#MeToo and a Response to it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 

NemotheElvenPanda:

Not to turn this into a tangent, but how does that happen? How is there this segment of heterosexual men that seem to be so self-unaware or so convinced that women can't be "understood"?

Well, it's hardly gender specific. Although if one believes the research that women tend to be more adept at social interaction, one might assume they are probably less likely to err.

Basically, is it really any different from anything else? As it is for things like one's political or religious ideology, so it is for relationships too. People make bad decisions or have ill-considered beliefs, and when they don't work out so well, many prefer to double down instead of reconsidering.

And y'know, since the internet and all, it's also easy to find some sort of alternative companionship with a community of like-minded, frustrated, embittered, angry peers who can provide some good old groupthink reinforcement.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

You made the case based on your own lack of experience. Your personal incredulity being called out is what would be expected as your lack of seeing something you don't want to see does not mean anything to anyone else who has seen it.

No, actually, I didn't appeal merely to my not having experienced it. I claimed it wasn't common, ordinary behaviour; I didn't argue that my own experiences should somehow compel you to believe that.

Your own claim-- that it is ordinary behaviour-- is also based on experience, I assume? Why should that be more compelling?

Your claim was a fallacy, which means it was never compelling to begin with.

My claim was that the event happens, and is by far the more compelling example as it would be the one that can actually be proven and has evidence. I provided evidence through many examples. It cannot be argued honestly to not happen

Your claim is of a negative, which on its own is hard to prove save mathematically, it was based on your lack of having experienced it, which is a fallacy, and your claim was more absolute so all I need to do is provide a single example to disprove it. I have provided several. Your claim was wrong and a fallacy both. It was not compelling at all.

runic knight:

Considering the commonplace nature of such jokes, not being aware of them can only be because of either lack of experience in that would allow you to run across them, or an intentionally protected and privileged life that affords you the means to avoid them.

Furthermore, considering the commonality of complaints about rape and sexual assault jokes and the ties to the notion of rape culture as an example of the normality of rape and sexual assault by downplaying it with humor, your lack of awareness of such jokes and bravado is entirely abnormal and could only come about from being isolated in one form or another, be it by simple lack of experience and awareness that comes from that, or from being protected from it in some way or another.

I suppose there is also the option that you are being intentionally dishonest in your claim about it for the sake of supporting your position, but I always try to avoid assuming that til it is demonstrated.

I'm going to put aside the thinly-veiled accusation of lying at the end, there.

I am aware of jokes and bravado. You're repeatedly attempting to equate this example with any and all jokes relating to sexual impropriety, which is a huge false equivalence, but I'll address that properly later.

I want to focus on this notion of privilege you've brought up. Do you find it so difficult to believe that somebody could live their life without encountering bravado based around sexual assault, that there must have been ongoing conscious effort to avoid it?

If so, that line of reasoning is colossally presumptuous, generalising, and frankly contrived. And yet, it's the only line of reasoning I can imagine that would lead someone from point A (somebody doesn't hear about sexual assault) to point B (said somebody has been "afforded the means to avoid it").

Every example I have provided has been one of social and cultural relevance, from general popular culture to more gaming based examples to suit the site we are talking on. To not have run across at least some of these while still being someone who posts regularly on a gaming website based upon western culture and by extension infused within popular culture would not just be unexpected, but would take a great deal of effort to manage. And do also note that awareness of it is not the same as experienced it first hand. But much like someone saying "I don't know what disney is", because of how commonplace it is within the wider culture itself, it would be an extraordinary occurrence that requires a reason. Those would be either a lack of experience (particularly in relation to being around other people or the culture at all), an intentional effort to protect oneself (which comes at great expense because of the way western culture works and how infused to all aspects of life the culture is), or intentionally being dishonest about it (lying about not having witnessed it while actually have).

Furthermore, you political and ideological positions elsewhere on this forum rely upon my claim being true and thus because of your stance upon those positions and ideals, you are forced into accepting certain truths that run directly opposed to your claim here unless extraordinary efforts are made to counteract that. This again forces the issue to one of the three above as a reason why.

runic knight:

Handwaving it away doesn't address it.

Sounds like you are making a case of special pleading here.

Should I link to articles bitching about rape jokes on tv, in movies or elswhere? Should I bring up controversies about e-celebs like Spoony making jokes about rape dungeons or video game competitions where people would say they were going to rape their opponents or reference dramas where a character says they can get what they want? Sort of limited to popular culture here to demonstrate the commonality of the occurrence since I can't use personal experiences, but it makes the point about the commonality of it happening. There are countless examples out there, hell, they served as a backbone for defending the very idea of "rape culture", so google makes it easy to find examples of people making sexual assault or rape jokes commonly and getting backlash for it. I could even argue that denying they exists would be denying that rape culture itself exists since they were a fundamental point of arguing about the commonality of rape culture (I don't think we have a rape culture myself, but the examples that are used to support that conclusion are there).

Your position is based on a claim that people don't joke about sexually assaulting someone, yet it seems any example I bring up is casually dismissed. So before you slide that goalpost further, define to me exactly the sort of example that would prove your stance wrong.

It is not "special pleading" to point out that the instances you are bringing up are nowhere near equivalent. I don't think you actually believe for a moment that joking about a vague, nonspecific "dungeon" is the same thing as claiming to have sexually assaulted a person you know.

The situations have to be vaguely equivalent for an accusation of "special pleading" to work.

Your rejection of equivalence without actually making the case that it is different is why I called it special pleading. See, you have to establish that it is not before you can reject it for not, otherwise you are making a special exception because you just wanted it, which is why I called it special pleading.

Otherwise I could claim any two things are not equivalent and just handwave them away with the same "it is different" claim without support like you did. Except I like to explain why you are wrong, so I probably wouldn't.

runic knight:

Furthermore, for the sake of clarity, would you say that such jokes not being commonplace undermines any argument about there being a rape culture based on the idea that without such jokes being commonplace, a pillar of the idea of rape culture about the normalization of rape through jokes is thereby fundamentally absent?

Bait. You're not interested in my response to this.

I am waiting on your to actually address any of your claims about it not being equivalent. All you have done is made an unsupported claim, used that to handwave things away, and now claimed that because you used an unsupported claim, it wasn't special pleading when you said "nuh uh, that is different"

How? What makes it different? Remember, I am only using references to popular culture because it is shared examples of the commonality of the concept. Furthermore, the examples being so embedded within both popular culture, and to the very ideology you have used previously makes it very hard for your to dismiss all together without very rare situations, or just outright dishonesty.

Even more, by continuing to reject it as you have, it forces a conflict of belief. A contradiction you have to deal with.

Are such jokes a common part of western culture and thus Trump's bravado nothing special in the situation and the use of such jokes as an underlying demonstration of rape acceptance demonstrating a rape culture is maintained as logically consistent?

or

Are such joke not a common part of western culture, and thus Trump's comment was unique but the notion of rape culture that relies upon that being true to claim it as oppressive to women now no longer supported?

You can't claim it isn't true when you don't like it but ignore that it must be true when you rely upon it. That is special pleading.

So which is it? Are Trump's words not special or is rape culture false?

runic knight:

Your claim was a fallacy, which means it was never compelling to begin with.

My claim was that the event happens, and is by far the more compelling example as it would be the one that can actually be proven and has evidence. I provided evidence through many examples. It cannot be argued honestly to not happen

Your claim is of a negative, which on its own is hard to prove save mathematically, it was based on your lack of having experienced it, which is a fallacy, and your claim was more absolute so all I need to do is provide a single example to disprove it. I have provided several. Your claim was wrong and a fallacy both. It was not compelling at all.

Silvanus claimed it "is not common", not "it does not happen".

You experienced it, Silvanus didn't. While your experience is prove that it does exist, the two samples give wildly different pictures about how common it is. That is either bad luck (one of the samples is atypical) or a hint that "western culture" is far less homogen than assumed and this kind of sampling via personal experience doesn't work.

For the record, my experience matches Silvanus', not yours. I also don't experience it.

Considering the commonplace nature of such jokes, not being aware of them can only be because of either lack of experience in that would allow you to run across them, or an intentionally protected and privileged life that affords you the means to avoid them.

Or they are not nearly as common as your experience suggests. You don't have any reason to assume your experience is typical and Silvanus' is the outsider.

I suppose there is also the option that you are being intentionally dishonest in your claim about it for the sake of supporting your position, but I always try to avoid assuming that til it is demonstrated.

Theoretically, same goes for you. But personally i really think the reason is that the "Western culture" is not even remotely homogeneous enough to extrapolate from personal experience here and all those statements are true.

Every example I have provided has been one of social and cultural relevance, from general popular culture to more gaming based examples to suit the site we are talking on. To not have run across at least some of these while still being someone who posts regularly on a gaming website based upon western culture and by extension infused within popular culture would not just be unexpected, but would take a great deal of effort to manage.

Well, no.

Are such jokes a common part of western culture and thus Trump's bravado nothing special in the situation and the use of such jokes as an underlying demonstration of rape acceptance demonstrating a rape culture is maintained as logically consistent?

or

Are such joke not a common part of western culture, and thus Trump's comment was unique but the notion of rape culture that relies upon that being true to claim it as oppressive to women now no longer supported?

Assumption : I live in western culture and it is uniform enough that i can answer the question based on that :

Such jokes are not part of western culture, Trump's comment is while not necessarily unique, extremely rare and pretty outrageous. And all the Trump apologists trying to claim that it was somehow normal are lying to protect their precious president. And yes, rape culture probably doesn't exist in western culture

Of course it is also possible that the US is just a shitty place culturewise and we should just stop talking about "western culture".

runic knight:

Your claim was a fallacy, which means it was never compelling to begin with.

My claim was that the event happens, and is by far the more compelling example as it would be the one that can actually be proven and has evidence. I provided evidence through many examples. It cannot be argued honestly to not happen

Your claim is of a negative, which on its own is hard to prove save mathematically, it was based on your lack of having experienced it, which is a fallacy, and your claim was more absolute so all I need to do is provide a single example to disprove it. I have provided several. Your claim was wrong and a fallacy both. It was not compelling at all.

Right. Firstly, that's not what "fallacy" means. Secondly, I did not claim it never happened, which would have been ridiculous; I said it was not common, ordinary behaviour. Your anecdotal evidence has about as much weight in that regard as anybody else's: not very much.

Even so, none of the examples you brought up were actually examples of the same behaviour, anyway. Hell, several of them were just examples of non-specific sex jokes-- nobody doubts they exist, and they're obviously not the same thing.

runic knight:

Every example I have provided has been one of social and cultural relevance, from general popular culture to more gaming based examples to suit the site we are talking on. To not have run across at least some of these while still being someone who posts regularly on a gaming website based upon western culture and by extension infused within popular culture would not just be unexpected, but would take a great deal of effort to manage. And do also note that awareness of it is not the same as experienced it first hand. But much like someone saying "I don't know what disney is", because of how commonplace it is within the wider culture itself, it would be an extraordinary occurrence that requires a reason. Those would be either a lack of experience (particularly in relation to being around other people or the culture at all), an intentional effort to protect oneself (which comes at great expense because of the way western culture works and how infused to all aspects of life the culture is), or intentionally being dishonest about it (lying about not having witnessed it while actually have).

You seem to have come up with the notion that I'm entirely unaware of lowbrow sexual humour. That's absolutely absurd, and is something I never said. That's a tedious, ongoing misrepresentation. Obviously I've encountered that.

Again: Joking in some nonspecific way about sex is not the same thing as making claims of sexual assault towards a specific person. This should be so obvious as to go without saying, and I'm a little bit stunned it's not. They're extremely different things.

runic knight:

Furthermore, you political and ideological positions elsewhere on this forum rely upon my claim being true and thus because of your stance upon those positions and ideals, you are forced into accepting certain truths that run directly opposed to your claim here unless extraordinary efforts are made to counteract that. This again forces the issue to one of the three above as a reason why.

This "contradiction" you've dreamt up relies entirely on whole misrepresentations of everything I've said here and elsewhere. It's utterly vapid, empty logic.

runic knight:

Your rejection of equivalence without actually making the case that it is different is why I called it special pleading. See, you have to establish that it is not before you can reject it for not, otherwise you are making a special exception because you just wanted it, which is why I called it special pleading.

Otherwise I could claim any two things are not equivalent and just handwave them away with the same "it is different" claim without support like you did. Except I like to explain why you are wrong, so I probably wouldn't.

Shall I explain precisely how and why an apple is unlike an orange?

runic knight:

Are such jokes a common part of western culture and thus Trump's bravado nothing special in the situation and the use of such jokes as an underlying demonstration of rape acceptance demonstrating a rape culture is maintained as logically consistent?

or

Are such joke not a common part of western culture, and thus Trump's comment was unique but the notion of rape culture that relies upon that being true to claim it as oppressive to women now no longer supported?

You can't claim it isn't true when you don't like it but ignore that it must be true when you rely upon it. That is special pleading.

So which is it? Are Trump's words not special or is rape culture false?

Enormous false dilemma, predisposed on things I never said. This could go on indefinitely.

Sexual jokes are a common part of western culture (and culture elsewhere). So is sexual bravado, bragging, etcetera, etcetera. I never claimed otherwise: you made that up. However, sexual jokes tend to be nonspecific (IE. to not involve specific people, or claims of specific past actions). Sexual bravado tends to focus on consensual encounters, because otherwise what is there to brag about, unless you're fucking horrible?

Claiming to have sexually assaulted a specific person, on the other hand, is not something which people tend to do in jest. That fact obviously does not invalidate the concept of rape culture, because why would it?

Silvanus:

runic knight:

Your claim was a fallacy, which means it was never compelling to begin with.

