cekoviu wrote:Second of all, trans women are women and not men, not all trans women have penises and misandrist notions about men's potential for rape are rarely about their genitalia (with the only real proponents of this being themselves TERFs).

That still didn't answer what else, if anything else, it was about.

Oh yeah, I forgot to write that. It's ime based on stereotypes from men who have sexually harassed/assaulted women, so it's perceived as a mental rather than physical condition. I won't deny that there's some factor of fear based on physical attributes by association, but from my observations, the general cause of this form of misandry is the former.

Cekoviu wrote:That's all fine and dandy (well actually, it's quite creepy and a significant violation of privacy, but whatever), but as she said, it was a "run-down house." They're not gonna have the budget for a bunch of security cameras anyway.

Security cameras are a 1-time investment. Maintenance; the thing that prevents it from being "run-down;" is ongoing.

And without these, how do you intend to deter sexual assaults between the sexes OR among the same sex? Or any other sort of crimes in shared bedrooms?

Usage of the penal system?

Cekoviu wrote:

And without these, how do you intend to deter sexual assaults between the sexes OR among the same sex? Or any other sort of crimes in shared bedrooms?

Usage of the penal system?

Heresy.

Cekoviu wrote:What? That doesn't seem to follow.

This is being used against Bernie Sanders in favour of Joe Biden. If concerns like hers were not reflective of the left, wouldn't they backfire on her, and in turn, on Joe Biden? What incentive would they have to vocalize them, then?

Cekoviu wrote:"Less traditional in the context of the French parliament" is either useless or highly subjective, actually. If you define it as the French parliament at the time of the revolution, it's no longer applicable. If it's defined as current, then its definition is at the whims of whoever is in charge or has been in charge the longest.

So you're saying the original definition is faulty, then. So with what legitimacy do we claim to use words other than to mean what they were literally invented to refer to?

Cekoviu wrote:There are a couple of different definitions of "left" and I tend to combine them for these purposes, such that a decreased support of hierarchy puts one further to the left. In this situation, it is very clear that the support for a social hierarchy is non-nil.

Having a President is a social hierarchy, let alone having an election to decide one. Having a campaign staff with anything resembling a chain of command is a social hierarchy. In fact, having a society is having a social hierarchy, as you have to obey the cop more than the cop has to obey you.

There is no such thing as a society without a social hierarchy, and therefore, your own imaginary definition is just as faulty.

Cekoviu wrote:Oh yeah, I forgot to write that. It's ime based on stereotypes from men who have sexually harassed/assaulted women, so it's perceived as a mental rather than physical condition.

Guilt by association, on its own, is arbitrary without cause and effect reasoning to tie it to. At least blaming the genitals or the hormones they release has more of that than guilt by association alone.

Cekoviu wrote:I won't deny that there's some factor of fear based on physical attributes by association, but from my observations, the general cause of this form of misandry is the former.

Your observations? Sure you don't mean your reasoning? Because experience and expertise aren't exactly verifiable on the Internet.

Cekoviu wrote:Usage of the penal system?

The USA throws rapists into prison where they'll be raped themselves. When they get out, no one wants to hire them, so they steal, and they end up back in prison where everyone knows they're rapists and they get raped again. If they kill their victims in a vain attempt to avoid punishment, they get executed. That's already a far more drastic response than most first-world countries, and it's proven woefully inadequate to make the USA any less of a cesspool of rape. We need something different.

Cekoviu wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Untrue. Certain characteristics would make such a fear more or less reasonable. It's more reasonable for an adult to be afraid of sleeping in the same room as adult strangers than child strangers. It's more reasonable for a small person to be afraid of sleeping in the same room as significantly larger strangers than the reverse. And so on.

Race, however, is not a reasonable criterion.

And why do you think gender is a reasonable means for determining people of whom you will be afraid?

Gender? No. Sex is a reasonable criterion for caution given obvious size differences. Sexual dimorphism is a bitch, you know?

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:'kay. I still say "dunno, don't really care to play the assumption game".

Well, let’s see what was done to address her concern:

“I was shaking with fear,’’ she said. “Literally, I remember thinking to myself, ‘What am I going to do?’” She said she reported the incident to Mr. Pelletier.

The campaign committee said that “the challenge of finding staffer housing is one that plagues every large campaign.” It said it knew of one instance that was brought to the attention of senior leaders, including Mr. Weaver, the campaign manager, and that both Mr. Weaver and the chief operating officer “ordered that staff never be housed in coed hotel rooms again.”

Huh, well the campaign addressed her concern by... explicitly making sure she was housed with strange women instead.

Wonder if she had the same problem again. The article doesn’t mention it.

Fair enough, I suppose. It still isn't unreasonable for a woman to be more comfortable sleeping around other women.

Scomagia wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, let’s see what was done to address her concern:



Huh, well the campaign addressed her concern by... explicitly making sure she was housed with strange women instead.

