we’ve circled all the way around to “you’re too unattractive to be falsely accused of rape”, the mind boggles.
Oh come on mysterious blogger Argumate is thinking of, surely the ugly, undesirable, and otherwise low-status are the best targets for a false accusation?
People already don’t like them and find the thought of them as sexual beings to be creepy and repulsive.
Anonymous asked:
There is no guarantee, and if you look like a sufficiently valuable target, you may be attacked regardless, however…
Being attractive and high-status is a major defense against many forms of social attack. People will like you and make excuses for you, when they won’t for equally-deserving others that are less handsome and less popular.
It can help even in environments that say they are against lookism and unfair benefits from popularity.
The best defense against this particular accusation, of course, is to be born cis female. (Of course, that’s still only a partial defense.)
Last year, two of my friends were falsely accused of rape.
One of them was lucky enough to have evidence - texts from the girl expressing enthusiasm about the experience and agreeing that she had initiated and expressed implicit consent (like getting a condom, putting it on him, and asking him to fuck her harder) - but that didn’t stop rumors spreading. It turns out she had a boyfriend, and probably fed him a different story in order to prevent him being mad at her.
My friend got uninvited from parties and had people warning his friends about his sexual offense. Eventually the story morphed into the rumor that he had assaulted two people, but when he asked the supposed second person, she had no idea what he was talking about.
My other friend wasn’t lucky enough to have direct evidence. He never found out who was accusing him - an image began circulating virally with his face, name, where he lived, and a long description of his supposed ‘violent assault.’ People he didn’t know started contacting all his facebook friends and warning them that he was a violent rapist. He received threats and hate mail.
He didn’t have any absolute proof that he was innocent, but his reputation was solid. I saw messages from previous casual sexual partners (who’d been contacted by friends of the accuser) saying the accusations were strange because he’d only ever been respectful and they couldn’t imagine him doing something like that. He lived in a house with roommates, and his roommates had met all his sexual partners, and they said all of them had seemed happy to be there and fine when they left. Everyone who knew him was confused by the accusations. He was a close, old friend of mine. I’d had seen him interact with many casual sexual partners during our friendship, and he had always been consent-oriented and not pushy. He refused to have sex with people who were intoxicated.
I suspect it might have been a similar circumstance to my first friend - he had sex with someone who had a boyfriend, and then she’d lied about it in order to avoid telling her boyfriend that she’d cheated.
It’s also possible that it wasn’t even anyone who had sex with him, but just anyone who disliked him and wanted to hurt him.
–
Neither of the accusers went to the police, probably because their claims were false. They stayed out of the legal system and proceeded to destroy my friends’ reputations on a social scale. I suspect false rape accusations are more common than we think, mainly because false accusers have a special incentive not to report to the police.
And even if they are rare, the power to destroy lives is incredibly serious. One of my friends became suicidal and went on medication to keep himself from self harming. The mental distress he underwent from the false accusation seemed comparable to that of a rape victim.
The problem is that people have the power to do this to each other, and we don’t have any social system in place for preventing this. I don’t think we should believe all victims absolutely - we should ascribe probability to their stories, and be far more cautious before we take actions to socially punish the accused.
I want to help rape victims, but I can’t justify it when it’s at the expense of other victims.
–
Also, there are shitty people in the world, shitty enough to hurt other people for any reason - feelings of power, personal gain, revenge - and if a woman can ruin a man’s life by falsely accusing him of rape, without having to go to the police - shitty women will absolutely take this route. They have nothing to lose if they’re in a culture of ‘never question a rape victim.’
There are people out there that have the capacity to do it and the motivation, much as is the same with actual rapists. I don’t really understand the argument that false accusations are implausible or extremely rare. “Someone shitty has something to gain by hurting another person” is not exactly a rare scenario.
Too often the response is to blame any system with exploitable reporting on the people who abuse that, as if a gun should be left lying around a crowded room because only bad people would misuse it. It’s the system, not the “bad apples.”
(And it must be kept in mind, despite agreement with the above, harassment and stalking of women who have no idea how to respond because official channels are not proportionate to the offense are also still serious problems. I know victims of stalking. I know targets of witch hunts. Yes, in our cosmopolitan social bubble, yes in the very recent past. It’s a messy, complicated world out there.)