My claim was that the event happens, and is by far the more compelling example as it would be the one that can actually be proven and has evidence. I provided evidence through many examples. It cannot be argued honestly to not happen

Your claim is of a negative, which on its own is hard to prove save mathematically, it was based on your lack of having experienced it, which is a fallacy, and your claim was more absolute so all I need to do is provide a single example to disprove it. I have provided several. Your claim was wrong and a fallacy both. It was not compelling at all.

Right. Firstly, that's not what "fallacy" means.

You appealed to your own lack of experience, which is an Argument from incredulity. That is a Logical Fallacy

Secondly, I did not claim it never happened, which would have been ridiculous; I said it was not common, ordinary behaviour. Your anecdotal evidence has about as much weight in that regard as anybody else's: not very much.

Except, as I already explained, my "anecdotes" are significant references to the commonality of it occurring as displayed through the frequency of it happening across various media and throughout pop culture. So, again, you are wrong here, your stance is not equivalent to mine when it lacks any support and fails to be anything but a fallacy. And no, you can't special plead this away as not the same just because you dislike it when I have explained before and now again how it does related.

Going "nuh uh" without any sort of argument or justifiable reason does not cut it.

Even so, none of the examples you brought up were actually examples of the same behaviour, anyway. Hell, several of them were just examples of non-specific sex jokes-- nobody doubts they exist, and they're obviously not the same thing.

True, the examples I brought up are of things that can actually be shared. Because personal experience means nothing in a disagreement, I have to rely on shared experiences. Pop culture references are the easiest and most obvious shared experience there for someone from a western culture. Furthermore, the behavior? We are talking about what Trump said here, yes? Word about behavior, not actual behavior itself. My examples are showing that bravado, dishonest, exaggeration and crudeness about sexual experiences are commonplace in the culture itself. That was what my point was based on, that Trump talking shit was not somehow more special and it is only treated that way because it was him doing it compared to anyone else.

runic knight:

Every example I have provided has been one of social and cultural relevance, from general popular culture to more gaming based examples to suit the site we are talking on. To not have run across at least some of these while still being someone who posts regularly on a gaming website based upon western culture and by extension infused within popular culture would not just be unexpected, but would take a great deal of effort to manage. And do also note that awareness of it is not the same as experienced it first hand. But much like someone saying "I don't know what disney is", because of how commonplace it is within the wider culture itself, it would be an extraordinary occurrence that requires a reason. Those would be either a lack of experience (particularly in relation to being around other people or the culture at all), an intentional effort to protect oneself (which comes at great expense because of the way western culture works and how infused to all aspects of life the culture is), or intentionally being dishonest about it (lying about not having witnessed it while actually have).

You seem to have come up with the notion that I'm entirely unaware of lowbrow sexual humour. That's absolutely absurd, and is something I never said. That's a tedious, ongoing misrepresentation. Obviously I've encountered that.

Again: Joking in some nonspecific way about sex is not the same thing as making claims of sexual assault towards a specific person. This should be so obvious as to go without saying, and I'm a little bit stunned it's not. They're extremely different things.

They are not different enough distinctions that it matters to my argument, you are just continuing your special pleading. furthermore, half the examples I already gave you related directly to low-brow humor directed at specific people not just general claims, and I have explained above, again, how those examples relate to my point.

Now, if you have an actual case to make, I would love to hear it but thus far all I see is you pushing another fallacy. This time the appeal to self-evidence by way of it being "obvious". "Obviously" it is not, so please stop being lazy and actually argue it.

runic knight:

Furthermore, you political and ideological positions elsewhere on this forum rely upon my claim being true and thus because of your stance upon those positions and ideals, you are forced into accepting certain truths that run directly opposed to your claim here unless extraordinary efforts are made to counteract that. This again forces the issue to one of the three above as a reason why.

This "contradiction" you've dreamt up relies entirely on whole misrepresentations of everything I've said here and elsewhere. It's utterly vapid, empty logic.

No it is not. It is applying the position you took to the world itself and then pointing out a conclusion you dislike that is a consequence of that premise. That is applied logic.

Again though, you make an empty claim here with nothing supporting it.

runic knight:

Your rejection of equivalence without actually making the case that it is different is why I called it special pleading. See, you have to establish that it is not before you can reject it for not, otherwise you are making a special exception because you just wanted it, which is why I called it special pleading.

Otherwise I could claim any two things are not equivalent and just handwave them away with the same "it is different" claim without support like you did. Except I like to explain why you are wrong, so I probably wouldn't.

Shall I explain precisely how and why an apple is unlike an orange?

You are insisting the difference matters, so yes, absolutely. In this case, you have made multiple claims with nothing backing them but your own insistence and you have handwaved and dismissed every logical point raised against your position and every application of your logic to check for consistency.

So put some effort into your position for once.

runic knight:

Are such jokes a common part of western culture and thus Trump's bravado nothing special in the situation and the use of such jokes as an underlying demonstration of rape acceptance demonstrating a rape culture is maintained as logically consistent?

or

Are such joke not a common part of western culture, and thus Trump's comment was unique but the notion of rape culture that relies upon that being true to claim it as oppressive to women now no longer supported?

You can't claim it isn't true when you don't like it but ignore that it must be true when you rely upon it. That is special pleading.

So which is it? Are Trump's words not special or is rape culture false?

Enormous false dilemma, predisposed on things I never said. This could go on indefinitely.

Incorrect. I am not proposing something you never said, I am applying your logic further. Oh I readily agree you didn't want it applied that way, but that was the point, to highlight the paradoxical nature of the position itself. Because both stances rely on the same premise you are currently raising a fuss about, that of the commonality of the sort of statements that Trump said that I described as bravado and bullshiting along a lockerroom attitude (and honestly, the fact that description alone is referencing a known element of culture should be telling enough about it). But the dismissal of that premise must be universal. If you wish to pretend trump's statements are not common, it would have to also be true that any arguments based upon the premise that such statements are common, such as patriarchal theory and modern feminism, would also be affected.

Sexual jokes are a common part of western culture (and culture elsewhere). So is sexual bravado, bragging, etcetera, etcetera. I never claimed otherwise: you made that up. However, sexual jokes tend to be nonspecific (IE. to not involve specific people, or claims of specific past actions). Sexual bravado tends to focus on consensual encounters, because otherwise what is there to brag about, unless you're fucking horrible?

Or have a horrible sense of humor, or just one that does not match your delicate sensibilities, which was the point of my statement about how that could be since I found it so odd. As for the moved goalpost you are pulling, again, you are still wrong. Half the examples I mentioned prior relate to non-consent (spoony's joke, or half of Larry Laffer's shtick stand out pretty clear there even with your constantly changing goalposts here), and if you want more examples of such jokes how about some comedians? Anyone else remember when Daniel Tosh making a joke about a heckler in his audience getting raped by 5 guys? Or lewis C.K.'s pedophilia joke? Hell, George "rape is funny" Carlin. Remember my argument was not that it was moral, or that it was even something culture liked, just that it was commonly done and that Trump's use of it is not special to anyone save the fact it was him doing it and not someone else.

Claiming to have sexually assaulted a specific person, on the other hand, is not something which people tend to do in jest

Care to prove it?

I mean, as fun as it is digging back through public controversies and finding some pretty hilarious jokes (some even about specific people, no less!), I do have the disadvantage of the very nature of the lockerroom bravado being more limited to, well, places like lockerrooms rather than large public events. Probably because the greater privacy and the lack of lawsuits and censorious attempts by the perpetually outraged. Hell any 18+ panel at a comic convention or similar event would have people joking about that sort of thing, and not surprisingly also not be a fan of people recording those panels because of the controversial nature of the jokes. But I showed good will enough in this discussion to support my position against your claim though I notice I have been the only one putting forth any actual support for his position. Now you have gone and made a really direct claim there so, well, your turn to prove it. The burden of proof is on you to make that case. So go ahead and present your evidence for your claim.

That fact obviously does not invalidate the concept of rape culture, because why would it?

The idea of rape culture is dependent upon the premise that rape is enabled and emboldened by the acceptance of it within the culture itself, with examples such as the downplaying of rape as a crime, the laughing at the severity of it, the blaming, mocking or punishing of the victim, and the lack of seriousness that the crime is treated as. A pillar of this, and one that has justified the censorious crusades of many social justice warriors, has been the humor about rape and sexual assault and the argument that it represents a wider cultural problem and an honesty underneath the humor.

Your claim, even your goal-post moved narrower defined one, still contradicts the premise. It stands in stark contrast to the position by saying that no, Trump's comment is not representative of the wider whole because such comments are not common. The natural extension of that is than, because it is not common, the arguments of the jokes promoting, enabling or emboldening rape fails. If trump's WORDS are not commonplace, than any argument about actual ACTIONS being derived from the jokes being commonplace is absurd for being even less commonplace than trump's comments are.

so again, the same problem as before.

Are trump's comments representative of the commonality of the mindset and in support of the claim that as a culture it enables, emboldens and promotes rape?

or

Are trump's comments not representative of the commonality of the mindset, meaning that the claim that the jokes about rape and sexual assault have not been normalizing it in the collective culture and thus not aiding any sort of rape culture?

Satinavian:

runic knight:

Your claim was a fallacy, which means it was never compelling to begin with.

My claim was that the event happens, and is by far the more compelling example as it would be the one that can actually be proven and has evidence. I provided evidence through many examples. It cannot be argued honestly to not happen

Your claim is of a negative, which on its own is hard to prove save mathematically, it was based on your lack of having experienced it, which is a fallacy, and your claim was more absolute so all I need to do is provide a single example to disprove it. I have provided several. Your claim was wrong and a fallacy both. It was not compelling at all.

Silvanus claimed it "is not common", not "it does not happen".

You experienced it, Silvanus didn't. While your experience is prove that it does exist, the two samples give wildly different pictures about how common it is. That is either bad luck (one of the samples is atypical) or a hint that "western culture" is far less homogen than assumed and this kind of sampling via personal experience doesn't work.

For the record, my experience matches Silvanus', not yours. I also don't experience it.

Ok, see, that is a valid point in need of clarification there. I suppose I could have been clearer with my argument there. The claim that it was not common was still trying to prove a negative there, which is hard to do in the first place (usually reserved to mathematics). Commonality being a more subjective term but one tied to numbers of people, I relied on the presence within culture itself to make the argument as the commonality within shared representations of the culture (my choice here being media and pop culture), in short using the commonality of pop culture to represent the standard of something being common (pop culture reflecting and representing trends within western culture, commonality in one would represent commonality in the other), and because of the way there seems to need to be a baseline popularity for something to be part of pop culture, the mindset I had pushed it, as I said, closer to an absolute statement on Silvanu's part. Examples within pop culture would show the commonality of it. And because it is a character trait demonstrated across fiction and non-fiction alike in pop culture, it further supports the position.

Or they are not nearly as common as your experience suggests. You don't have any reason to assume your experience is typical and Silvanus' is the outsider.

I explained why above, in relation to why I choose pop culture references. Shared examples of overall cultural aspects as opposed to individual examples. Rather than argue about specific data points, I pointed to trends across the board.

Theoretically, same goes for you.

Actually, no, it could not. I have given examples. I could not give them without knowing what they are, thus I could not be lying about experiencing those examples when I have already provided them.

Well, maybe if you assumed I had someone else ghost writing this for me? That starts going so far past probable though that it becomes sort of funny.

But personally i really think the reason is that the "Western culture" is not even remotely homogeneous enough to extrapolate from personal experience here and all those statements are true.

This I agree with wholly. It is exactly why I instead used culturally recognized references as opposed to specific examples. Ones that have become parts of pop culture are representative of wide chunks of the population knowing and being familiar with them to the point it becomes part of the wider zeitgeist. At that point, I would argue avoiding that aspect of it is less likely than running into it, at least enough to understand its existence as a commonality. I suppose I had not thought of how the wider western culture would not absorb pop culture at equal rates or amounts though, so that could be a valid complaint there.

While Western culture is not homogeneous, pop culture does still represent a mainstream collective experience throughout western culture. Tv, Movies and even jokes transcend across the disparate cultures that form the overall western one. It is the best option I can think of to give examples relating to commonality of the experience. Otherwise, it is entirely based on claims of personal experience which amount to little.

Every example I have provided has been one of social and cultural relevance, from general popular culture to more gaming based examples to suit the site we are talking on. To not have run across at least some of these while still being someone who posts regularly on a gaming website based upon western culture and by extension infused within popular culture would not just be unexpected, but would take a great deal of effort to manage.

Well, no.

Well, no... what?

Assumption : I live in western culture and it is uniform enough that i can answer the question based on that :

Such jokes are not part of western culture, Trump's comment is while not necessarily unique, extremely rare and pretty outrageous. And all the Trump apologists trying to claim that it was somehow normal are lying to protect their precious president. And yes, rape culture probably doesn't exist in western culture

Your premise is that the jokes are not part of western culture (needs rewording away from the absoluteness of the statement that you immediately invalidate with your next part. Maybe something like "Such jokes are unique and outrageous")

We started with the premise that trump made the jokes.

so your conclusion is that Trumps comments are then unique and outrageous. (if premise were true, this would be too, yes).

So a solid actual argument there, great.

Unfortunately, you then make a lot more assumptions from there that are not supported or related(like saying those who say it is normal are lying, that they do so to protect trump, and that rape culture doesn't exist). None of those relate to the argument and nor are any of them reliant upon either of the two previous premises.

so all in all, you have a part of something workable there, but a lot of fluff too.
Heck, it comes off as though you are automatically assuming that all those that think the comment is not special are fans of trump at all, let alone as you described them as apologist or assumed their motives to protect him. Terrible and worthless additions to your reasoning there. Beside being both incredibly easy to address (they are assumptions of absolutes by lack of qualifiers after all), they also are unrelated to the meat of the argument in the first place.

Does it matter if someone is a fan or hates his guts?
Does it matter if they are defending him or arguing the topic for another reason?

You didn't even define why you would assume they are lying at all, so why add it when it is not a complete thought?

