Forums - General Discussion - 2017 Year of Sexual Harassment

VGPolyglot said:
Chrizum said:

No, and women who want to be kissed sure as hell don't want you to ask for it.

I'm not going to just go and kiss someone without asking them. I don't even hug people without asking for permission beforehand.

Both of you are right. Some situations are different depending on who you are or how the person perceives you. I am not a hugger and have to remind myself to even shake hands with people. For me,  and people I know it would be out of place to hug someone just randomly. But others it makes sense. 



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

Around the Network
spurgeonryan said:
Why is all of this happening now? Also are all these guys admitting to it? If so, why? They are superstars they could have had any female they want, why resort to harassment? Why are all these people only now coming out?

I feel crowd mentality is a massive influence on all these admissions coming out now. After Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey was accused, there was a significant uptick in the amount of people being accused. I believe the men who have been accused thus far do have some shred of guilt... but I fear that we will see a rise of some form of McCarthyism by a few choice individuals.



 

 

o_O.Q said:

"Yes, we have laws to deal with the offenders, but they're not getting caught and if they are, people stay silent about it."

1. isn't there like a list for sex offenders?

yes many aren't caught especially because of the private nature of the problem, which is why individual empowerment and responsibility is crucial

 

" I think it's more of a cultural issue anyway"

2. rape culture?

 

""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"

3. because i didn't state explicitly or implicitly that we should not fight crime

 

"I said we've largely managed to eliminate problems related to selfishness"

4. and you're wrong and acknowledge that you are wrong when you talk about all of the sex offenders that get away with it... i mean good grief even up above you suggest that our culture is lenient towards harassers, not that i even really agree with that point but it shows that you're contradicting yourself

 

"you seemed to ignore the fact that there is less crime that there would be if we didn't try to fight it."

5. and sexual harassment is against the law... so what is your point exactly?.... this is a crime that IS fought

 

""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"

6. the rest of your post doesn't change the fact that its a strawman since you are saying that i'm saying that i want to put all responsibility on potential victims

 

"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."

7. here is the paragraph in its entirety

"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 and in fact shown some understanding towards them."

you stated that last part as if i should not try to understand their perspective... which obviously if you are trying to solve a problem caused by them is necessary... and that's why i gave my response

 

"Also, I'm not looking for validation."

8. i didn't say you were... that comment tbh was more towards the type of person who runs into a thread looking for a boogieman to call a name so they can supposedly feel good about themselves for striking back at someone they imagine is their enemy

 

"There's no validation for defending the wronged on this site"

9. nonsense, the pursuit of protecting victims is something everyone here generally agrees with and there is a validating effect that comes with that... and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but if taken too far it narrows a person's perspective too much

 

" you still haven't explained why you fear fighting harassment on a social level would require anything that could cause problems."

10. i've addressed this already and its just getting tedious to address something that should be obvious

i mean all i can really say is that the fact that you call an increased emphasis on personal responsibility "victim blaming" is a sign of a problem because it means that the problem must be solved at a social level

but... we already have a social solution called the law... so, what therefore do we do?... we've gotten to this point before and you can't give a proper answer

one way that we could address the problem is to at a social level place greater restrictions on human interaction and that is how things can become oppressive

 

"Of course many people do intervene, but it sounds like it's too common to ignore harassment, for one reason or another."

11. yes and you think that way again because you're trying to reduce a complex problem down to being a simple black and white situation

12. -couples often get into fights out in public and argue over different issues, does that give some random person who doesn't understand the context of their arguing to intervene?

13. -people are sometimes receptive to being groped or spoken to sexually out in public

14. -why should anyone be required to put themselves on the line to endanger themselves in this way?

15. -generally assault occurs in private on a one on one basis so regardless even if we adopt the principle that intervention should always happen no matter what, its not really a viable solution anyway

 

16. and tbh i'm curious about you on a personal level, lets say you witness some construction worker yelling at a passing woman "nice tits" or whatever, are you now going to run up and accost that guy to straighten him out?

 

"Existing laws aren't going to change the situation."

