Please explain what your understanding of "Rape Culture" is so that we can have a base of understanding.
My understanding is the normal understanding of it. A wikipedia article could explain it to you far more succinctly than I can.
Please explain what your understanding of "Rape Culture" is so that we can have a base of understanding.
Not necessarily. All we do is just make them feel the same way they make others feel. There are times I AGREE with what they are saying in the sense that it is "wrong", but I have an issue on how they go about it. No need for them to be hostile towards people because their types of phrases "YOU'RE CREEPY!!!" makes them appear to be "better" than the other person.
It's like "grammar nazis". They feel this compulsion to point out the wrongs of writing to people. And how do people usually feel about "grammar nazis"?
My understanding is the normal understanding of it. A wikipedia article could explain it to you far more succinctly than I can.
Morality: is about absolutism!
We are debating ethics, and not morality("moral police"). Ethics, represent our social-disease! Human action: is either absolute or relative. Relativity promotes digression and depression. If we want to progress(together), we should seek absolutes!
Conservatism(stagnation): is destroying our move forward, and we are talking, walking - in circles...
Forward to where, exactly? Will there be Mojitos where we are going? Should I pack a sammich?
I'm all for sticking up for people. I'm w/you on that.
And voicing your opinion on something you feel is unjust ... we agree on that , too.
But isn't that what those being labeled 'Morality Police' feel they were doing in the first place?
And I dunno ... I get not approving of certain tactics & whatnot ... but I guess it just seems a tad hypocritical to me for one to finger-wag people for finger-wagging & then not consider themselves to be finger-waggers , as well.
Am I only one that doesn't bother to read desperate rants longer than a short paragraph? LOL!
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Absolutely yes, and here's why.So ... what are you guys saying? That your reasons for pointing out the wrongs of others are more justifiable than those of the users you're calling out?
Think of us more as a grass roots coalition for a peaceful coexistance. When a person or group introduces conflict, then yes, sometimes you have to confront that conflict with a counter conflict. If there is a gunman taking out innocent civilians at a shopping mall, is the legally armed citizen who puts six rounds into the perp a hypocrite for doing so?Does this mean you're the Morality Police Police?
Well hey, 'scuse the fuck out of me for having a "minority opinion!" If you don't want people getting "butthurt," then keep your moral nightstick in your pants and quit screwing us in the ass with it!there's a handful of individuals here who get butthurt every time someone reminds them that their opinions are firmly in the minority and that their actions are unwanted by the people they perpetrate them on.
Translation: "Yes they are hypocrites, but don't ask me to explain how, I just like calling them names."To answer your question, though, yes it makes them a hypocrite, but they don't care, because if they understood logic in the first place, half these arguments would never happen.
Really? 'Cause that doesn't sound like advice to me. It sounds more like self-appointed authority being passed off as "advice." And by the way, who died and made you Pope? We can decide for ourselves what we should or shouldn't do.And yes, "You can't, so don't" is perfectly valid advice when being asked about something that you shouldn't do.
And again, zip it up.But again, the butthurt.
And there you have it. Anybody rejecting the Morality Police's self-imagined authority is just a "control freak" being "pissy." This the kind of drooling Neanderthalic bullheadedness which precludes any notion of Hey we're just giving our "opinions!"They're control freaks, which is why they both feel the need to impose their fetish on other people with or without their consent, and why they get so pissy over people telling them "no" on a messageboard.
What you do in the privacy of your home with other consenting adults is your business, but when you use the same behavior on the street, in bars, the subway etc. on unsuspecting strangers to get your jollies, it becomes everyone's, whether you agree or not. It's not all about you when others are involved. If you can't see or understand that, you have a problem.
Think of us more as a grass roots coalition for a peaceful coexistance.
Allow me to present a sterling example of the pig-headed, self-righteous intolerance of the Morality Police at work:
Well hey, 'scuse the fuck out of me for having a "minority opinion!" If you don't want people getting "butthurt," then keep your moral nightstick in your pants and quit screwing us in the ass with it!
Can you believe the gall? How dare these free thinkers express opinions outside the majority? Minority opinions are expressly forbidden! He doesn't know how many people that we tickle in this way, who they are, or where they live, yet he somehow knows that none of them want it. My God, what pompous and presumptuous arrogance.
Translation: "Yes they are hypocrites, but don't ask me to explain how, I just like calling them names."