Of course it is also possible that the US is just a shitty place culturewise and we should just stop talking about "western culture".

Hmm, could be worth narrowing focus to just the american side of things when discussing culture.

runic knight:

This I agree with wholly. It is exactly why I instead used culturally recognized references as opposed to specific examples. Ones that have become parts of pop culture are representative of wide chunks of the population knowing and being familiar with them to the point it becomes part of the wider zeitgeist. At that point, I would argue avoiding that aspect of it is less likely than running into it, at least enough to understand its existence as a commonality. I suppose I had not thought of how the wider western culture would not absorb pop culture at equal rates or amounts though, so that could be a valid complaint there.

I have problems actually finding your pop culture examples. Is it this ?

Hell, it is so common place in society that it has become a self-parody and become a common character trope in many romance movies, shows and elsewhere. The "big-talking virgin" like the american pie series Stifler or the "hyper-aggressive pervert girl" like will and grace's Karen come to mind off the top of my head as examples. Or Leisure suit Larry's Larry Laffer if we want to get to video games. Because of how common the archetype of "bullshitting about sex" occurs normally, media makes characters reflecting this and not surprising that someone embedded in the culture of media like Trump would be an epitome of that as well.

Oh, a comedic character trope.

And that is supposed to be prove of commonality in real life ? Like all the other comedic character tropes http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComedicReliefCharacters are something that is actually really common instead of noteworthy enough that it can be source of comedy due to exaggeration ?

Not only that, we were not talking about bragging to be a good or experienced lover (which that character trope actually is about). We were talking about bragging about molestation or rape or power abuse. There is a genuine difference between them rooted in how society views these things. A good or experienced lower is something positive or at least neutral. A molester or rapist not so much.

Are you really unfamiliar with a guy's saying they scored with someone after getting them drunk (arguably rape), or a woman saying that started grinding against or grabbing at a guy (sexual assault), or people outright lying about their sexual conquests, the number of them, or the events of it?

Real life ? Yes, Never experienced even one of those things.

While Western culture is not homogeneous, pop culture does still represent a mainstream collective experience throughout western culture. Tv, Movies and even jokes transcend across the disparate cultures that form the overall western one. It is the best option I can think of to give examples relating to commonality of the experience. Otherwise, it is entirely based on claims of personal experience which amount to little.

Movies are a bit Hollywood centric imho and never suitable to represent mainstream western culture. It is a bit better with TV shows which are often produced locally. But there it is harder to get a big picture as most of that stuff never gets translated or even shown outside the domestic market. Except crime shows and even those tend to be very different depending on the country.

Every example I have provided has been one of social and cultural relevance, from general popular culture to more gaming based examples to suit the site we are talking on. To not have run across at least some of these while still being someone who posts regularly on a gaming website based upon western culture and by extension infused within popular culture would not just be unexpected, but would take a great deal of effort to manage.

Actually i never played Leisure Suit Larry (but know of the series), didn't see American pie (American comedy film about growing up ? pass) and don't even know who Karen is. I am not really into RomCom. Indeed jokes like that is pretty much absent from the subset of pop culture i am exposed to. And i am on a gaming forum because gaming is what i do with nearly all my free time that is not occupied with tabletop RPGs

Unfortunately, you then make a lot more assumptions from there that are not supported or related(like saying those who say it is normal are lying, that they do so to protect trump, and that rape culture doesn't exist). None of those relate to the argument and nor are any of them reliant upon either of the two previous premises.

That was not an argument, that was an explaination of how i think of the situation. I really do believe that the vast majority of people saying that is normal locker room talk didn't actually talk stuff like that in their lockers or experienced it as normal bravado. So the must be lying to protect Trump. The alternative is that the US (which i never visited) really is an extreme outlier as far as western nations (i live in one and visited a dozen others) go.

Does it matter if they are defending him or arguing the topic for another reason?

What other reason could that be ? If it is as rare as assumed, they shouldn't consider it normal. Why say otherwise ? Also, why else did the oinions "it is outrageous"/"it is normal" overlap so neatly with party lines if not for Trump ? It is not if Republicans and Democrats had different locker rooms.

Hmm, could be worth narrowing focus to just the american side of things when discussing culture.

Maybe. But then i can't contribute a lot aside from being smug about not having your problems.

runic knight:

You appealed to your own lack of experience, which is an Argument from incredulity. That is a Logical Fallacy

Except I didn't, as I've said numerous times before. My incredulity has nothing to do with it; it's as compelling as your own belief that it's common.

runic knight:

Except, as I already explained, my "anecdotes" are significant references to the commonality of it occurring as displayed through the frequency of it happening across various media and throughout pop culture. So, again, you are wrong here, your stance is not equivalent to mine when it lacks any support and fails to be anything but a fallacy. And no, you can't special plead this away as not the same just because you dislike it when I have explained before and now again how it does related.

Going "nuh uh" without any sort of argument or justifiable reason does not cut it.

This is such blatant hypocrisy. Anecdotal evidence is worthwhile for your position, despite insisting its worthlessness a post ago.

runic knight:

True, the examples I brought up are of things that can actually be shared. Because personal experience means nothing in a disagreement, I have to rely on shared experiences. Pop culture references are the easiest and most obvious shared experience there for someone from a western culture. Furthermore, the behavior? We are talking about what Trump said here, yes? Word about behavior, not actual behavior itself. My examples are showing that bravado, dishonest, exaggeration and crudeness about sexual experiences are commonplace in the culture itself. That was what my point was based on, that Trump talking shit was not somehow more special and it is only treated that way because it was him doing it compared to anyone else.

You don't need to show that "bravado, dishonest exaggeration and crudeness about sexual experience" are commonplace, because that was never in dispute.

runic knight:

They are not different enough distinctions that it matters to my argument, you are just continuing your special pleading.

It's "special pleading" to point out that not a single one of your examples are actually equivalent? All we have here is your insistence that "bravado" and "crudeness about sexual experience" prove that its common for people to lie about sexually assaulting specific people.

I may as well argue that the commonality of trees and shrubs prove that triffids are commonplace, too-- and if you don't agree, it's special pleading! There's not enough distinction!

If you're arguing something is common, it's not enough to prove that other, similar things are common. You didn't claim that similar things are common. You claimed that the thing itself was common.

runic knight:

Incorrect. I am not proposing something you never said, I am applying your logic further. Oh I readily agree you didn't want it applied that way, but that was the point, to highlight the paradoxical nature of the position itself. Because both stances rely on the same premise you are currently raising a fuss about, that of the commonality of the sort of statements that Trump said that I described as bravado and bullshiting along a lockerroom attitude (and honestly, the fact that description alone is referencing a known element of culture should be telling enough about it). But the dismissal of that premise must be universal. If you wish to pretend trump's statements are not common, it would have to also be true that any arguments based upon the premise that such statements are common, such as patriarchal theory and modern feminism, would also be affected.

That doesn't even follow. You've put 2 and 2 together and made a picture of a clown. You're not applying my "logic" at all; you're claiming, repeatedly, that I'm saying something that I never did, and then complaining that this somehow creates a contradiction. It's only a contradiction if I actually said both of the things.

Satinavian:

I have problems actually finding your pop culture examples. Is it this ?

Hell, it is so common place in society that it has become a self-parody and become a common character trope in many romance movies, shows and elsewhere. The "big-talking virgin" like the american pie series Stifler or the "hyper-aggressive pervert girl" like will and grace's Karen come to mind off the top of my head as examples. Or Leisure suit Larry's Larry Laffer if we want to get to video games. Because of how common the archetype of "bullshitting about sex" occurs normally, media makes characters reflecting this and not surprising that someone embedded in the culture of media like Trump would be an epitome of that as well.

Oh, a comedic character trope.

And that is supposed to be prove of commonality in real life ? Like all the other comedic character tropes http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComedicReliefCharacters are something that is actually really common instead of noteworthy enough that it can be source of comedy due to exaggeration ?

Not only that, we were not talking about bragging to be a good or experienced lover (which that character trope actually is about). We were talking about bragging about molestation or rape or power abuse. There is a genuine difference between them rooted in how society views these things. A good or experienced lower is something positive or at least neutral. A molester or rapist not so much.

Again, I am referring to pop culture because of the shared understanding of it, so the fact it is a trope is itself an indicator of it existing commonly enough that it has become literary shorthand when making characterizations. And yes, I am aware that such tropes can be adjusted, exaggerated and so forth, but again, that is a flaw of a reference to a shared cultural example. The fact that they are adjusted or exaggerated however demonstrates there is a base they stem from. It works as a trope because it lets people mentally fill in the character's personality with what they are already familiar with in their own lives of people similar to it.

The trope is also not limited to being experienced, but does include bragging about power abuse. there was the non-fiction examples I gave such as Spoony and Daniel Tosh who were outright making jokes about specific people being sexually abused or raped. There is prison rape jokes that are so common and accepted by culture that they are probably the only jokes about rape allowed on primetime tv, and there are even fictional examples like Karen who references force or lack of willingness on their partner so often to the point that it would be sexual assault if not worse as well. Your distinction between the two is noted, but doesn't apply here as it is like saying that a man can walk a mile but not two.

Real life ? Yes, Never experienced even one of those things.

Then as I said before, I think that is a sign of protected or isolated experiences. Though considering you said you aren't near the US, I suppose it may be a factor of how pop culture diffuses throughout the western culture as a whole. I guess my perspective is rather north american.

Movies are a bit Hollywood centric imho and never suitable to represent mainstream western culture. It is a bit better with TV shows which are often produced locally. But there it is harder to get a big picture as most of that stuff never gets translated or even shown outside the domestic market. Except crime shows and even those tend to be very different depending on the country.

I did give examples across mutliple media to mitigate possible complaints that it was all just hollywood magic. Also have included examples of people making jokes directly about specific people too.

Actually i never played Leisure Suit Larry (but know of the series), didn't see American pie (American comedy film about growing up ? pass) and don't even know who Karen is. I am not really into RomCom. Indeed jokes like that is pretty much absent from the subset of pop culture i am exposed to. And i am on a gaming forum because gaming is what i do with nearly all my free time that is not occupied with tabletop RPGs

As a fellow tabletop fan, I think that convinces me more of a lack of experiences than not running into this sort of thing does xD.

Personal experiences aside, you were still aware of it as a trope of characterization if nothing else, yes? Even without experiencing it firsthand, you did still know of it enough through osmosis because of the way culture itself works and references itself throughout. You were familiar enough with it to know it was a trope, something that is defined by how often it is done as a shorthand. That is why I called up those examples and the reference to pop culture itself. The fact it is a trope shows the commonality of it in the culture.

That was not an argument, that was an explaination of how i think of the situation. I really do believe that the vast majority of people saying that is normal locker room talk didn't actually talk stuff like that in their lockers or experienced it as normal bravado. So the must be lying to protect Trump. The alternative is that the US (which i never visited) really is an extreme outlier as far as western nations (i live in one and visited a dozen others) go.

Experiencing something happening and doing it yourself are not the same. In a lockerroom, one jackass talking shit or making crude jokes is still experienced by everyone else within earshot. Experiencing that would still commonplace. Trump talking shit falls under that category to me, a blowhard being crude and satisfying his ego by talking about all things things he'd totally do. The only reason anyone cares is because they hated trump before and it is useful to aid that bias.

Does it matter if they are defending him or arguing the topic for another reason?

What other reason could that be ? If it is as rare as assumed, they shouldn't consider it normal. Why say otherwise ? Also, why else did the oinions "it is outrageous"/"it is normal" overlap so neatly with party lines if not for Trump ? It is not if Republicans and Democrats had different locker rooms.

My point at the start of this was that the outrage over trump's comments stem exclusively because he said them, not because they were unique or damning on their own. In short, the only reason anyone cares is because it was a point to complain about him. That is what I still see it as. Pointing out that the controversy over it is misplaced if not manufactured because of how common such jokes are does not require any partizan motivation. Perhaps you see the party overlap because you fail to see the large area between either party and those who aren't part of either party as anything but in terms of with you or against you?

Also, you didn't answer the question. you made a case of how you reached your conclusion, but my question wasn't that. I asked why it mattered at all. It doesn't make an argument weaker or stronger if they love or hate trump, so why such the concern here?

Hmm, could be worth narrowing focus to just the american side of things when discussing culture.

Maybe. But then i can't contribute a lot aside from being smug about not having your problems.

Well, considering it is an american president, it might still be better to limit it to american, or at least north american continental. Your smugness being lost is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

You appealed to your own lack of experience, which is an Argument from incredulity. That is a Logical Fallacy

Except I didn't, as I've said numerous times before. My incredulity has nothing to do with it; it's as compelling as your own belief that it's common.

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

That is a claim relating to the commonality of joking in such a manner. It is reliant upon your own experiences and you even confirmed your own lack of experiencing it further on.

That is an appeal to incredulity until you actually bother to support it. The lack of anything to base your claim on besides your own insistence forces that.

runic knight:

Except, as I already explained, my "anecdotes" are significant references to the commonality of it occurring as displayed through the frequency of it happening across various media and throughout pop culture. So, again, you are wrong here, your stance is not equivalent to mine when it lacks any support and fails to be anything but a fallacy. And no, you can't special plead this away as not the same just because you dislike it when I have explained before and now again how it does related.

Going "nuh uh" without any sort of argument or justifiable reason does not cut it.

This is such blatant hypocrisy. Anecdotal evidence is worthwhile for your position, despite insisting its worthlessness a post ago.

Examples shared among a culture is worthwhile enough to be at least examined. Your entire lack of support, however, is worthless entirely.

Complain about the lack of strength of my evidence all you like, but when you offer nothing, it is still far stronger that your own.

runic knight:

True, the examples I brought up are of things that can actually be shared. Because personal experience means nothing in a disagreement, I have to rely on shared experiences. Pop culture references are the easiest and most obvious shared experience there for someone from a western culture. Furthermore, the behavior? We are talking about what Trump said here, yes? Word about behavior, not actual behavior itself. My examples are showing that bravado, dishonest, exaggeration and crudeness about sexual experiences are commonplace in the culture itself. That was what my point was based on, that Trump talking shit was not somehow more special and it is only treated that way because it was him doing it compared to anyone else.

