By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Man branded a pedophile because of where he sat.

HappySqurriel on 10 August 2012
sethnintendo said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

I have seen it reported that studies are asking women whether they have ever regretted a sexual encounter and counting that as "rape" to inflate the statistics; and studies that ask women whether they have ever feared physical violence from their partner and counting that as physical abuse to inflate the statistics. These abysmal studies are then picked up by feminist groups and used in marketing campaings to make insane claims like "50% of women are physically or sexually abused in their life"


If that is the case then I've been raped at least 5 times.

A rational, reasonable, person would agree but most feminist organizations wouldn't ...

A large portion of feminist ideology is remarkably disempowering to women and treats women as being without personal responsibility and not being substantially more accountable than a child. Of course they don't phrase it that way, but the underlying message is clearly there. As a man you're 100% accountable and personally responsible for the sexual encounter even if you're black-out drunk and she is sober.



Around the Network
MrBubbles on 10 August 2012

2 of my friends were sexually abused by women as children.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Kantor on 10 August 2012
Immortal said:
Kantor said:
Immortal said:
Wow... Slow day for news, huh?
Way to make mountains out of molehills. Can't believe anyone is taking this so seriously, xD. Being forced to change one's seat on your flight isn't exactly the worst thing to ever have happened, you know?

"Excuse me, sir, you can't sit there. We have a policy of not letting black people sit next to unaccompanied children"

Is it a problem now?


I totally saw this analogy coming, :P.

Anyway,  thanks to our brown skin, my family spends probably ten times as much time as most people at those immigration lines and whatnot. Is that wrong? No, of course not; it's averting risk. While I could feel very embarrassed that they are more or less implying, "look, brownie Arab terrorist" and we do often get looks from people behind us getting exasperated thanks to our processing taking so long, we rather have to deal with it. That's because, like it or not, I am far more likely to make the plane/country explode than white-skinned Mr. John Smith if you only consider my skin color, nationality and such.

I can't see how this is very different; it's widely-accepted (I dunno about accurate, but that doesn't matter) that men are more dangerous than women. Therefore, not letting men sit next to unaccompanied kids is fine. The man in question really needs to not take this so personally.

As for your question, I'd say the only thing wrong with that logic, if it can somehow be proved that black people are more likely to be dangerous than others, is that there's a long history of black people being unfairly treated as such and there is a hell lot more justification to take it personally and be offended.

Damn right it's wrong. It doesn't matter how many brown people are terrorists. It isn't fair to assume that you, as a presumably peaceful and law-abiding person, are a terrorist because of the colour of your skin. It's terrible that you've been conditioned to think that you're somehow more of a danger than any other innocent person, and it's exactly what happens with regards to gender issues as well. Men are taught that they are all violent and mindless sex addicts, so there is no indignation when something like this happens. I think it's heartening that he initially objected, but honestly I would have refused to move. If they tried to kick me off the plane, I would sue them from the ground. It wouldn't be acceptable if the genders were reversed, so it shouldn't be acceptable here.

And yes, it does matter that you're spouting a ridiculous stereotype. It is demonstrable that black people commit more crime than white people, just as men commit more crime than women. That does not make it okay to say "that person is black/male and therefore a threat".



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

HappySqurriel on 10 August 2012
MrBubbles said:
2 of my friends were sexually abused by women as children.


It isn't particularly uncommon, but methodologies on tracking sexual abuse of children are largely based on a system that assumes only men are abusers.



curl-6 on 10 August 2012
NotStan said:
Such a stupid policy is just unreal, making the judgement on a man just because of where his seat is, he's automatically assumed a possible paedophile.. I don't even.. This is just bullshit.

It's worse than that; he didn't choose his seat, they assumed he was a pedophile because he was male.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 10 August 2012
MrBubbles said:
2 of my friends were sexually abused by women as children.

My sister and I were forced to get naked and swim by a babysitter once in our pool.  I knew something wasn't right so I believe I was crying.  We told our mom and that was the last time she was our babysitter.



superchunk on 10 August 2012

psssht. I would have been, "ummm, silly, but whatever". I don't see why he should be embarrassed. It was their stupid rule, not that he did anything.



Runa216 on 10 August 2012

I once got called a pedophile because I bought the movie Rio....true story.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 on 10 August 2012
Kantor said:
Immortal said:
Kantor said:
Immortal said:
Wow... Slow day for news, huh?
Way to make mountains out of molehills. Can't believe anyone is taking this so seriously, xD. Being forced to change one's seat on your flight isn't exactly the worst thing to ever have happened, you know?

"Excuse me, sir, you can't sit there. We have a policy of not letting black people sit next to unaccompanied children"

Is it a problem now?


I totally saw this analogy coming, :P.

Anyway,  thanks to our brown skin, my family spends probably ten times as much time as most people at those immigration lines and whatnot. Is that wrong? No, of course not; it's averting risk. While I could feel very embarrassed that they are more or less implying, "look, brownie Arab terrorist" and we do often get looks from people behind us getting exasperated thanks to our processing taking so long, we rather have to deal with it. That's because, like it or not, I am far more likely to make the plane/country explode than white-skinned Mr. John Smith if you only consider my skin color, nationality and such.

I can't see how this is very different; it's widely-accepted (I dunno about accurate, but that doesn't matter) that men are more dangerous than women. Therefore, not letting men sit next to unaccompanied kids is fine. The man in question really needs to not take this so personally.

As for your question, I'd say the only thing wrong with that logic, if it can somehow be proved that black people are more likely to be dangerous than others, is that there's a long history of black people being unfairly treated as such and there is a hell lot more justification to take it personally and be offended.

Damn right it's wrong. It doesn't matter how many brown people are terrorists. It isn't fair to assume that you, as a presumably peaceful and law-abiding person, are a terrorist because of the colour of your skin. It's terrible that you've been conditioned to think that you're somehow more of a danger than any other innocent person, and it's exactly what happens with regards to gender issues as well. Men are taught that they are all violent and mindless sex addicts, so there is no indignation when something like this happens. I think it's heartening that he initially objected, but honestly I would have refused to move. If they tried to kick me off the plane, I would sue them from the ground. It wouldn't be acceptable if the genders were reversed, so it shouldn't be acceptable here.

And yes, it does matter that you're spouting a ridiculous stereotype. It is demonstrable that black people commit more crime than white people, just as men commit more crime than women. That does not make it okay to say "that person is black/male and therefore a threat".

You know, to be fair I think the rest of the world should be wary of blonde haired, blue-eyed caucasians...I mean, we DID actively try to wipe out all jews, blacks, and 'undesirables' back in the 1930's and 1940's.  Logically speaking, White man are the ones the rest of the world should be afraid of.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Soleron on 10 August 2012
Immortal said:
...


I totally saw this analogy coming, :P.

Anyway,  thanks to our brown skin, my family spends probably ten times as much time as most people at those immigration lines and whatnot. Is that wrong? No, of course not; it's averting risk. 

Even if statistically your skin colour makes you more of a risk, authorities STILL shouldn't discriminate against you, because it's not your fault you're that colour. The colour doesn't cause you to decide to be one if you're not, and lighter skinned people are perfectly capable of doing it.

I feel the same about positive discrimination. Just because fewer women enter technical fields, doesn't mean that with equal qualifications for a job a woman should be favoured over a man. It's faulty logic because it's not considering the individual, just a desire to make the stats look right.