Wonder if she had the same problem again. The article doesn’t mention it.

Fair enough, I suppose. It still isn't unreasonable for a woman to be more comfortable sleeping around other women.

Why?

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Fair enough, I suppose. It still isn't unreasonable for a woman to be more comfortable sleeping around other women.

Why?

For the same reason that it makes sense for me to be uncomfortable sleeping in the same room as strangers who are much larger than I am. Presumably, these men weren't waifish and she wasn't an Amazon.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:What? That doesn't seem to follow.

This is being used against Bernie Sanders in favour of Joe Biden. If concerns like hers were not reflective of the left, wouldn't they backfire on her, and in turn, on Joe Biden? What incentive would they have to vocalize them, then?

They might be effective on the left even if they're not reflective of the left. It's a bit of a tightrope walk.

Cekoviu wrote:"Less traditional in the context of the French parliament" is either useless or highly subjective, actually. If you define it as the French parliament at the time of the revolution, it's no longer applicable. If it's defined as current, then its definition is at the whims of whoever is in charge or has been in charge the longest.

So you're saying the original definition is faulty, then. So with what legitimacy do we claim to use words other than to mean what they were literally invented to refer to?

It was perfectly fine for the time, but not relevant now. It's a bit like how "clicker question" used to mean (as one definition) a lecture question presented that would be answered with an independent remote device, but that's mostly deprecated and phones/laptops are now used to do that.

Cekoviu wrote:There are a couple of different definitions of "left" and I tend to combine them for these purposes, such that a decreased support of hierarchy puts one further to the left. In this situation, it is very clear that the support for a social hierarchy is non-nil.

Having a President is a social hierarchy, let alone having an election to decide one. Having a campaign staff with anything resembling a chain of command is a social hierarchy. In fact, having a society is having a social hierarchy, as you have to obey the cop more than the cop has to obey you.

There is no such thing as a society without a social hierarchy, and therefore, your own imaginary definition is just as faulty.

Anarchism, my dude. And either way, it's not all or nothing. There are differing degrees of support for hierarchy, and a lesser degree can absolutely place you further left.

Cekoviu wrote:Oh yeah, I forgot to write that. It's ime based on stereotypes from men who have sexually harassed/assaulted women, so it's perceived as a mental rather than physical condition.

Guilt by association, on its own, is arbitrary without cause and effect reasoning to tie it to. At least blaming the genitals or the hormones they release has more of that than guilt by association alone.

I never said I agreed with it.

Cekoviu wrote:I won't deny that there's some factor of fear based on physical attributes by association, but from my observations, the general cause of this form of misandry is the former.

Your observations? Sure you don't mean your reasoning? Because experience and expertise aren't exactly verifiable on the Internet.

I guess it's strictly reasoning based on my observations. I think most other people would probably see the same if they spent time within various feminist and progressive spaces.

Cekoviu wrote:Usage of the penal system?

The USA throws rapists into prison where they'll be raped themselves. When they get out, no one wants to hire them, so they steal, and they end up back in prison where everyone knows they're rapists and they get raped again. If they kill their victims in a vain attempt to avoid punishment, they get executed. That's already a far more drastic response than most first-world countries, and it's proven woefully inadequate to make the USA any less of a cesspool of rape. We need something different.

We absolutely need prison reform, and giving up on the penal system entirely as you seem to be doing is not the solution.

Scomagia wrote:

Galloism wrote:
Why?

For the same reason that it makes sense for me to be uncomfortable sleeping in the same room as strangers who are much larger than I am. Presumably, these men weren't waifish and she wasn't an Amazon.

So if your roommates with 6'3" black men, powerfully built, you would cry foul.

When the so called anti sexists say "we should teach men not to rape."

I'm sorry, is there something defective about me cause no one ever sat me down and taught me how to not rape, yet I've never sexually assaulted anyone. Or maybe it's cause most men aren't rapists you mysandrist losers! I see nothing wrong with men and women sharing a bedroom anymore than men and men sharing a room. I've had to share a room with a female other than my girlfriend before and guess what? She went to bed unraped and woke up unraped. I'm not a damn chimp, I can control myself and so can other men

Jesus, lots of people that didn't read the article linked on the first page there...

Either way, sad to see Bernie go all in on that. Not surprised about it, of course, but it's disheartening nonetheless. Oh well, here's hoping he never makes it to the white house. Shame too, some of his ideas I actually liked.

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:For the same reason that it makes sense for me to be uncomfortable sleeping in the same room as strangers who are much larger than I am. Presumably, these men weren't waifish and she wasn't an Amazon.

So if your roommates with 6'3" black men, powerfully built, you would cry foul.

Have actually had this be a thing for me before. Wasn't an issue at all

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:For the same reason that it makes sense for me to be uncomfortable sleeping in the same room as strangers who are much larger than I am. Presumably, these men weren't waifish and she wasn't an Amazon.