You don't need to show that "bravado, dishonest exaggeration and crudeness about sexual experience" are commonplace, because that was never in dispute.

My point related to bravado, while you complained about it while changing the wording. So just to get back to what exactly you did say.

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

You made the claim here that joking of that nature is not commonplace. Now, I used the phrasing of bravado, crudeness, etc when making my initial point and you have switched up the wording to specifically sexually assaulting. I could argue that the switching around is a bit of a disingenuous tactic as it is ignoring what I was saying to start with to try strawmaning my position into something else, but I already took the time to cover your definition as well, so not going to bother there right now. Still, you made a claim here and haven't provided evidence to support your position.

Support your position, or admit you have no actual evidence for it. You can complain about my evidence all you like, but at least I took the time to put something out there to support my stance. You haven't, all there is to base it on is your own personal incredulity so far.

runic knight:

They are not different enough distinctions that it matters to my argument, you are just continuing your special pleading.

It's "special pleading" to point out that not a single one of your examples are actually equivalent?

It is when you don't explain why they aren't and instead just insist upon it, and ignore when it is explain why your insisting upon it is still wrong.

All we have here is your insistence that "bravado" and "crudeness about sexual experience" prove that its common for people to lie about sexually assaulting specific people.

And the various examples across multiple media and northern-american pop culture that demonstrate exactly the case that "people lie sexual assaulting specific people".

I may as well argue that the commonality of trees and shrubs prove that triffids are commonplace, too-- and if you don't agree, it's special pleading! There's not enough distinction!

Except I explained why I used the examples I did, why it was special pleading, and even took time to list specific examples of your goal-post movement.

You have offered nothing supporting your claim. you still offer nothing to support your claim. Complaining about mine being weak doesn't prove yours. Well, unless you can make a case that it is the only alternative but you haven't bothered making arguments either.

If you're arguing something is common, it's not enough to prove that other, similar things are common. You didn't claim that similar things are common. You claimed that the thing itself was common.

You made the distinction that talking about specific people was different than talking in general terms. I did not and do not agree that distinction matters. You never supported it, you never argued it. You simply claimed it.

I instead simply found more examples that demonstrated your more narrow definition, and yet you still ignore them and pretend that your distinction matters at all.

You have put forth nothing supporting your initial claim nor that of your distinction. And your distinction has also been satisfied with examples when taken as a premise and not just the special pleading that it was.

That doesn't even follow. You've put 2 and 2 together and made a picture of a clown. You're not applying my "logic" at all; you're claiming, repeatedly, that I'm saying something that I never did, and then complaining that this somehow creates a contradiction. It's only a contradiction if I actually said both of the things.

Your initial claim was that joking about sexual assault was not common in response to me saying that trump's lockerroom bravado bullshit is not special or unique.

This was the singular claim I took and applied here.

In order for trump's comments to be specifically condemnable, they would need to be unique and special occurrences warranting that attention and condemnation they received.

In order for rape culture's arguments to be consistent, joking about things like sexual assault and rape would have to be commonplace to support the claims that it normalizes rape culture.

If you believe both, that is a contradiction.

So the application of your singular claim here results in the question of which is true?

Are the comments special and unique, thus warranting the response but undermining claims about rape culture being normalized by such jokes being commonplace?
or
Are they not special, thereby undermining complaints about trump specifically, but supporting the claims about rape culture being normalized by such jokes being common?

runic knight:

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

That is a claim relating to the commonality of joking in such a manner. It is reliant upon your own experiences and you even confirmed your own lack of experiencing it further on.

That is an appeal to incredulity until you actually bother to support it. The lack of anything to base your claim on besides your own insistence forces that.

I didn't actually appeal to incredulity, though, did I? I just made a claim; it's as reliant upon my own experience as any claim is by default (including yours).

An appeal to something has to actually... well, you know, involve the person invoking it. Nowhere did I refer to my own experience as a reason to believe it.

runic knight:

Examples shared among a culture is worthwhile enough to be at least examines. Your entire lack of support, howver, is worthless entirely.

Complain about the lack of strength of my evidence all you like, but when you offer nothing, it is still far stronger that your own.

And why should I trust your analysis of what is common in culture? Why is that any more valuable? This is still simply anecdote, with some added window-dressing of your insistence that it's widely shared.

runic knight:

On the contrary.

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

You made the claim here that joking of that nature is not commonplace. Now, I used the phrasing of bravado, crudeness, etc when making my initial point and you have switched up the wording to specifically sexually assaulting. I could argue that the switching around is a bit of a disingenuous tactic as it is ignoring what I was saying to start with to try strawmaning my position into something else [...]

I "switched it up"? The instance under discussion here is specifically a claim of sexual assault. That's not "switching it up"-- that's literally the discussion topic.

runic knight:

It is when you don't explain why they aren't and instead just insist upon it, and ignore when it is explain why your insisting upon it is still wrong.

I need to explain the difference? Alrighty-- one is a claim of past sexual assault (Trump's statement), and the other is not (various crude sexual humour/ bravado).

The two instances simply involve different actions.

runic knight:

And the various examples across multiple media and northern-american pop culture that demonstrate exactly the case that "people lie sexual assaulting specific people".

Not a one of your examples has actually shown that, though. Whenever pressed for examples, you've merely given instances of bragging about consensual sexual encounters, or mere nonspecific sexual humour. Followed, of course, by the insistence that you don't appreciate the difference between that and claims of sexual assault.

runic knight:

You made the distinction that talking about specific people was different than talking in general terms. I did not and do not agree that distinction matters. You never supported it, you never argued it. You simply claimed it.

I instead simply found more examples that demonstrated your more narrow definition, and yet you still ignore them and pretend that your distinction matters at all.

No you didn't. You only ever provided examples of instances which did not match what we're talking about, and then insisted that the difference was immaterial.

I don't care whether you accept the distinction, frankly. You never provided support for the ridiculous notion that it's all the same, either; you merely insisted it, as well.

===

I'm not going to bother entertaining this "rape culture" question stuff, because it's predisposed on sheer misrepresentation of what I've been saying.

runic knight:
there was the non-fiction examples I gave such as Spoony and Daniel Tosh who were outright making jokes about specific people being sexually abused or raped.

I don't even know who Daniel Tosh is, but afaik Spoony is some English only YouTube celebrity. I don't actually count that as Pop culture.

Also as YouTube celebrities desperately need views and are prone to trying to achieve that by being as crass as possible without getting their videos banned, i would nout be surprise if there were some rape jokes in some videos.

As a fellow tabletop fan, I think that convinces me more of a lack of experiences than not running into this sort of thing does xD.

I played and ran in two dozen groups in three different cities over two decades. I am pretty sure i am more experienced than you.
It is just that i live in Germany. Even normal sexual bravado is not really part of our culture. And players don't suddenly start it if they are in character. It is the same with small talk which is also not part of German culture and tends to only happen in game if some culture description in a setting supplement explicitely states "these guys do smalltalk".

Personal experiences aside, you were still aware of it as a trope of characterization if nothing else, yes? Even without experiencing it firsthand, you did still know of it enough through osmosis because of the way culture itself works and references itself throughout.

Yes, but even the sexual Bravado trope i know and i am aware of does explicitely not include jokes about rape or sexual assault.
As far as my experience goes there are exactly two things rape jokes are used in pop culture :

1) As a kick-the-dog-moment to handily establish the villain in some seconds
2) To actually introduce the threat of rape for the heroine/hero's love interest.

Both uses have one thing in common. To establish that the character who makes jokes like that actually would act this way.

But ok, you already said something about some jokes not being able to be used in prime time TV. You also should consider that any production made with big budget for international release, maybe even with intention of localization is made to conform to all censorship directives of all envisoned markets. That inherently means that the kind of pop culture that actually is common in the western sphere is somewhat tame.
Traditionally i considered the US censors to be a bit more on the prude side with all this can't-show-nipples-nonsense, but maybe i am wrong.

Experiencing something happening and doing it yourself are not the same. In a lockerroom, one jackass talking shit or making crude jokes is still experienced by everyone else within earshot. Experiencing that would still commonplace.

Yes, i assumed that even the lone jackass is something that is utterly non common and most Americans don't ever hear. But you have managed to convince me that there actually is the possibility that the US reaylly is different in this regard.

you made a case of how you reached your conclusion, but my question wasn't that. I asked why it mattered at all. It doesn't make an argument weaker or stronger if they love or hate trump, so why such the concern here?

Because one of the main thing every other feminist demands is that men should speak up when other men make such jokes or inappropriate comments when no women are present. There floats some idea about some male sphere where men hide their misogyny when around women but really show there true colors when around other men which accept that and agree about that.

This idea is really stupid imho. But based on its nature, women can't really know how men behave when amongst only other men. So they have to rely on what men say about it.

So Trump made some outlandish comment. Yeah, maybe, he is an idiot without morals and it is far from the most stupid or reprehensible thing he ever said. I don't really care as long as he doesn't dissolve NATO or attacks Iran. He is not my president.

But then he justified it saying that that was normal "locker room talk". And some of his supporters said that thas was true. This will keep this stupid idea of a closed male sphere talking shit about women behind doors more fuel for years. It also feeds in the (equally stupid) ideas of the patriarchy where men do all the important stuff secretly between themselfs in a manner of a conspiracy.

This is why i care about it. I am kind of sick about feminists fighting loudly against windmills and phantoms instead of trying to find solutions to actual measurable problems. This whole "changing male culture" to lay the groundwork for emerging equality leads nowhere if aimed at something that does not match what men actually experience.

runic knight:

My point at the start of this was that the outrage over trump's comments stem exclusively because he said them, not because they were unique or damning on their own.

They care because he's up for election as The President of the USA. There are a lot of other things in this world which might be deemed merely unpalatable in random members of the public, but completely inappropriate for a person occupying the highest office in the land.

In a related story, The Washington Post is now reporting that cowboy-dressup aficionado and man voted Most Likely to Self-Flagellate Roy Moore has a penchant for jail-bait. Numerous women interviewed by the Post have given their stories of being propositioned by Moore when they were teenagers and he was in his 30's.

Predictably, Moore is defaulting to his usual excuse when there's heat on him and his actions: allege that the whole thing is a conspiracy against him personally. Between his repeated disregard for legal, moral and ethical standards in public service, his incredibly repressive religious ideology, and the pattern we've seen of hypocrisy from people this die-hard in their conservatism, I'd say there's a good chance of there being truth to these allegations.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

That is a claim relating to the commonality of joking in such a manner. It is reliant upon your own experiences and you even confirmed your own lack of experiencing it further on.

That is an appeal to incredulity until you actually bother to support it. The lack of anything to base your claim on besides your own insistence forces that.

I didn't actually appeal to incredulity, though, did I? I just made a claim; it's as reliant upon my own experience as any claim is by default (including yours).

An appeal to something has to actually... well, you know, involve the person invoking it. Nowhere did I refer to my own experience as a reason to believe it.

No where in your reply did you provide ANY reason to believe it. That inherently defaults to your own personal experiences since the topic itself was one relating to the commonality of something happening. The very nature of that topic is one of what people are experiencing, and lacking any other source to call upon, it inherently falls to your own personal experiences as the guiding example.

Or would you rather just admit that you never had anything supporting your claim, not even personal experience, you never intended to support it either and instead simply wanted to assert it as true?

runic knight:

Examples shared among a culture is worthwhile enough to be at least examines. Your entire lack of support, howver, is worthless entirely.

Complain about the lack of strength of my evidence all you like, but when you offer nothing, it is still far stronger that your own.

And why should I trust your analysis of what is common in culture? Why is that any more valuable? This is still simply anecdote, with some added window-dressing of your insistence that it's widely shared.

Because I took the time to support it, explain why it is relevant, and argue in support of it. You know, those things you would expect in a debate entered into with intellectual honest and earnest intent. Honestly not surprised to learn that you didn't enter into it the same though.

runic knight:

On the contrary.

Well, except that "I'll kill him" is a phrase your average person mutters quite routinely in jest, whereas joking about having sexually assaulted somebody absolutely is not.

You made the claim here that joking of that nature is not commonplace. Now, I used the phrasing of bravado, crudeness, etc when making my initial point and you have switched up the wording to specifically sexually assaulting. I could argue that the switching around is a bit of a disingenuous tactic as it is ignoring what I was saying to start with to try strawmaning my position into something else [...]

I "switched it up"? The instance under discussion here is specifically a claim of sexual assault. That's not "switching it up"-- that's literally the discussion topic.

You switched up what I was specifically saying, that relating to the general boasting bravado bullshitting, to concentrate on it defined in the way you wanted it defined, that of specific examples of someone directing it at another. I never agreed this distinction mattered, you never supported or argued it successfully. You just changed what I was arguing to something else and carried on. And in the name of earnestness to the discussion, I just accepted it and rolled with it, even going so far as to provide examples that satisfied your new, goal-post moved definition.

runic knight:

It is when you don't explain why they aren't and instead just insist upon it, and ignore when it is explain why your insisting upon it is still wrong.

I need to explain the difference? Alrighty-- one is a claim of past sexual assault (Trump's statement), and the other is not (various crude sexual humour/ bravado).

The two instances simply involve different actions.

Your position relies on the claim being honest and truthful, where the description of it as bravado and bullshit inherently accepts it may not be honest and truthful, or at least that it is not good enough to justify claiming it as "admitting truth".

We have circled back around to the original problem I raised, that people believe that he was being entirely honest and sincere there based on nothing but it supporting their biases against him. The comments are taken as truth in because of a dislike of trump, not because they are in any way special themselves.

runic knight:

And the various examples across multiple media and northern-american pop culture that demonstrate exactly the case that "people lie sexual assaulting specific people".

