o_O.Q said:
" Like I said, I agree about your point, I just think it's your tone that's the problem. The only solution to the harassment problem I've heard coming from you so far is victims defending themselves more effectively, but you've pretty much completely ignored the offenders " 1. we already have laws in place to punish offenders after an incident has occurred... so i'm just going to draw the assumption that your "solution" primarily involves education and as i've said previously people disregard their education routinely to commit selfish acts but let me not go too far with assuming but i'm curious... how exactly would this education work out? do you like gather all college age men together and sit them down and explain to them that they shouldn't go groping women without verbal consent? i'm just curious about how this would work out
"Let me hear what my strawmans are if you can" 2. here are a couple: "" Your point is blatantly incorrect. If we didn't even try to fight crime"" "that you either have only one solution that puts all responsibility on the victims"
"and in fact shown some understanding towards them." 3. lol... well yeah i try to come at situations trying to be understanding no matter what the context is - that could be for a rapist, a murderer etc etc etc... because if you want to find a solution to a problem they cause you need to understand their perspective... furthermore the potential to become those things also resides in you and me, i think a lot of people when confronted with these issues forget that last point because they are generally as they say looking for a chance to virtue signal, they don't really have the intent to understand or solve a problem, its simply an opportunity to get on a high horse and claim moral high ground i mean i totally get why somebody would want to do that since you get the validation of others and all of that... but it doesn't actually solve problems
"Anyway, your warning about going over-the-top with control seem, quite frankly, over-the-top to me. I don't think there's need to come up with any heavy restrictions here, and you haven't said so either, so why do you keep coming up with the idea about too much control and oppressive regimes?" 4. yes i said that i personally don't see the need to apply measures that are too restrictive, but then again i'm not so stupid or dishonest to push the idea that harassment is something that can be stopped entirely, i also understand the importance of personal responsibility for safety... which now is being thrown aside as victim blaming the main people agitating for change on issues like this dismiss both ideas and are actively trying to push for a utopia... and i've spoken to some of these people on this very site, to whom, for example, the idea that we can't really guarantee a completely safe society is intolerable and if you aren't seeing examples of what i just described then i'd say you need to open your eyes
" The wild West was a wonderful thing, no? How about survival of the fittest? Ah, the pillars of civilization, everyone fighting for themself." 5. civilisation can be considered on both an individual and social level on the social level we have laws to punish wrong doings and on the individual level we have the ability to take precautions and actions to secure ourselves i would think it should be obvious that you want to cover both bases since everything cannot be solved at the social level - you don't hire a live-in dentist to brush your teeth for example
"but really any intervention is going to be helpful." 6. i agree, but i'd say that generally most people do intervene when they see a woman in danger
"that you either have only one solution that puts all responsibility on the victims" 7. wow... did you not read where i talked about the law? and how harassment is against the law? and i'm the one lacking reading comprehension? are you being serious right now?
"I'd love to hear the other solutions if you have any and be proven wrong about that suspicion." 8. i don't have any other solutions - to me its a combination of outlawing harmful behavior and individuals taking precautions to make themselves safer... neither solution (social and individual) is perfect and that is because we live in an imperfect world your other suggested solution is to train people to not be selfish... and you think that's a viable solution |
1. Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, we have laws to deal with the offenders, but they're not getting caught and if they are, people stay silent about it. Thus, we need to raise awareness and educate people about the issue. I think I've already stated why I think it helps (several times, possibly) so I'm not going to repeat myself. Besides, awareness and education never hurt. There might be more effective ways as well, but I can't come up with any off the top of my head. I think it's more of a cultural issue anyway, so talking about it should help.
In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't talking about literal education in the sense that you might usually think about education. It's impossible to gather everyone for harassment education, but talking about the situation should also help a lot. Talk about what's acceptable, and don't ignore any wrongdoings. Talk about experiences. Talk about anything related and spread the word when there's a place for it.
2. "Your point is blatantly incorrect. If we didn't even try to fight crime": I don't understand why you think this is a strawman. I said we've largely managed to eliminate problems related to selfishness, to which you responded that crime and oppression do exist. My interpretation is that you refuted my claim that we've largely eliminated said problems because crime and oppression do exist. I still think that's a blatantly incorrect statement. We can largely eliminate a problem, but parts of it might still remain. My remark about not fighting crime was to point out that fighting crime is effective because you seemed to ignore the fact that there is less crime that there would be if we didn't try to fight it.
"that you either have only one solution that puts all responsibility on the victims": You conveniently cut out the part where I provided an alternative (you can even see it from the word 'either' in the quoted part). I believe I can make a strawman out of anything by cutting stuff out of context. Want me to find some strawmans from your posts using this innovative cutting method? Or perhaps you'd prefer some other argumentation errors instead? With proper cutting and taking things out of context, you can convey a completely opposite message, and it's a commonly used tactic.
3. I knew you would hinge onto this minor detail. You ignored the whole point of that paragraph and focused on one minor detail that bears no importance on its own. Yes, you can and you should understand the offenders. My remark was to provide context as to why I think your tone is not helpful. Have you ever considered why pedophiles do what they do? I have, and it's really sad - and not only from the victims' perspective. I'd say that's a pretty good example of me trying to understand different perspectives.
Also, I'm not looking for validation. There's no validation for defending the wronged on this site. I'd go to ResetEra or something like that if I wanted validation for this stuff, but their closed-mindedness is exactly the reason why I don't entirely feel at home there either. This was yet another misinterpretation of my motives from you.
4. Well, I don't think it can be stopped completely either. I also said I understand your point about victims defending themselves, and I even said I agree about it. I don't know why you still think you have to keep telling me this. I'm not in the typical feminist-SJW camp or whatever you want to call it, and I'll never be there unless that camp changes despite me sharing many of their objectives. I'm in my own camp, trying to make sense of things and be reasonable. You open your eyes and start reading my posts and not assuming anything about my motives.
Also, I still don't understand why you think heavy restrictions and oppressive regimes have anything to do with preventing sexual harassment in practice, at least in our conversation. I don't think I've given a single reason (even a far-fetched one) to bring them in this discussion.
5. You're still dancing around the whole oppressive regimes theme, I think. And you still haven't explained why you fear fighting harassment on a social level would require anything that could cause problems.
6. Judging by what I've read, this is not the case - which is a huge part of the problem. Of course many people do intervene, but it sounds like it's too common to ignore harassment, for one reason or another. Increasing intervention rates ought to be an effective way to fight harassment, and it shouldn't require any hard measures to pull off. I imagine education and raising awareness are the main keys to increasing intervention rates.
7. Like you said: the laws are already there. I thought it was obvious I'm talking about improving the situation. Existing laws aren't going to change the situation. Or do you perhaps have in mind some new legislation that could improve the situation?
8. You're still talking about legislation and individual responsibility. You don't think it's possible to do anything that might help enough on a social level between legal and individual levels? Also, I haven't suggested we teach people to not be selfish - that's not going to happen. But education and raising awareness might help people remember how they should behave (both to act morally and to not risk getting caught by doing something illegal), it might help the victims in seeking justice, and it might help in intervention. There's probably other good sides too.