So if your roommates with 6'3" black men, powerfully built, you would cry foul.

Me personally? No. I'm not easily intimidated. I said it would make sense if I were, which it would. I could see someone being so intimidated and would not judge them for it provided their concern was not based on the race of their roommate. It makes sense to be uncomfortable sleeping around strangers who can easily physically dominate you. Similarly, it would make sense to be uncomfortable counting your cash around strangers who are much larger than you. I doubt you'd have an issue there, right?

Scomagia wrote:

Galloism wrote:So if your roommates with 6'3" black men, powerfully built, you would cry foul.

Me personally? No. I'm not easily intimidated. I said it would make sense if I were, which it would. I could see someone being so intimidated and would not judge them for it provided their concern was not based on the race of their roommate. It makes sense to be uncomfortable sleeping around strangers who can easily physically dominate you. Similarly, it would make sense to be uncomfortable counting your cash around strangers who are much larger than you. I doubt you'd have an issue there, right?

I’m not in the habit if counting cash around anyone, regardless of their relative size, gender, or race. Guns, knives, etc, all exist. Size means a lot less than anyone assumes.

Why are you willing to give a pass on judging gender, but not race?

We have no evidence regarding the relative size of these men vs her. They could be pillsbury doughboys.

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Me personally? No. I'm not easily intimidated. I said it would make sense if I were, which it would. I could see someone being so intimidated and would not judge them for it provided their concern was not based on the race of their roommate. It makes sense to be uncomfortable sleeping around strangers who can easily physically dominate you. Similarly, it would make sense to be uncomfortable counting your cash around strangers who are much larger than you. I doubt you'd have an issue there, right?

I’m not in the habit if counting cash around anyone, regardless of their relative size, gender, or race. Guns, knives, etc, all exist. Size means a lot less than anyone assumes.

Why are you willing to give a pass on judging gender, but not race?

We have no evidence regarding the relative size of these men vs her. They could be pillsbury doughboys.

Sex and gender are different, I'm told. We are talking about the former. And I'm not giving a pass on judging sex. I'm giving a pass to being concerned about being unconscious around people who are bigger than you. We don't know that her problem was that they were men rather than them simply being larger.

They may have been doughboys. What of it? The average fat man could absolutely brutalize the average fit woman in an altercation. Hell, it's not unlikely that a thin, unfit man could brutalize a fit woman who weighs a good deal more than him. There are very real sex differences in physical power.

Scomagia wrote:

Galloism wrote:I’m not in the habit if counting cash around anyone, regardless of their relative size, gender, or race. Guns, knives, etc, all exist. Size means a lot less than anyone assumes.

Why are you willing to give a pass on judging gender, but not race?

We have no evidence regarding the relative size of these men vs her. They could be pillsbury doughboys.

Sex and gender are different, I'm told. We are talking about the former. And I'm not giving a pass on judging sex. I'm giving a pass to being concerned about being unconscious around people who are bigger than you. We don't know that her problem was that they were men rather than them simply being larger.

They may have been doughboys. What of it? The average fat man could absolutely brutalize the average fit woman in an altercation. Hell, it's not unlikely that a thin, unfit man could brutalize a fit woman who weighs a good deal more than him. There are very real sex differences in physical power.

Sure. And black people have higher bone mass than white people on average, making them more suited for combat on average.

This isn’t done on a non sexist line, or they wouldn’t have remediated it by sexist means.

What a whiners those women in the Bernie Campaign.
The woman whose hair was "sexually fondled" should have said: I said it was ok to touch it, no groping is allowed. It messes up the hair.

And I really don't know why unknown men are scarier than unknown women. Why do we assume males are perverted? Why do we assume they have lesser impulse control?
The best way to address this problem is to communicate:

Hi guys, we will share a room tonight, but don't worry, you are save from me, I shall not hump your bones.

All will laugh, maybe some banter will ensue and the air will be cleared.

I know I am an exception. But as a person who can wrestle bulls / stallions into submission , human males are really quite harmless.
All children should have self defence classes in primary school, you learn to think about your posture and you will feel safer because you know what options you have.

Considering that one of the writers of that article has a massive anti-Bernie bias, I don't see any reason why I should trust her claims about his campaign.

Galloism wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Sex and gender are different, I'm told. We are talking about the former. And I'm not giving a pass on judging sex. I'm giving a pass to being concerned about being unconscious around people who are bigger than you. We don't know that her problem was that they were men rather than them simply being larger.

They may have been doughboys. What of it? The average fat man could absolutely brutalize the average fit woman in an altercation. Hell, it's not unlikely that a thin, unfit man could brutalize a fit woman who weighs a good deal more than him. There are very real sex differences in physical power.

Sure. And black people have higher bone mass than white people on average, making them more suited for combat on average.

This isn’t done on a non sexist line, or they wouldn’t have remediated it by sexist means.

I'll concede that it was likely sexist.