Not a one of your examples has actually shown that, though. Whenever pressed for examples, you've merely given instances of bragging about consensual sexual encounters, or mere nonspecific sexual humour. Followed, of course, by the insistence that you don't appreciate the difference between that and claims of sexual assault.

Spoony's joke was about a fellow reviewer and a rape dungeon, Tosh's was about an audience member being raped. Both are specifically directed at others. That was your complaint last time. Funny how addressing it still doesn't satisfy your knit-picking. You should put some wheels on that goalpost if you are going to move it so much.

runic knight:

You made the distinction that talking about specific people was different than talking in general terms. I did not and do not agree that distinction matters. You never supported it, you never argued it. You simply claimed it.

I instead simply found more examples that demonstrated your more narrow definition, and yet you still ignore them and pretend that your distinction matters at all.

No you didn't. You only ever provided examples of instances which did not match what we're talking about, and then insisted that the difference was immaterial.

You never proved that the difference was anything to begin with, and yes, the onus is on you to actually do so. Even when trying to satisfy you changing complaints, it doesn't matter and you STILL refuse to support your claims in the least.

I don't care whether you accept the distinction, frankly. You never provided support for the ridiculous notion that it's all the same, either; you merely insisted it, as well.

Except when I explain why it was the same, so you know, bald-faced lie there on your part. And you keep pretending equivalence when you have and continue to refuse to provide anything to support your own. I will readily admit, my arguments are not end-all be all, and my examples are not as specific as I want them to be. Part of the problem with trying to use culturally available examples of a subject that the culture likes to ignore in any form. Still, that is better than you provided as it is still something to work with. Come on man, at least have the honesty to just outright say you have nothing to support it.

I'm not going to bother entertaining this "rape culture" question stuff, because it's predisposed on sheer misrepresentation of what I've been saying.

You trying to handwave away the conflict does not make it no longer a conflict, it just shows that, much like everywhere else in your reply, you don't actually have logic or reason driving your position. I get you don't like the idea, but attempting to dismiss it based entirely on an appeal to absurdity is transparent.

So in conclusion you have provided nothing to support your claims, relied on an implied appeal to your own lack of experiences because of your lack of support, and now make an appeal to absurdity to avoid addressing an outright paradox in belief.

Why should anyone take your position seriously? Sure, mine is not the best, but yours? There is nothing there at all.

Satinavian:

runic knight:
there was the non-fiction examples I gave such as Spoony and Daniel Tosh who were outright making jokes about specific people being sexually abused or raped.

I don't even know who Daniel Tosh is, but afaik Spoony is some English only YouTube celebrity. I don't actually count that as Pop culture.

Also as YouTube celebrities desperately need views and are prone to trying to achieve that by being as crass as possible without getting their videos banned, i would nout be surprise if there were some rape jokes in some videos.

As I mentioned before, I tried to grab examples from media all over, movies, tv, video games, the surrounding new media culture, etc to demonstrate how spread out they were. I made no claims that those who use such jokes are doing so for any specific reason, just that the examples exist and are well known enough to warrant "commonplace" when they occur.

As a fellow tabletop fan, I think that convinces me more of a lack of experiences than not running into this sort of thing does xD.

I played and ran in two dozen groups in three different cities over two decades. I am pretty sure i am more experienced than you.
It is just that i live in Germany. Even normal sexual bravado is not really part of our culture. And players don't suddenly start it if they are in character. It is the same with small talk which is also not part of German culture and tends to only happen in game if some culture description in a setting supplement explicitely states "these guys do smalltalk".

Hmm, another good point I hadn't considered there. The nature of existing culture influencing the exchange of pop culture and accepting or rejecting aspects because of that. More on the english/canadian from american side of things myself so while I know it happens, I didn't think the impact would be that noteworthy with regard to character traits and trends. Hmm, definately does support the idea it should be more limited to north american though if it can have such an impact.

Personal experiences aside, you were still aware of it as a trope of characterization if nothing else, yes? Even without experiencing it firsthand, you did still know of it enough through osmosis because of the way culture itself works and references itself throughout.

Yes, but even the sexual Bravado trope i know and i am aware of does explicitely not include jokes about rape or sexual assault.
As far as my experience goes there are exactly two things rape jokes are used in pop culture :

1) As a kick-the-dog-moment to handily establish the villain in some seconds
2) To actually introduce the threat of rape for the heroine/hero's love interest.

Both uses have one thing in common. To establish that the character who makes jokes like that actually would act this way.

But ok, you already said something about some jokes not being able to be used in prime time TV. You also should consider that any production made with big budget for international release, maybe even with intention of localization is made to conform to all censorship directives of all envisoned markets. That inherently means that the kind of pop culture that actually is common in the western sphere is somewhat tame.
Traditionally i considered the US censors to be a bit more on the prude side with all this can't-show-nipples-nonsense, but maybe i am wrong.

Yeah, that is a good point. And yeah, it is weird. Network censors are slightly insane about what is or is not allowed, yet the culture itself embraces things. Violence is a big example as surprisingly little was allowed to be shown at specific times (barring paid-tv) yet the culture itself revels in it.

Experiencing something happening and doing it yourself are not the same. In a lockerroom, one jackass talking shit or making crude jokes is still experienced by everyone else within earshot. Experiencing that would still commonplace.

Yes, i assumed that even the lone jackass is something that is utterly non common and most Americans don't ever hear. But you have managed to convince me that there actually is the possibility that the US reaylly is different in this regard.

Experiencing the stray jackass is something I wish was far less common than it is.

you made a case of how you reached your conclusion, but my question wasn't that. I asked why it mattered at all. It doesn't make an argument weaker or stronger if they love or hate trump, so why such the concern here?

Because one of the main thing every other feminist demands is that men should speak up when other men make such jokes or inappropriate comments when no women are present. There floats some idea about some male sphere where men hide their misogyny when around women but really show there true colors when around other men which accept that and agree about that.

This idea is really stupid imho. But based on its nature, women can't really know how men behave when amongst only other men. So they have to rely on what men say about it.

So Trump made some outlandish comment. Yeah, maybe, he is an idiot without morals and it is far from the most stupid or reprehensible thing he ever said. I don't really care as long as he doesn't dissolve NATO or attacks Iran. He is not my president.

But then he justified it saying that that was normal "locker room talk". And some of his supporters said that thas was true. This will keep this stupid idea of a closed male sphere talking shit about women behind doors more fuel for years. It also feeds in the (equally stupid) ideas of the patriarchy where men do all the important stuff secretly between themselfs in a manner of a conspiracy.

This is why i care about it. I am kind of sick about feminists fighting loudly against windmills and phantoms instead of trying to find solutions to actual measurable problems. This whole "changing male culture" to lay the groundwork for emerging equality leads nowhere if aimed at something that does not match what men actually experience.

The idea of the battle of the sexes and of the change in behavior among spheres is nothing new. The lockerroom talk is certainly a symptom of that. How to solve it though, I don't know. To start with, you have to make the case that it needs to be solved. This isn't like saying women need to be paid the same or that all people should be able to vote, aspects of equality in their own right. This is saying that the very nature of interaction between the groups needs to change, and that is a hard case to sell. All the more so as even things like "lockerroom talk" are not limited by gender, just reflective of trends within gender. Far too often even attempts to examine the idea are very black and white, many times by intent and design to force a "side". Hard to have a conversation on something like that when you have vocal shit-fitters attacking one group, or blindly defending another because of tribalism.

As for being sick of feminists fighting windmills, well, I fully agree there. But the problem is that feminism is no longer what it once was. It has become saturated with ideological zealots and controversy mongering demagogues. You have people with no care for the idea of equality using the term to push women first, or just attack men, or to make their own personal pet political fights. You have some hiding behind the term to excuse their actions, deflect criticism, defend their mistakes, and attack their opponents. I have seen far too many horrible people hiding under the banner be protected and defended for horrible actions solely because they claim that banner. Hell, recent wave of video game media personalities being outed as abusers and harassers shows the fruit of such a mindset, yet the tribalism around it is running rampant as the rules applied to others are ignored when it comes to them. Feminism itself is just an ideal, but it seems those loudest vocal supporters and promoters of it now are easily the most destructive sorts like I mentioned above. Hell, the very idea in media and culture has shift away from promoting equality into punishing or attacking "privileged": in the weirdest nebula way, to the point of becoming the very "feminazi" stereotypes accused of them 20 years ago, and then going even further than that.

Agema:

runic knight:

My point at the start of this was that the outrage over trump's comments stem exclusively because he said them, not because they were unique or damning on their own.

They care because he's up for election as The President of the USA. There are a lot of other things in this world which might be deemed merely unpalatable in random members of the public, but completely inappropriate for a person occupying the highest office in the land.

So you would agree then, that on their own they are not indicative of anything unique or damning? And that withing the context of that larger conversation and because they are not unique or damning on their own, that the remarks are not any more indicative of him actually having done the crimes?

Because, while you are right that the job he is going for means his words would be scrutinized more (I will shelve the counterpoint about why his actions specifically were given such scrutiny while other's actually committed actions were dismissed and ignored since it is not needed at the moment), my point earlier on was that the comments were not on their own indicative of guilt of the bullshit he claimed and that the only reason people cared about what he was saying then and believed it was truthful was because of their biases against him to begin with.

People raising a stink about a candidate saying that is expected. The comments are not anything unique themselves, but they are still seen as distasteful and low brow from what is seen as a candidate of a more prestigious office. People raising a stink about what he said while ignoring worse elsewhere is depressing. Inconsistent concerns reveals biases there. People raising a stink and pretending the comments are indicative of actual guilt in order to make equivalence to someone doing worse? Well that goes into full tribalism and exaggerating a member of another "tribe" to downplay or dismiss the actions of one of their own.

runic knight:
So you would agree then, that on their own they are not indicative of anything unique or damning?

"Unique" is a red herring - it's just not important to whether something is bad conduct or not. And yes it is "damning" in terms of attitude to basic civil propriety or women. Having this attitude is then of obvious relevance to the credibility of accusations of sexual assault.

but they are still seen as distasteful and low brow from what is seen as a candidate of a more prestigious office

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but people in prestigious offices tend to command power, influence, respect to enact change, and also often act as role models which may encourage similar attitudes and behaviour in others.

runic knight:

No where in your reply did you provide ANY reason to believe it. That inherently defaults to your own personal experiences since the topic itself was one relating to the commonality of something happening. The very nature of that topic is one of what people are experiencing, and lacking any other source to call upon, it inherently falls to your own personal experiences as the guiding example.

Right. If no reason is given for believing something, then it's not an "appeal to incredulity", because I did not make that appeal. You cannot say that the reason has "defaulted" to that, and then also claim that I'm appealing to incredulity. An appeal actually needs to be made.

runic knight:
Or would you rather just admit that you never had anything supporting your claim, not even personal experience, you never intended to support it either and instead simply wanted to assert it as true?

Nota bene that going forward, whenever the post devolves into this grandstanding stuff, I'm just going to cut it out of the quote, because it doesn't contribute to the discussion.

runic knight:

Because I took the time to support it, explain why it is relevant, and argue in support of it.

Yes, sure, you argued, but it came very much down to anecdote and the additional claim that such experience was widely shared-- alongside some cultural references to other stuff. The claim that it's widely shared isn't worth much outside of your own experience, either. We have a double standard applied to anecdotal evidence, depending on whether it supports your position or mine.

runic knight:

You switched up what I was specifically saying, that relating to the general boasting bravado bullshitting, to concentrate on it defined in the way you wanted it defined, that of specific examples of someone directing it at another.

Because that was specifically the topic under discussion, yes.

If you consider this to be "switching it up", can I take from that that you therefore appreciate that there's a distinction?

runic knight:

Your position relies on the claim being honest and truthful, where the description of it as bravado and bullshit inherently accepts it may not be honest and truthful, or at least that it is not good enough to justify claiming it as "admitting truth".

We have circled back around to the original problem I raised, that people believe that he was being entirely honest and sincere there based on nothing but it supporting their biases against him. The comments are taken as truth in because of a dislike of trump, not because they are in any way special themselves.

So... it is our dislike of Trump that leads us to take him at his word? The benefit of the doubt would be to assume he's lying?

You can see how positions predisposed on an assumption of dishonesty are rickety, to say the least.

runic knight:

Spoony's joke was about a fellow reviewer and a rape dungeon, Tosh's was about an audience member being raped. Both are specifically directed at others. That was your complaint last time.

Sincere question: do you honestly believe Spoony's joke to be equivalent? That the same thought processes motivated both instances?

And do you think, given the massive controversy that surrounded that incident, that it serves to demonstrate that such humour is widespread and common?

runic knight:

Except when I explain why it was the same, so you know [snipped paragraph of grandstanding]

You didn't. You asserted it repeatedly, accused me of goalpost-shifting (though the original topic was actually what I described), repeatedly stated you didn't appreciate the difference, etcetera, but you haven't explained why the actions are the same.

The rest of the post directed towards me is more aggressive grandstanding, so I'll just cut it.

Just throwing it out there, some guys are coming out about being sexually assaulted too.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/anthony-edwards-writes-sexual-molestation-175907128.html

Agema:

runic knight:
So you would agree then, that on their own they are not indicative of anything unique or damning?

"Unique" is a red herring - it's just not important to whether something is bad conduct or not. And yes it is "damning" in terms of attitude to basic civil propriety or women. Having this attitude is then of obvious relevance to the credibility of accusations of sexual assault.

The comments being unique is what would justify them being see as indicative of guilt of them as admissions as otherwise the commonality of them would beg the question of why his comments were seen as indicative, of actual guilt when someone else's comments would not be. If they are not unique, than any claims they are indicative of guilt are based on nothing but personal bias against the person. That is not a red herring, that was the context of my point itself. It seems like you are just ignoring the original context I was discussing.

but they are still seen as distasteful and low brow from what is seen as a candidate of a more prestigious office

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but people in prestigious offices tend to command power, influence, respect to enact change, and also often act as role models which may encourage similar attitudes and behaviour in others.