17. true just like laws can't stop murder which i'd say is a more serious problem

 

"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)"

18. i had a long discussion in another thread recently where i raised the idea that morals need to have an objective standard associated with them so that society doesn't descend into chaos... can you guess what happened?

19. what do you think religion is? what is happening to religion now?

1. At least not a public one here, but I think there is in the US. Anyway, doesn't seem like a universal thing, and such a list isn't really related to what I said because it's relevant only for offenders that get caught and convicted. I agree about your latter paragraph, but it's not sufficient because not all of it is that private (e.g. workplace harassment).

2. To be honest, at the moment I'm not even sure what exactly the term means. It gets thrown around a lot, that's for sure. I'm talking more people not talking about the issue (until recently) and perhaps not doing much to fight it - that kind of stuff. I guess there's also the issue with harassment being seen as more acceptable than it should be, which I guess is more closely related to this 'rape culture', but I think there's more to it than just that like I said.

3. It was there for demonstration purposes. I did not imply you thought we should not fight crime, nor did I think so.

4. In many other regards ffs! Theft, for example, would certainly be ridiculously common compared to the actual situation if we hadn't been able to eliminate much of it.

5. I'm not sure what your point is here.

6. That's literally what I'm providing an alternative for in the part you cut out. I suggest you get some reading comprehension ASAP. Look, I can do some cutting too! You said this: "i want to put all responsibility on potential victims". And it seems the rest of your text that I conveniently cut out doesn't really change what you're saying here where I'm quoting it, so whoa there, evil dude!

7. You still ignored my point. The sentence you highlighted exists there only to support my argument that your tone is the problem. It's a part of the paragraph for a reason. I'm starting to think there's something funny going on with your reading comprehension because there's been many cases where you seem to have lacked it.

8. If you didn't, I don't see why you thought it was necessary to bring it up at all. Bringing it up seems disconnected from our discussion.

9. As far as I've seen, there's surprisingly many people on this site that don't always see things that way. In this thread, there seems to be a general consensus, but in many others, not so much.

10. I think you still don't get it. There's definitely a social level between law and individuals that has room for improvement. It's the same level that forces people to resign when there's a public outcry about something. It's not because of laws, and it's not because of certain individuals - it's because there's something between those two levels.

11. No, it's you who is overcomplicating matters. I think I see the grey areas perfectly well, which makes this yet another misinterpretation on your part.

12. Maybe in some cases, and probably not in many other cases. If the behaviour of either party can be seen as threatening (as opposed to just being aggressive, as is common in arguing), intervention is a justified choice.

13. And probably more often than not, they aren't. Context is the key. If someone gropes another person at work and they aren't together and the reaction isn't very clearly happy, you would almost certainly do well to intervene. At worst, you get told you misinterpreted the situation, but the most likely scenario is that you intervened sexual harassment. Overall, if you read the context, inaction is likely to cause more harm than unnecessary action.

14. Because there's rarely any danger and you'll probably end up helping someone. That said, I don't think anyone should be 'required' to do this - 'encourage' is the word I would rather use.

15. I agree, but there are cases where intervention is possible.

16. Of course not. However, if the situation continues and the victim isn't exactly comfortable with it, I might do something about it.

17. Ah, you found a way to diminish the harassment problem. Other than that, it's good that we seem to have found a point we agree about.

18. An objective standard, such as the Bible perhaps? If so, objectivity is debatable.

19. Religion is what it is. I don't know what you'd like me to tell about it. The role of religion seems to be diminishing in developed countries, or at least western countries. I'm not sure what the situation is in the rest of the world. Your point? This seems very loosely related to our discussion.



spurgeonryan said:
VGPolyglot said:

I'm not going to just go and kiss someone without asking them. I don't even hug people without asking for permission beforehand.

Both of you are right. Some situations are different depending on who you are or how the person perceives you. I am not a hugger and have to remind myself to even shake hands with people. For me,  and people I know it would be out of place to hug someone just randomly. But others it makes sense. 

Why don't you just do fist bumps?  Actually the safest way of not catching any cooties.



Add another one to the list?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/eight-women-say-charlie-rose-sexually-harassed-them--with-nudity-groping-and-lewd-calls/2017/11/20/9b168de8-caec-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html

Charlie Rose