Really? 'Cause that doesn't sound like advice to me. It sounds more like self-appointed authority being passed off as "advice." And by the way, who died and made you Pope? We can decide for ourselves what we should or shouldn't do.
And again, zip it up.
And there you have it. Anybody rejecting the Morality Police's self-imagined authority is just a "control freak" being "pissy." This the kind of drooling Neanderthalic bullheadedness which precludes any notion of Hey we're just giving our "opinions!"
Those of us who object to the Morality Police's tyranny aren't interested in squashing opinions, warnings, etc.
If there is a gunman taking out innocent civilians at a shopping mall, is the legally armed citizen who puts six rounds into the perp a hypocrite for doing so?
I don't get it.
If people are willing to go against "the norm" (whatever the hell that means in this venue), if they truly don't care about other people's feelings in pursuit of their own gratification, to the point of scoffing at those who do...
...Why do they care what the Morality Police think? What power do they wield? What can they do, besides express disapproval? If putting their hands on a stranger is no big deal, what do they care what strangers (more accurately, the typed responses of anonymous strangers) care about it?
Intimidation with the express goal of censorship of thought, plain and simple …
As I said, the Morality Police are here to stay …Yeah, I stand by that statement. Some people find "erotic" discussions in conjunction with the murder of a child to be distasteful, to say the least.
So, that little point of contention aside... again.... Why do you care what people here think of what you do?
Will they stop you from touching strangers, without their consent, for your own enjoyment?
Will they make you change your behavior, or your way of thinking about it?
Just fyi, it wasn't my intention to justify anything. I was simply answering the questions you asked.I'm sorry. It's just ... it's kind of hard to take that seriously when you almost immediately follow it up with :
Not to mention the many responses you've posted in the other thread that are just as antagonistic.
I know , I know ... you're simply defending yourself from Solemates' response ( & others like it ) w/your strategy of 'fighting fire w/fire'.
But I must ask you to please not sit there & justify/explain your actions by telling us that they're all for the good & "peaceful coexistence" of the forum when it seems that much of the time while you're fighting these fires , you're actually adding fuel to them.
*shrug* Maybe a little bit. But that's the direction I see we're heading and perhaps I see us closer to arrival than you do. I mean look at this quote...And again , I'm sorry ; but ... "tyranny"? You don't think that's being a bit dramatic there? Just a skosh?
there's a handful of individuals here who get butthurt every time someone reminds them that their opinions are firmly in the minority...
...And yes, "You can't, so don't" is perfectly valid advice when being asked about something that you shouldn't do...
What difference would that make? He's illegally taking out civilians.Perhaps the gunman was also legally armed.
They weren't. That was sort of precluded by the whole "innocent" thing, yeah.Perhaps the "innocents" he was taking out were actually planning to blow up that shopping mall.
No need to feel otherwise.Then along comes your citizen to put six rounds into the guy.
The citizen felt he was saving the day by taking out the gunman.
No, the gunman was having a particularly bad day and finally said to himself, "I just need one more thing to go wrong." He arrived home only to find a bottle of Scope in his mailbox with a gift card signed "The Green Phantom."The gunman felt he was doing right by taking out the "innocents" ... who turned out to be not so innocent.
You know, the fact that you danced around the question, and actually went as far as to try and change the details of the analogy demonstrates pretty clearly to me (and probably everybody else) how damning that question was to your notion of hypocrisy on the part of anybody objecting to the morality police.
You have a nice day.
1.)I think part of the problem, and the reason why the Morality Police are able to flourish without contention, is a reluctance for the Mods to enforce the forum rules. And that reluctance stems from the fact that all Mods are regular users, many of whom have a repertoire of personal interactions with others on the forum; from on-line only, to RL meets, or possibly more intimate relations.
2.)A more effective moderation scheme would be anonymous moderation; generic moderator user names that any designated Mod could use when necessary; names like TMF_Mod, TKDis_Mod, GenDis_Mod, etc. Generic moderation would be more effective in enforcing the rules even handedly, and without prejudice (particularly toward those of the female persuasion). They could even drop the “Moderator” designator title to regular users; there would be no reason for us to know, for example, that “Hari” is a moderator.
3.)"I suspect though this would never fly here." The forum owners are personally invested in the subject matter and there is a certain level of personal pride associated with the authority to moderate. So I believe the Morality Police are here to stay.