I’ll just note that “if you find yourself alone in on a room with a really bad person in a sexual context they can seriously mess up your life and get away with it because there were no witnesses” was the status quo for women before circa 1990. Rape is a crime that almost always happens in a situation where there is no convincing physical evidence, where it is plausible that no crime occurred at all, where a material part of the crime is the effective communication of an inner mental state of the victim.
Given all that, a system that only relied on the legal system with its high burdens of proof, particularly when combined with rampant misogyny, means that rape accusations succeeded in only the most brazen and obvious circumstances. It meant men could hurt women with impunity.
I’m not saying the right answer is jus to flip things around and make men as vulnerable as women used to be, but honestly unless you start fucking in semi-public spaces like responsible degenerates I have no idea how to make this not zero sum.
Attention to the truth is not zero-sum. People should act on what they truly believe is accurate.
What we see in these accusations, and most crimes tied to ideology (ie, the belief that rape is part of rape culture is part of the patriarchy is part of conservatism, and thus that fighting sexual assault has a political component) is the desire to disavow your own judgment. You may personally be unsure a rape did not take place, but for the sake of the political project you must act as if you did.
(Additionally in these social witch hunts, the problem is rarely disagreement over the facts of what happened. It’s more about the interpretation of those facts, and things like, as you say, someone’s internal mental state.)
In the past we had the reverse of this, where you might believe a man did something heinous, but were pressured to pretend nothing bad happened so the town could continue on in peaceful harmony. So you keep him away from your daughters, but otherwise ignore the victim. That too was disavowal.
You must take responsibility for your own judgment. This includes what you think of the accused, and of the victim, and of the context, and their other relationships with people, and of moral questions like forgiveness and justice. (Very, very often in the modern context that conclusion will be: I think the accused did not mean to hurt anyone and is safe for others to be around, but the victim is hurt and needs space to feel safe now.)
It’s terrifying because people will call you all sorts of terms coded with political betrayal. But to give in and claim what you do not believe is true, is the cowardice that condemns people to silence and lies.
The good news here is that we’ve enjoyed so much social progress that Ourobouros is starting to eat his own tail, and we’ll soon be back to the symmetrical, Victorian-era standard of “never be alone in a room with someone of the opposite sex unless they’re your spouse, because it will cause Rumor and Scandal.”
aka, you won’t get accused because she cheated on her boyfriend if you are the boyfriend
Yes, this is by no means foolproof, but it is wise to reduce one’s potential attack surface.
The risk of false accusation is probably weighted more heavily on a per-partner basis, longer dating makes hiding two-timing proportionally more difficult, allows better anticipation of hangups and other risk factors, etc.
Of course memoguy isn’t going to issue lots of citations. Feminists control the academy and do things like classify “forced envelopment” as something other than rape.
Google released it’s new API to detect trolls and toxic people.
The SJW programmers ended with something extremely bias. Go figure.
otoh:
this is going to be a real shitshow.
Let’s stress test it a little.
“Koreans are the whitest boys of all.” - 47%
“This isn’t a warning mechanism. It’s a weapon.” - 17%
“According to MRAs, institutional feminist Mary P. Koss convinced the CDC to reclassify "forced envelopent” as something other than rape.“ - 24%
"Male circumcision is genital mutilation.” - 67%
“Pakistani child sex trafficking” - 80%
“Pakistani child sex trafficking is a problem for many culturally diverse cities” - 29%
“Trump is not my president” - 29%
“We need to destroy whiteness.” - 71%
“The proper place for a man is barefoot and in the kitchen.” - 34%
“Islam is oppressive towards women.” - 49%
大日本帝国がない - ?
“Punch Nazis” - 91%
“We must secure a future for Martian children and the Martian race. This is our duty as loyal soldiers of the Principality of Mars. Long live the Red Planet! Death to democracy! Death to Earth!” - 50%
Anyhow, it won’t be long before corporations use this to purge all dissent from their pages.