Yes, which is why I said that backlash itself is expected. But if you read my replies all the way through, you'd have seen that and my clarification of what my point was and how it relates to those using his comments as indicators of guilt of his actions.

Silvanus:

runic knight:

No where in your reply did you provide ANY reason to believe it. That inherently defaults to your own personal experiences since the topic itself was one relating to the commonality of something happening. The very nature of that topic is one of what people are experiencing, and lacking any other source to call upon, it inherently falls to your own personal experiences as the guiding example.

Right. If no reason is given for believing something, then it's not an "appeal to incredulity", because I did not make that appeal. You cannot say that the reason has "defaulted" to that, and then also claim that I'm appealing to incredulity. An appeal actually needs to be made.

By the very nature of going "you are wrong" in response to a claim of commonality, and doing so without providing any reason or argument to actually support it, all you have left to base it on is entirely your own experiences. If you dislike being called out for appealing to your own experiences, you could just provide something backing up your claim and I would be happy to take that back.

runic knight:
Or would you rather just admit that you never had anything supporting your claim, not even personal experience, you never intended to support it either and instead simply wanted to assert it as true?

Nota bene that going forward, whenever the post devolves into this grandstanding stuff, I'm just going to cut it out of the quote, because it doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Please do. Though I will make note of it when you cut out points raised in such sweeps as well. You do have a very noticeable habit of ignoring points that you don't want to have to address and refusing to provide any real reason why outside of special pleading that they are, somehow, different. Dismiss whatever you feel you want to, but if I feel it is important to the points I was making, I will just bring them back up again and again unless given a actual reason why they don't relate beyond you disliking them or their implications.

runic knight:

Because I took the time to support it, explain why it is relevant, and argue in support of it.

Yes, sure, you argued, but it came very much down to anecdote and the additional claim that such experience was widely shared-- alongside some cultural references to other stuff. The claim that it's widely shared isn't worth much outside of your own experience, either. We have a double standard applied to anecdotal evidence, depending on whether it supports your position or mine.

My examples are shared throughout culture itself and picked, specifically, because unlike an anecdote, the widespread nature of it throughout culture demonstrates the commonality of the occurrence. Rather than being an isolated, singular example known to few, it is one known to millions, and because of that it demonstrates the widespread nature of it and the fact that it is more commonplace. Numerous examples of this fashion all centered around the same topic would thus in turn show that yes, it IS commonplace. Because of both the relevance to the point of commonality, and the widespread nature of the examples themselves showing they are common, they are not mere anecdotes, but rather points of data themselves.

That is not a double standard in place, that is making the case to the point I was making, that of the commonality of the occurance. Thus far, you have not even offered an anecdote in counter (except the implied appeal to you ownself from the start), let alone examples to show it is not common.

Thus, despite your protests, your pleas to equivalence are unsupported and ill-applied, and I still wait for anything of value to be put forth by you to actually support your claim.

runic knight:

You switched up what I was specifically saying, that relating to the general boasting bravado bullshitting, to concentrate on it defined in the way you wanted it defined, that of specific examples of someone directing it at another.

Because that was specifically the topic under discussion, yes.

No, I was talking about bravado bullshit in general, and how it being common place would mean that trump's comments are not indicative of guilt on his part any more than any other comment of bravado bullshit. You replied and shifted the topic to very specific examples of someone directing it at another specific person and seem to have left the point of that argument of commonality, how it relates to people claiming it is an indicator of guilt, on the wayside.

If you consider this to be "switching it up", can I take from that that you therefore appreciate that there's a distinction?

It is a more narrowed focus whose distinction is not relevant. Because humor and bravado can be directed at specific people or general ideas or anywhere in between, I find the distinction to be knit-picking solely to dismiss examples of bravado and sexual jokes. But yes, I do understand the distinction, I simply do not think it is relevant here. It is like me saying that people make puns commonly so you shouldn't assume someone who does is in this case a murderer, and you demanding I bring up specific pun-based knock knock jokes about oranges. It is a narrowed focus that ignores the point and argument I was making in order to satisfy a far more narrow definition you want.

runic knight:

Your position relies on the claim being honest and truthful, where the description of it as bravado and bullshit inherently accepts it may not be honest and truthful, or at least that it is not good enough to justify claiming it as "admitting truth".

We have circled back around to the original problem I raised, that people believe that he was being entirely honest and sincere there based on nothing but it supporting their biases against him. The comments are taken as truth in because of a dislike of trump, not because they are in any way special themselves.

So... it is our dislike of Trump that leads us to take him at his word? The benefit of the doubt would be to assume he's lying?

You can see how positions predisposed on an assumption of dishonesty are rickety, to say the least.

The benefit of doubt assuming he was bullshitting while in a situation where bullshitting was expected, and from a man who is notorious for bullshitting. Keep in mind this is the man that is regularly called out for making exaggerated claims, minor detail errors, and outright lies on a near-daily basis.

So the natural assumption at this point would be that he was not being entirely truthful, which then begs the question of why this claim about himself was taken totally at face value but claims like, say, his boasting about his dick size were laughed at right from the start.

It reveals a lack of consistency in how his words are taken, a lack of consistency that is explained only when biases against him are applied. The reason people inherently believe claims negative about him while disbelieving claims positive about him relates solely to their personal feelings about him. Why else would it be so inconsistent in assuming he is a liar about anything and everything else, but this time, well this was entirely truthful and honest?

This goes back to what I said, his bravado bullshit is not an indicator of guilt itself and shouldn't be treated as such.

runic knight:

Spoony's joke was about a fellow reviewer and a rape dungeon, Tosh's was about an audience member being raped. Both are specifically directed at others. That was your complaint last time.

Sincere question: do you honestly believe Spoony's joke to be equivalent? That the same thought processes motivated both instances?

Do I think it is equivalent to trump's statement with relation to the point I was making and not the one you superimposed upon me? Of course. The same thought process of using offensive sexual humor to make a joke in doing so bump his ego a little is shared between the two and is not indicative of guilt of actually doing the action. Sure, nuance between the two shows motivation for trump being to "impress" his interviewer where spoony's seems to want to be to make the person the joke was directed and the audience at laugh, but the core idea of "using offensive sexual remarks for humor and self-boasting" remains pretty consistent there.

The disbelief here seems to go back into the earlier problem though of you narrowing the topic into very specific variety of bravado and bullshitting (specific people it is directed at, specific type of action, etc) instead of my general focus of people making offensive sexual remarks for humor and bravado and how that is not itself indicative of guilt.

But very well, another example.
George Takei on the Howard Stern show a few weeks back talking about how he grabbed at men's genitals. No one said that those comments were indicative of him committing a crime, no one claimed that it was proof he did so, and while recent actual allegations have arisen directed at him, his comments on the show, despite being very similar to Trumps (to the point it was in direct response to discussing his comments that Takei's evolved from), no one was chomping at the bit to say that they were indicative of sexual assault when they were made. Those comments, in the context they were made, were not taken seriously and was just Takei bullshitting within the nature of the show itself.

And do you think, given the massive controversy that surrounded that incident, that it serves to demonstrate that such humour is widespread and common?

Actually, yes. Remember, it was a blown controversy, not a one-sided shame-fest. People defended his comments as bravado and not actual claims of rape. And the person who kicked the shit up about it was a third party onlooker-turned-busy-body that was called out for being a feminist caricature (to tie things back to the point I raised before about it conflicting with that aspect).

Remember, I never said this was a good thing, this was acceptable behavior in an elected representative, or even that this was socially endearing. Just that it was common and that because it was common, it was not in itself an indicator of guilt. That there is social backlash when someone is public about it can certainly show social intolerance for it when public, but much like masturbation, social intolerance of it does not mean it is not common.

runic knight:

Except when I explain why it was the same, so you know [snipped paragraph of grandstanding]

You didn't. You asserted it repeatedly, accused me of goalpost-shifting (though the original topic was actually what I described), repeatedly stated you didn't appreciate the difference, etcetera, but you haven't explained why the actions are the same.

The rest of the post directed towards me is more aggressive grandstanding, so I'll just cut it.

I have explain how you moved the goalpost. Showed the point of the shift itself, and called it out only for you to ignore it. At this point, it isn't assertion alone, but one I took the time to support that you, again, ignore and yet offer nothing to counter with but your own, unsupported insistence.

You haven't provided anything to support your claims and keep distracting from it. For someone complaining about grandstanding, you use the complaint against it to deflect that you still have yet to support your position with anything. And you keep ignoring that there is a conflicting belief going on between claiming that what trump said was unique (and within relation to my point, the conclusion being that it was unique enough to argue it is indicative of guilt itself) and the reliance on it not being unique with relation to rape culture theory.

I have shown how the two are at odds. One is based on the idea that comments like trumps are uncommon, while the other is that they are commonplace. Holding both of them at the same time is a conflict of reason and one that ignoring doesn't make go away.

runic knight:

By the very nature of going "you are wrong" in response to a claim of commonality, and doing so without providing any reason or argument to actually support it, all you have left to base it on is entirely your own experiences. If you dislike being called out for appealing to your own experiences, you could just provide something backing up your claim and I would be happy to take that back.

That still doesn't make it an "appeal". I have to have actually appealed for it to be that, don't I? You know how this works.

runic knight:

My examples are shared throughout culture itself and picked, specifically, because unlike an anecdote, the widespread nature of it throughout culture demonstrates the commonality of the occurrence. Rather than being an isolated, singular example known to few, it is one known to millions, and because of that it demonstrates the widespread nature of it and the fact that it is more commonplace. Numerous examples of this fashion all centered around the same topic would thus in turn show that yes, it IS commonplace. Because of both the relevance to the point of commonality, and the widespread nature of the examples themselves showing they are common, they are not mere anecdotes, but rather points of data themselves.

That is not a double standard in place, that is making the case to the point I was making, that of the commonality of the occurance. Thus far, you have not even offered an anecdote in counter (except the implied appeal to you ownself from the start), let alone examples to show it is not common.

The examples such as American Pie, Will and Grace, and Leisure Suit Larry, right? The characters in comedies?

You realise humour usually derives from extreme scenarios, right...? I can think of more than a few Eric Cartman-like characters, too; does this mean psychopathic ten-year-olds are common?

runic knight:

No, I was talking about bravado bullshit in general, and how it being common place would mean that trump's comments are not indicative of guilt on his part any more than any other comment of bravado bullshit.

How would they prove that? He wasn't doing the same thing.

runic knight:

It is a more narrowed focus whose distinction is not relevant. Because humor and bravado can be directed at specific people or general ideas or anywhere in between, I find the distinction to be knit-picking solely to dismiss examples of bravado and sexual jokes. But yes, I do understand the distinction, I simply do not think it is relevant here. It is like me saying that people make puns commonly so you shouldn't assume someone who does is in this case a murderer, and you demanding I bring up specific pun-based knock knock jokes about oranges. It is a narrowed focus that ignores the point and argument I was making in order to satisfy a far more narrow definition you want.

What I'm reading here is that the distinction matters when it serves you, but it doesn't matter when it serves me.

runic knight:

The benefit of doubt assuming he was bullshitting while in a situation where bullshitting was expected, and from a man who is notorious for bullshitting. Keep in mind this is the man that is regularly called out for making exaggerated claims, minor detail errors, and outright lies on a near-daily basis.

So the natural assumption at this point would be that he was not being entirely truthful, which then begs the question of why this claim about himself was taken totally at face value but claims like, say, his boasting about his dick size were laughed at right from the start.

It reveals a lack of consistency in how his words are taken, a lack of consistency that is explained only when biases against him are applied. The reason people inherently believe claims negative about him while disbelieving claims positive about him relates solely to their personal feelings about him. Why else would it be so inconsistent in assuming he is a liar about anything and everything else, but this time, well this was entirely truthful and honest?

This goes back to what I said, his bravado bullshit is not an indicator of guilt itself and shouldn't be treated as such.

It is utterly unworkable to assume every statement is untrue; that's untenable. We also have ample evidence that he's a frequent liar, so it's also unworkable to assume he's always telling the truth. We cannot consistently treat everything he says (or anyone else, for that matter): we must judge by context.

A pretty detailed story told in private, about a specific person? A story which isn't far beyond what we know of the man already? That's a lot of benefit of the doubt to be giving.

runic knight:

Do I think it is equivalent to trump's statement with relation to the point I was making and not the one you superimposed upon me? Of course. The same thought process of using offensive sexual humor to make a joke in doing so bump his ego a little is shared between the two and is not indicative of guilt of actually doing the action. Sure, nuance between the two shows motivation for trump being to "impress" his interviewer where spoony's seems to want to be to make the person the joke was directed and the audience at laugh, but the core idea of "using offensive sexual remarks for humor and self-boasting" remains pretty consistent there.

So, if the purpose is to boast, doesn't that mean Spoony meant his story to be believed?

That seems to obviously not be the case.

runic knight:

But very well, another example.
George Takei on the Howard Stern show a few weeks back talking about how he grabbed at men's genitals. No one said that those comments were indicative of him committing a crime, no one claimed that it was proof he did so, and while recent actual allegations have arisen directed at him, his comments on the show, despite being very similar to Trumps (to the point it was in direct response to discussing his comments that Takei's evolved from), no one was chomping at the bit to say that they were indicative of sexual assault when they were made. Those comments, in the context they were made, were not taken seriously and was just Takei bullshitting within the nature of the show itself.