Anonymous asked:
slartibartfastibast answered:
My own view is that some of these things are easier to prevent and deal with than others.
We’ll probably never get rid of all the sex crimes. Or all the muggings. Or all the murders. We’ll have to keep chipping away at them forever.
But some marginal sources of murders, or arsons, or sex crimes are much, much greater than others. So not taking taking steps that have a high marginal reduction in crimes for a low marginal cost is dumb. Doubly so if the reason for not doing so is also dumb/erroneous.
And also in this sense I tend to view the increase as being largely unnecessary, whereas we must essentially accept that there will be some minimum number of car thefts if we don’t execute all car thieves and a number of innocents accused of car theft.
Stupid Danes just don’t understand how all that rape helps their economicses. Everyone needs to have lots of economicses. Rape isn’t very quantifiable (because that would be offensive) and therefore doesn’t exist. But economicses exist. There are courses in school about them. Have you raised all your boat sails with my Keynesian theories of human trafficking? If you sell one child per family you can fund AI research. People aren’t real. When do I get my hedonium implants? Why are people so mad about rape when we will all soon get hedonium implants?
How many utilons can be exchanged for one rape?
This is a mindset that I’m finding very frustrating, in that I’m having difficulty categorizing it. Is it a reasonable, rational understanding of actual conditions? Is it xenophobic dog whistles, predictable playing on the existing memes of “furiners gonna rape our women”/miscegenation threat?
What are the underlying issues here? Increased pressure from refugees/migrants from the Middle East (not all of whom are Muslim)? The impending population decline? A sudden rise in giving a shit about rape?
WTF is actually going on? Because everyone seems to be going around with blinkers on, cherry picking and building echo chambers and rubbing themselves with factually incorrect memes.
Memes about how everyone is biologically identical and culture is arbitrary reached peak signalling potential and then the same portable media tech that motivates opportunist migrants also made it impossible to cover up the horrifying consequences of importing them (we used to be able to nip those stories in the bud, or obfuscate perp details).
Also, Merkel lost her mind and imported a million and a half people that immediately started raping the locals.
Rotherham also hit the news in 2014, so that didn’t help.
Additionally, while conservative types may not want to pay the price of shifting the burden of evidence on rape cases, lowering the number of immigrants from high risk populations for it is a very cheap price to pay for them. After all, they don’t need to bring in huge populations while ignoring cultural differences just to show how fiercely not-racist they are.
And, while Marxists may use the language of ideological contradictions, they aren’t the only ones who can notice them. Setting aside the whole issue of genetics, as I think culture is sufficient and I’m committed to a multiracialist civic nationalism anyway: Liberals/Leftists have been treating culture as not mattering at all (when they import foreigners) yet mattering a lot when they fight to change it locally (eg, quit oppressing the gays)! This is accomplished in part by pretending the host nation’s majority culture isn’t actually a culture (“white ppl don’t have a culture”) including the meta-culture use to assimilate immigrants into American-style Food Court Ethnicity! …and then they attack the engine of assimilation, insisting that it’s unfair to demand people give up parts of their culture. But if culture doesn’t actually matter, as the earlier positions imply, then there is no reason to seek “diversity” in the first place. It’s incoherent.
…but people were socially prohibited from noticing it was incoherent, until the weight of the contradictions was enough under the mass migration in the EU that people couldn’t stand to pretend that all cultures are equal anymore. It’s perhaps a close enough fit for Western Europe, but it sure isn’t one globally. And since noticing it was suppressed before, and they’re still trying to suppress it now, there is a backlash.
I’m not sure it matters. Feminism-the-political-movement and its institutional power is sexist to the point of classifying “forced envelopment” as something other than rape, denies biology (and I don’t mean “lol trans isn’t real” I mean “hormones aren’t a placebo”), is pretty messed up and out-of-sync with people on sex (explicit-verbal-consent-at-every-point for example is not how people, particularly most women, actually want it), effectively denies there are consequences to sexual liberalism, and so on.
They don’t appear to actually believe in female agency, either.
And they publish articles like “MRAs hated Mad Max Fury Road!”, even though if you travel into the MRA viper nest to check, the local MRAs are all “??? what” at this accusation.