There was criticism of Takei, which is why he clarified afterwards that he was referring to consensual activity. You'll also note that the stories Takei was telling were true as far as we know: we're not assuming he's lying, as you're asking us to do for Trump.

runic knight:

Actually, yes. Remember, it was a blown controversy, not a one-sided shame-fest. People defended his comments as bravado and not actual claims of rape. And the person who kicked the shit up about it was a third party onlooker-turned-busy-body that was called out for being a feminist caricature (to tie things back to the point I raised before about it conflicting with that aspect).

Remember, I never said this was a good thing, this was acceptable behavior in an elected representative, or even that this was socially endearing. Just that it was common and that because it was common, it was not in itself an indicator of guilt. That there is social backlash when someone is public about it can certainly show social intolerance for it when public, but much like masturbation, social intolerance of it does not mean it is not common.

Well, that's true.

runic knight:

I have explain how you moved the goalpost. Showed the point of the shift itself, and called it out only for you to ignore it. At this point, it isn't assertion alone, but one I took the time to support that you, again, ignore and yet offer nothing to counter with but your own, unsupported insistence.

The "support" you've offered has merely been that you don't appreciate the distinction. I don't care about your feelings on that matter.

runic knight:

I have shown how the two are at odds. One is based on the idea that comments like trumps are uncommon, while the other is that they are commonplace. Holding both of them at the same time is a conflict of reason and one that ignoring doesn't make go away.

I have already addressed this, not ignored it: the idea of rape culture supposes that sexual bravado and lowbrow sexual humour exist, and are common, and serve to normalise such behaviours.

For the last time: NOBODY IS DISPUTING THAT.

runic knight:

The comments being unique is what would justify them being see as indicative of guilt of them as admissions as otherwise the commonality of them would beg the question of why his comments were seen as indicative, of actual guilt when someone else's comments would not be. If they are not unique, than any claims they are indicative of guilt are based on nothing but personal bias against the person. That is not a red herring, that was the context of my point itself. It seems like you are just ignoring the original context I was discussing.

I could go into just how logically feeble that is, but I can't be bothered continuing to the usual shitshow all your conversations end in.

But if you read my replies all the way through...

I couldn't care less about intellectual gyrations to excuse shitty conduct just because they're your preferred political candidate.

Silvanus:

That still doesn't make it an "appeal". I have to have actually appealed for it to be that, don't I? You know how this works.

What, then, was your claim based on if not your own experiences?

The examples such as American Pie, Will and Grace, and Leisure Suit Larry, right? The characters in comedies?

You realise humour usually derives from extreme scenarios, right...?

So you would agree that someone saying something extreme while not meaning it, be it for comedy, bravado, bullshiting ,or whatever else, is a common enough thing that happens? If so, that was the point, that it is common for people to say things that are extreme without sincerely meaning them.

I can think of more than a few Eric Cartman-like characters, too; does this mean psychopathic ten-year-olds are common?

And yet you read into Trump's comments enough to disagree with my original point that his statements were not indicative of guilt?

Also worth asking, how often is that trope of a character used? I would say a lot less commonly than the one I mentioned. As for how common a psychotic 10 year old is, well, seems you confused the comparison. It is as though you are trying to work backwards from the trait being demonstrative of an attribute already, as opposed of indicating that attribute, you are finding examples to support that tie. Cartman IS a psychotic little shit. The things he says are not indicative of that as if we couldn't tell without them, We already know he is, they are outright reflective of it. He says them because the trope of the character being a horrible kid feeds into what he says to create the jokes around him and it works because everyone already knows he is a little monster. My point was about how Trumps comments are not themselves enough to indicate guilt because such bravado, bullshitting and lack of seriousness are common.

So for a fair comparison, the comparison would need to be a 10 year old saying something offensive and someone arguing that it is indicative itself that they are psychotic. To ask me if kids saying offense stuff is common, yes, I would say that is common. And much like that, just because a 10 year old was saying something offensive, it is not itself indicative that they are psychotic either.

runic knight:

No, I was talking about bravado bullshit in general, and how it being common place would mean that trump's comments are not indicative of guilt on his part any more than any other comment of bravado bullshit.

How would they prove that? He wasn't doing the same thing.

How would who do what? Not very clear here so I am not sure what you are asking. I'll try though.
Trump's comments were made, and were used to assume he was guilty of them, despite the context of them and the nature of them making them less likely to be honestly done, and in spite of the fact that he lies about himself often. As such, the comments can not be taken as an indicator of guilt without a bias entirely driving that conclusion.

runic knight:

It is a more narrowed focus whose distinction is not relevant. Because humor and bravado can be directed at specific people or general ideas or anywhere in between, I find the distinction to be knit-picking solely to dismiss examples of bravado and sexual jokes. But yes, I do understand the distinction, I simply do not think it is relevant here. It is like me saying that people make puns commonly so you shouldn't assume someone who does is in this case a murderer, and you demanding I bring up specific pun-based knock knock jokes about oranges. It is a narrowed focus that ignores the point and argument I was making in order to satisfy a far more narrow definition you want.

What I'm reading here is that the distinction matters when it serves you, but it doesn't matter when it serves me.

The distinction matters because it is tied to the entire point I was making. Yours doesn't because it is addressing something else out of the application of that point
Or to put it a more blunt way, it matters the same way that not strawmanning someone's position matters. But that is the downfall of relying entirely on attacking someone else's argument without supporting your own, it means you have to, you know, actually address their points as they made them.

It is utterly unworkable to assume every statement is untrue; that's untenable. We also have ample evidence that he's a frequent liar, so it's also unworkable to assume he's always telling the truth. We cannot consistently treat everything he says (or anyone else, for that matter): we must judge by context.

Agreed. Which is why I am not assuming every statement is untrue, just those that would fit with his established pattern of lying, would be in a situation where not being honest would be excused or even encouraged, and would make the most sense in the context to not be telling the truth. There is a reason it was addressed as a lockerroom statement and is called bravado. That is the context the statements were made it. He has repeatedly lied about himself to fluff his own ego before, including claims about what he can do that were grossly exaggerated. And as I said before, is in addition to the fact he is a known liar as to why this would be taken as yet another if viewed without a driving bias against him.

A pretty detailed story told in private, about a specific person? A story which isn't far beyond what we know of the man already? That's a lot of benefit of the doubt to be giving.

Considering the whole idea of any sort of "lockerroom" conversations were it is a private, non-serious bullshitting conversations where people can drop guard and not worry about the "PC police" aspect of the public light, it is entirely logical and consistent.

What we know is that it is a bravado brag of a known liar in a situation trying to be crude and funny and sell himself as a big man to someone else and devoid of the usual social mutings of a public conversation that would discourage crude remarks or non-pc jokes.
This is a jackass telling a dirty joke in a private conversation being outed for it, then someone saying that they totally meant it despite context, character and situation all showing that no, it is not likely they did at all.

So, if the purpose is to boast, doesn't that mean Spoony meant his story to be believed?
That seems to obviously not be the case.

Well, it was a proposition rather than description of events done, so the bravado of making it towards the person seems to be boast itself. Not meant to be taken seriously, but still done to bump his ego as someone who could claim such things. A "I could totally do that, you know" sort of thing.

Which fits the same role of Trump's comments as well.

There was criticism of Takei, which is why he clarified afterwards that he was referring to consensual activity. You'll also note that the stories Takei was telling were true as far as we know: we're not assuming he's lying, as you're asking us to do for Trump.

And yet the statements were still made, multiple times as even in the clarification of the comments, he references a character bit he plays on the show that does those sorts of comments. That was the point, it was an example of it being common.
His backlash to those comments in light of the recent allegations only came in light of those allegations, not prior to them. That means, until those allegations were made, those comments were treated as a joke and laughed at like the rest of the show meant. Nears as I can find, the allegations were made on the 10th. He didn't start apologizing for the comments on the show til the 14th after the clips surfaced. Being from last month, those clips were ignored up to and until he was accused before anyone took them as indicating anything.

I assume trump is lying (in so far as to not be justifiable on its own to claim as evidence of guilt) about his comments because it fits his profile as a liar, it fits the context of the bravado and bullshitting, it fits the environment of a closed private conversation where he would want to brag and bullshit, and it fits as exactly the sort of crass lie he would make as a joke.

No one assumed Takei's statement was indicative of anything when he made them. After he was accused, they were looked into with a different light, but until then, that was just him doing his regular schtick on Howard Stern. The statements were the same sort of bullshitting made. No one would have claimed they were enough to support claims he was a sexual assailant a month ago based on them.

The "support" you've offered has merely been that you don't appreciate the distinction. I don't care about your feelings on that matter.

That would matter if the attempts to apply the distinction weren't misrepresenting my point to the degree I would liken it to strawmanning.
You can care as little as you like about my feelings, I personally am more concerned with the rationality part though. When you apply a distinction to my point that you don't support the making of and argue against that instead of my actual point, it isn't a matter of me liking the distinction or not, it is one of you not engaging in good faith.

Now on this point I have avoided calling it as such because there could be a case made, but if you aren't going to make it I simply can not give any benefit of the doubt on the matter that you aren't intentionally misrepresenting my point with a strawman argument.

I have already addressed this, not ignored it: the idea of rape culture supposes that sexual bravado and lowbrow sexual humour exist, and are common, and serve to normalise such behaviours.

For the last time: NOBODY IS DISPUTING THAT.

Your position runs counter to the point though and that contradiction of position is my point. Trumps and Takeis and Spoony's comments are all part of the same notion of crude, sexual, lowbrow humor and bravado, the sort you'd hear in a lockerroom or garage atmosphere as people bullshit and joke and try to bump their own egos up with ridiculous claims or insults or jokes. While I disagree with the conclusion, the premise that such things are commonplace is a core of rape culture theory, but it also runs counter to claims that trump's claims are special or unique enough to indicate anything on their own, which was my starting point on this.

If such things are common, than Trump's comments being treated as somehow special in being indicative of guilt is selective bias, nothing more. If such things are not common, than rape culture theory itself falls apart at the premise.

You may not be disputing it rape culture theory and the nature of comments like trumps, but your position that Trump's comments are not common is irreconcilable to it.

Agema:

runic knight:

The comments being unique is what would justify them being see as indicative of guilt of them as admissions as otherwise the commonality of them would beg the question of why his comments were seen as indicative, of actual guilt when someone else's comments would not be. If they are not unique, than any claims they are indicative of guilt are based on nothing but personal bias against the person. That is not a red herring, that was the context of my point itself. It seems like you are just ignoring the original context I was discussing.

I could go into just how logically feeble that is, but I can't be bothered continuing to the usual shitshow all your conversations end in.

Mhmm... and I could punch a hole through the planet, but I am just not in the mood to right now too.

If you have nothing, it is better to just admit it, than to make statements like this. It didn't work back in grade school, and people have been laughing at those "I could but I wont" replies on the internet from inception. Are you going to make claim to being a navy seal next?

what point of this sort of non-reply if not to antagonize and show everyone you had nothing worthwhile to add?

But if you read my replies all the way through...

I couldn't care less about intellectual gyrations to excuse shitty conduct just because they're your preferred political candidate.

It is nice that you tip your hand that you have absolutely no intellectual integrity and all, from the complete sidestep of every point in the last reply, to this outright dishonest assertion of me (Honestly, "my" preferred political candidate? Are you incapable of realizing that I can dislike him without having to resort to intellectual dishonesty on every subject relating to him). But again, if this is all you have, why reply at all?

My point was that the comments weren't themselves enough to be considered indicators of guilt. I've argued why based on them being common. I have shown examples across pop culture and every medium in it of it being well known to happen. I have even shown that things like Rape Culture theory depend upon them being common. I am sorry if you have nothing to challenge it with, or that the implications that in order to believe in one you have to sacrifice your belief in the other for the sake of intellectual honesty, but if you have nothing at all to add, why reply at all? I am just going to use it as excuse to point out your tactics and restate my point with a quick summary again.

I guess thank you for giving me the opportunity to sell my point more. -Shrug-

runic knight:
I guess thank you for giving me the opportunity to sell my point more.

Brute obstinacy, self-righteousness and long-windedness are not the same as profundity and perspicacity; they certainly aren't good selling tactics.

runic knight:

I couldn't care less about intellectual gyrations to excuse shitty conduct just because they're your preferred political candidate.

It is nice that you tip your hand that you have absolutely no intellectual integrity and all, from the complete sidestep of every point in the last reply, to this outright dishonest assertion of me (Honestly, "my" preferred political candidate? Are you incapable of realizing that I can dislike him without having to resort to intellectual dishonesty on every subject relating to him). But again, if this is all you have, why reply at all?

One of the first things you learn in my line of work is that there's nothing to be gained from engaging in discussion with some people. Whether it is because they are fragrantly psychotic and unable to distinguish delusion from reality, they suffer from a severe personality disorder which makes them unable to engage in reciprocal discussion or have suffered a massive trauma leaving them unable to understand what's being said to them. Now, I doubt any of the above apply to you, but you might want to look up Gish Gallop then take a step back and consider your own posting style in relation to that.

Because some people you simply can't engage in meaningful discussion, Gish Gallopers are some of those people.

According to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, apparently you are only guilty of something if you admit it.

The first minute or so. Much of the rest of the video is just other pathetic lies by a pathetic woman who works for a pathetic old leather jacket.

Gethsemani:

runic knight:

I couldn't care less about intellectual gyrations to excuse shitty conduct just because they're your preferred political candidate.

It is nice that you tip your hand that you have absolutely no intellectual integrity and all, from the complete sidestep of every point in the last reply, to this outright dishonest assertion of me (Honestly, "my" preferred political candidate? Are you incapable of realizing that I can dislike him without having to resort to intellectual dishonesty on every subject relating to him). But again, if this is all you have, why reply at all?

One of the first things you learn in my line of work is that there's nothing to be gained from engaging in discussion with some people. Whether it is because they are fragrantly psychotic and unable to distinguish delusion from reality, they suffer from a severe personality disorder which makes them unable to engage in reciprocal discussion or have suffered a massive trauma leaving them unable to understand what's being said to them. Now, I doubt any of the above apply to you, but you might want to look up Gish Gallop then take a step back and consider your own posting style in relation to that.