The question, I think, is why they hate it so much to lie about it like that. And I think the reason is because the MRA narrative, at least, is not Traditionalism or Feminism, even though it required both of those to come into existence. It’s the first challenge to their stranglehold on the gender narrative in some time, and controlling the gender narrative is very valuable politically.
The MRA narrative isn’t spot-on either, but because it contains things Feminism deliberately ignored, it has room to grow, just like Feminism had room to grow due to what Traditionalism ignored.
I also believe it’s a symptom of a looming Male Gender Meltdown that Feminism thinks it wants but is too self-absorbed to carry out. Like, the Alt Right should not be so full of self-identified “traps”, Bronies were scorched but aren’t compatible with the Feminist/Traditionalist model either, and so on. These are symptoms, I think, of a situation which has not yet exploded, but the point of criticality is slowly being reached and it’s going to look very strange and I don’t think the cishet neurotypical women are going to like it.
And? That critical point may arrive just as affordable tissue engineering does.
Anonymous asked:
ranma-official answered:
No one except for the people who advocate it!
Considering that refusing sex is still considered “abusive” in some institutional texts on relationships, it’s about as believable that the same sort of people who advocated “corrective” rape for gays and lesbians would advocate it for asexuals. If they don’t it’s probably because they’re unaware of asexuals, not that they actually respect them or their wishes.
One day has passed. Manifestbro was named, shamed and fired.
Instead of the version that gizmodo published, with the links and graphs stripped out, we have the full version of the memo now.
I think it’s important to understand that this memo was not written *for* the public to read, but for Google management. I don’t think the guy realised this would get more than a hundred views, or he might have posted it anonymously on wordpress. The sucker thought this would stay inside Google. What a douchebro!
There have been bits of insightful commentary, and most of the rest boiled down to “It’s true, but he should not say it“. @slatestarscratchpad had written a piece in reply to a reply to the memo, both of which focused of the science of gender differences, which were only tangentially related to the actionable recommendations from the memo about anti-diversity training.
Google executives have hand-wrung about valuing free expression and this should be discussed, but …
People have lost their shit over words like “agreeableness“, “openness“, “conscientiousness“ and “neuroticism“. Basically social psychology terminology is sexist now, which brings be to my …
I’m being 100% serious here. I believe that the SJWs who hated this memo should do this one weird thing to maximise their culture war impact:
Otherwise manifestbro will find work at another place, and another Googler will find the same hatefacts on arXiv or PLoS. This is a pipeline problem. As long as there are “scientific“ studies on gender differences, people will use them. Especially genius Harvard biologists.
So you have to make it clear, drill it into people’s heads: If you continue researching this shit, there will be consequences! (Be vague about consequences here. Ostensibly you mean to imply that certain research output will turn genius Harvard biologists alt-right, but you also want to darkly hint at ~~consequences~~)
Once you establishes contact with a scientist, any of the coauthors of the linked papers, ask them if they think that their research directly supports the conclusions of the memo. Don’t let them weasel out. If they tell you that there is no direct link between the quality of sensitivity training (which they probably did not measure) at Google and OCEAN traits in undergrads, tell them to condemn the memo then, to be on the safe side.
If they tell you that they want to stay out of it, get inventive: Contact the student union at their institution or leak the names of their grad students on your twitter!
Ask them to
Make them publicly commit to these pledges!
If they refuse, tweet! This is your one chance to destroy the root of the evil and to leave nothing but scorched earth. Things are in motion. Reactionaries don’t know if their increased visibility from the memo will help them coordinate, or if it will lead to a coordinated expulsion of known reactionaries. Don’t let counterrevolutionary elements take root! Now is your chance!
Ever forward! Fire and motion!
Ah, but how did we get the new reactionaries? The disadvantage of this method is that subsequent conversions to the right wing are permanent. Once someone finds out that “forced envelopment” got classified as something other than rape in study after the CDC contacted some institutional feminist, for instance, they aren’t going to believe Feminist studies anymore. At that point, getting them to come back to feminism becomes impossible. The number of hatefacts may be reduced, but every hatefact becomes more potent.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