Because some people you simply can't engage in meaningful discussion, Gish Gallopers are some of those people.

It does take far longer to sort through crap than it does to make it, but I think the time spent sorting through it, breaking it down, and explaining why it is wrong is worthwhile. Gish Gallop is based entirely on flooding people with so much they can't address or respond to it before the next deluge hits, so it is a constant effort of fighting a flood as the other rushes past, points and arguments left on the wayside unexamined. Generally, it is a vocal tactic though. Far harder to do with a forum that replies on posts that can quote and address each point in time after all. And certainly of one of the benefits of discussions on a long-form forum like this is being able to break down and address points individually, assuming the person actually wants to address points in the first place, that is.

And while those that are intentionally spewing it forth in mass might be doing so as a tactic, they often throw everything and the kitchen sink in there as well, including arguments and positions that that people legitimately hold. Breaking it down, separating tactics from arguments and addressing all would then still address those held by others along with everything else. Addressing the tactics used and pointing out why they fail is also worthwhile to show the actual strength, or lack there of, in posts as well.

I am well aware I am long winded. An evolutionary response, if you will, in reply to constant misrepresentation, strawmen, disengenuousness, and bumper-sticker sloganism. Hard to misrepresent someone who takes the time to repeat their points clearly and address why and how what was being said was not what was being portrayed as, and seems rather effective on those trying to rely on snappy snide remarks or worthless disingenuous commentary too. Considering the amount of those who do that who also complain about the length of my replies, it seems an effective means to counteract that usual BS.

Brevity would be nice to partake in, but this is not a place that style of discussion would work well in, experience has shown time and again.

So I'll stick to points where I can, address things in detail, and take my time with replies. I can't do anything more. But when part of the reason people Gish Gallop or do other such tactics is to kill discussions in general and make people stop replying, I don't think I can do any less either.

Agema:

runic knight:
I guess thank you for giving me the opportunity to sell my point more.

Brute obstinacy, self-righteousness and long-windedness are not the same as profundity and perspicacity; they certainly aren't good selling tactics.

And yet it seems to work as you reply with nothing but attacks on me while entirely ignoring my argument. And utterly fail to support your claims or position as well, reducing your reply to nothing more but an empty character attack that you had to break out the thesaurus to complete. Would be nice if you bothered to address the points I raised such as how and why trumps comments themselves were not representations of guilt on their own, or how them being common is necessary in order to hold views about society such as rape culture being real, but I suppose you concession by way of the intellectual equivalent of resorting to calling me a smelly-head because you have no actual argument to make is enjoyable in its own way as well.

On the idea of selling tactics though, you do realize I am trying to have a discussion or argument, not sell a product, yes? Sure how you present an argument carries similarities there and the idea of convincing someone is to sell them on it, but it seems you don't understand that the reason I keep tearing apart the constant fallacies made and the utter lack of anything worthwhile in your posts is because I am searching for something, anything, of value within it worth mulling over, not because I think it will sell you on my position. You have clearly established a level of obstinance in your position that I could only hope to one day match, so selling you on anything would be very unlikely.

But if you want to talk of salesmanship itself, well, when you are offering nothing of support, relying on constant fallacy, and are genuinely being hostile and disruptive, it really doesn't sell your position to anyone who wasn't already buying your position because of previous biases. And I don't even mean just me, as you clearly written me off as some sort of boogieman demon long ago judging by your attitude and behavior, but those reading along. Do you think acting like this convinces anyone you are right? Or is the sole purpose just to signal to others that you opposed the mean boogieman runic like the legendary sockpuppet and Ze before you? Is there anyone left to signal to?

runic knight:
On the idea of selling tactics though, you do realize I am trying to have a discussion or argument, not sell a product, yes?

You were the one who started talking about "selling" your view. You reap what you sow.

...and are genuinely being hostile and disruptive...

Physician, heal thyself.

Agema:

runic knight:
On the idea of selling tactics though, you do realize I am trying to have a discussion or argument, not sell a product, yes?

You were the one who started talking about "selling" your view. You reap what you sow.

...and are genuinely being hostile and disruptive...

Physician, heal thyself.

You know, you could have just replied with "no you" and saved yourself a few words there if that was all you were going to say. Or perhaps the classic "I know you are but what am I?" to be consistent with your previous level of argument and tactics. What is the purpose to your post beyond being disruptive at this point?

Bottom line though, the point you jumped into the conversation to reply to me with was about how people treated Trump's comments as something to indicate guilt based on nothing more than wishful thinking on their part because they hated him. For all the snarky, dismissive deflection from that point you have done, you haven't put forth anything actually addressing it so what is the point of your replies at all. I get you have a grudge against me because some forum politics bullshit or something, but if you aren't even going to offer anything of value to the points being made, your replying to me isn't doing anything but demonstrating my point about people being motivated entirely by petty bias alone.

Trumps comments were not uniquely terrible or special. They were representative of a bravado and ego, the sort one could find in any locker room or closed private environment where people joke and bullshit without concerns about being politically correct or who would be offended in the a way they would not in a public environment. They were similar in vein to countless examples out there, including ones I dug up that are spread throughout culture itself from fiction to non-fiction of people with the same sort of bravado, bullshitting. Even recent examples that parallel his own such as Takai's last month demonstrate that such comments are common enough to find and are regularly not seen as serious confession (hence why no one called his comments indicators of guilt when he made them, regardless of how later accusations made people reexamine them in a new light). Add to that Trump's own notorious lying and bullshitting, and there is no reason to believe that in the situation those comments were made that they indicate guilt themselves.

No reason outside of wishful thinking and deep political bias, that is. The same that drives people to hate and attack things such as free speech because they want to spite the political opinions they dislike regardless the cost to themselves and others. The same that drives people to demonize those who disagree with them as nazi and excuse violence against those people without care of care who they hurt in the process. The same that drives the news media to outright lie about him constantly from the constantly pushed and unsupported "Russia rigged the election" narrative, to smaller "trump empty his fishfood first" examples.

And the same that drives people to reply with posts devoid of any point or purpose save to derail or disrupt long after it has been called out, solely to keep up their fight.

runic knight:
Snip

I don't really have the wherewithal to keep this up, I'm afraid, particularly when each new post turns into an essay.

Plus, I think we've both said our pieces to exhaustion anyway.

If you do particilarly want me to follow up on any specific points, though, I will.

runic knight:
snip

Let's discuss hostility.

Your argument is: "If they are not unique, than any claims they are indicative of guilt are based on nothing but personal bias against the person."

So, with that simple bit of circular reasoning, you state you already presuppose that disagreeing with you means someone else has an intellectual flaw and is wrong. That you so rapidly resort to calling people dishonest and (in the usual mod-friendly roundabout ways) stupid in every thread is merely confirmation.

At some point, you might even also realise the excessive verbiage you spew out actually achieves the opposite of what you think it does. But, like the above, I fear you're not very good at considering what other people think.

Agema:

runic knight:
snip

Let's discuss hostility.

Your argument is: "If they are not unique, than any claims they are indicative of guilt are based on nothing but personal bias against the person."

So, with that simple bit of circular reasoning, you state you already presuppose that disagreeing with you means someone else has an intellectual flaw and is wrong. That you so rapidly resort to calling people dishonest and (in the usual mod-friendly roundabout ways) stupid in every thread is merely confirmation.

At some point, you might even also realise the excessive verbiage you spew out actually achieves the opposite of what you think it does. But, like the above, I fear you're not very good at considering what other people think.

What other people think:

"I can't be arsed to read this crap. Sum up, already!"

The problem is that every person who argues like this behaves as though every argument is in a bubble and has no connection to previous conversations. But everyone who can remember said pravious arguments has already debunked said people and gotten tired of repeating themselves. A little pattern recognition saves alot of time. That is why, in this case, my response would be a decided 'Meh' to gobs of rhetoric that mean so very little. Let HIM do all the work, since he's so eager for it.

Silvanus:

runic knight:
Snip

I don't really have the wherewithal to keep this up, I'm afraid, particularly when each new post turns into an essay.

Plus, I think we've both said our pieces to exhaustion anyway.

If you do particilarly want me to follow up on any specific points, though, I will.

Lets just sum up our positions then and leave it at that.

My point was that Trump's comments were not demonstrative of any sort of guilt or special consideration compared to the numerous comments one might here is a similar private environment where crude talk and jokes would be the norm. From countless examples in media, fictional and not, the idea of using sexual claims and jokes as a form of bravado is nothing new nor noteworthy, and certainly not enough for people to jump on it and pretend it was some admission of guilt as some were trying to do. This was compounded by Trump's history as a liar and braggart about himself so that it makes little sense to me why he would tell the truth then but be notorious about lying about himself, especially with relation to his sexual ability. As such, and especially coming from people who regularly call him a liar and out his every word already, it was a remarkably selective time to believe that was truthful but nothing else he says is. It seemed a biased-driven latching on to the words solely because people wanted it to be true because it fit their negative view of him, and nothing more. Simply put, Trump's comments were seen for more than what they were because those people hated him and wanted it to be more so it satisfied their biases against him.

Agema:

runic knight:
snip

Let's discuss hostility.

I'd rather discuss the damn topic on its own for once instead of your constant derailing of it in order to distract with this petty manufactured outrage every time you have nothing to back up your position. Which you still haven't backed up at all and thus forces me to call it out for being entirely unsupported. But fine, lets do this again.

Your argument is: "If they are not unique, than any claims they are indicative of guilt are based on nothing but personal bias against the person."

Not quite right, but in the right direction at least. My view is also influenced by other aspects that reduce the possibility of why people assume it is a sign of guilt into that conclusion as most likely. Things like the fact Trump is a notorious liar about himself and anything related to his ego, for instance. Or how the people who believed him on those comments doubted him on any positive claim he makes about himself. But go on and I will stop you when your simplification starts to cause flaws.

So, with that simple bit of circular reasoning

Got to stop you there for an outright incorrect claim there. That is not circular reasoning. At all. Not even your simplified version is. Going "if statement A is not unique, it must be based on a bias" is in no way referring back to itself. Circular reason is something that, you know, circles back on itself.

A statement like this would be circular reasoning
"Agema is telling the truth because Agema never lies"

See how that uses itself as its own evidence?

Compare to mine
"If the comments are not unique, and if Trump is notorious as a liar and braggart about himself, there must be some other reason people think Trump was being honest there when they have a history of doubting his every word otherwise"

See how that utilizes points to support the conclusion and not just the conclusion itself?

So no, it is not circular, not even if you dislike the conclusion.

Accusations like this though, this is why I call it intellectually dishonest. Which brings us to the next thing.

you state you already presuppose that disagreeing with you means someone else has an intellectual flaw and is wrong.

No, I state that someone repeatedly relying on gross misrepresentation, dishonest rhetorical tactics, logical fallacies, and refusal to address points or fix those glaring flaws, then they are being intellectually flawed and wrong.

It is not that you disagree, it is HOW you disagree. When you are intellectually dishonest in how you disagree, I call that out. When you persist in it, refuse to address arguments, grow hostile and disruptive, and derail the conversation to complain that I called out your tactic because you think it is the same as insulting you, I call that out too for the same reason. Do not mistake that as a result of the disagreement itself, it is entirely based on your behavior and tactics, nothing more.

Pretending it is because you disagree is an outright misrepresentation. You know, the sort of thing that deserves to get called out for being intellectually dishonest if I have to keep correcting you on it yet you continue to pretend otherwise.

That you so rapidly resort to calling people dishonest and (in the usual mod-friendly roundabout ways) stupid in every thread is merely confirmation.

No, that would merely be support for the conclussion. Or would be if it didn't fail when you realize that, as opposed to using it like an insult every time against anyone, I only "resort" to calling out the same people across multiple threads for behaving the same way in each, and I support that claim every single time so it is less of an insult and more a supported description of their tactics, points, or arguments, or lack there-of.

You seem to fail to realize that calling something disingenuous or intellectually dishonest is not some worthless insult done to get under your skin. It is a descriptor of those repeated arguments, fallacies, actions and behaviors. It is addressing the arguments and points, or lack there of, and explaining why they don't work and what is inherently wrong with them. If you feel insulted by that descriptor fitting you, perhaps stop relying on the dishonest tactics and intellectually dishonesty in using them and actually stick to arguments and reasoning.

At some point, you might even also realize the excessive verbiage you spew out actually achieves the opposite of what you think it does. But, like the above, I fear you're not very good at considering what other people think.

On the contrary, you and your friends around these parts are a minority of what I interact with overall. Most people I do will pull back, re-explain, or reform an argument when it is pointed out that it is an irrational fallacy. Heck, even if they wont, they will least have the good common sense to withdraw it and move to another line of argument rather than keep repeating it. Most people who are called out for such simple and common mistakes as "that isn't really supporting the conclusion and here is why not" or "that reasoning is circular and here is how" don't double down over and over like you do. Hell, most people don't even reach the point where they are intentionally repeating the same debunked points and faulty arguments after they have been addressed in order to be deemed dishonest in the first place.

But there is a group I am familiar with arguing with who are very similar to you. Creationists use many of the same arguments, fallacies, and tactics. They also complain about the length of replies as their BS is sorted through and dissected. They also complain that having their fallacies and behavior called out is hostile and pretend that calling it out is just as dishonest as their making it in the first place.

In the end though, responses like yours are the outlier and it is why I don't take your grumbling complaints with any weight. I heard them before from creationists who did them because they cared about their ideology first and sound reasoning never. I heard them from the likes of the banjumper who's sole purpose was to disrupt and antagonize people to get them banned and felt justified because of his ideological zealotry. Hearing them from you who shares so much in common with that sort really only tells me I must be doing something right if you are upset by having your misrepresentations dissected and your intellectually dishonest called out.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here