Phi for All

What's an example of a conservative standpoint, for you?

This seems like a definition problem, and one in which the US has been mired deeply in this age of spin. We talk about ourselves as conservative or liberal, when nobody really fits anyone else's definition. And those definitions have been purposely left loosey-goosey, to allow everyone to make up their own relevance. It's a lot like the way Jesus would do EXACTLY what most people think they would do. I hate those labels. I consider myself a blend of stances and ideals, with the overriding concern that I'm in a society filled with others. There are many times when I do things for myself alone, but most of the time I'm trying to help everyone else (including myself) by social cooperation. I obey laws, I'm courteous on the roads and sidewalks, and I look for opportunities where my abundance can be shared practically. If I've prospered in a overbalanced capitalist society, it's because I was born into a strong middle class family and had lots of opportunities, public schooling, libraries, museums, available capital and available credit, and good people working for me, who also had access to the social support I had. It bothers me when that kind of opportunity is scorned because some fear helping someone unworthy of it. So if our politics discussions sound more like a debate where folks want to win, I think that's on you. It's always my hope that I can learn from folks who don't think exactly the way I do, but I know it's not going to happen when you start talking about being conservative. That just sets us up on opposite sides automatically. Maybe give up the label, admit that you couldn't possibly be conservative about every issue, and then we can talk about some of the other crayon colors in the big box. Pointing fingers are always labeled.

! Moderator Note This is a hijack. Start a new thread if you want to explore this.

There's the analogy I was looking for! Imagine that a car deliberately ran into you, after you had signalled your intent quite clearly. You know it was deliberate because you could see the driver's face, maybe even heard him say through the open window, "Oh, no you don't!" just before turning the wheel and ramming you. Now imagine the police started out asking what you did to make the other driver so mad. The more you insist you were doing nothing wrong, the more you're sure they don't believe you, that they think you flipped him off, or flashed your bright lights, or cut him off, or did something to elicit this totally irrational response. It doesn't seem to matter to the cops that none of those things are an excuse or even a decent reason for what was done to you. Further imagine that we start hearing about more and more stories like this, where innocent drivers are being rammed deliberately for no reason. #MyCarToo posts start flooding the web. Would we focus more on warning the innocent drivers, or would we focus more on punishing the assaulters? Or would we allow this assaulter personality type into leadership positions, so they could slowly build up support for the idea that aggressive drivers happen, and we should just watch out for them because we'll never be rid of them completely? Instances like these are really shocking, mostly because in hindsight it's hard to imagine there weren't adequate protocols already in place. I don't have a high opinion of "sports parents" in general, from experience with little league types who focus on winning above all else, including their child's happiness. Take that to the olympic level, and I shudder to think what is allowed in the quest for the gold. I'm fairly certain that much of the current movement is trying to send the message that seeing someone's hoohah isn't an invitation, nor should it automatically make them a sex object. It shouldn't be so difficult for intelligent human males to resist the jump-and-hump reaction to a naked body. We can look at other things that make us THINK about sex without calling them sex objects. I think insisting that naked parts make you a sex object is one more thing that perpetuates the inequality. I think men in general want women to desire sex when the man exposes himself. I think people in general want to be attractive. I think women in general want people to look at them positively without it being an invitation to sex.

A very, very big part, imo. Men have been dominant in business and politics long enough to have (inadvertently?) stacked the deck in their favor. The US Congress has contingency funds for dealing with sexual harassment claims against its members, to keep it quiet rather than trying to stop it. To me, this is a clear case of men wanting the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how their behavior is interpreted. Hard lines might be crossed often, so enforcement gets watered down to what we see today, where investigation stalls out because they start by assuming a) the victim did something she shouldn't have, and b) the victim is most likely exaggerating the danger. We've allowed men to set the tone of the laws and their enforcement, and for men sexual advances aren't viewed the same way as other physical assaults. It's like women are trying to tell us "STOP, it HURTS", and we're saying "Are you crazy? This feels GREAT!" Perhaps we should go out of our way to attract women into these positions of authority men have dominated for too long. I think we should focus on non-wealthy women to leadership positions and see what some soccer moms and scout leaders can do about fixing what's wrong with sexual assault enforcement. We can pay them 150% of what the men make as an incentive.

I wish I was a better woodworker. I'm more of a practical crafter than a hobbyist, and I like to make things rather than buy them when I can. I'm putting the finishing touches on a double bathroom countertop I made with small river stones embedded in resin that sets up looking like water. It's a cool effect, and it's turning out well. I have a lot of saws and joiners and drill presses and sanders, but I don't have the room to have them all up in their own place at all times, so projects take me longer than they should, and I don't get enough time to just mess around gaining skill. It's really cool that you want to go old school with this. I knew a guy that made tables and chairs without hardware, also did gorgeous woodcarving. If you go full Amish, be careful with the beard around drills. Here's my tip: since you're using chisels and hand planes, you don't need premium pieces of wood all the time. Start collecting scraps from anyplace you can, and look for grains, colors, and textures that attract you. I have a hunk of purpleheart wood I found somewhere as scrap, and I keep hoping to make something cool out of it.

This is exactly why so many investigations into sexual assault start with the assumption that the woman was doing something stupid, yet we all have stated that there are so many predators out there that abnormal risk mitigation is required, and corroborated by your colleague. Doesn't that seem a trifle fucked up to you? "We know there are plenty of sharks out there, but we're going to start by insulting your intelligence and assume you threw blood in the water before swimming". Then comes the argument that this is just the way things are. This fuels the frustration behind the pushback. "The way things are" needs to change, and I think it's predominantly men's fault. Too many men want to control women's bodies for too many bad reasons.

I think we have already have mechanisms similar to what you suggest, but something is making them ineffective, misdirected, and almost universally worthless. It seems to be an attitude of tacit permissiveness when it comes to men giving men the benefit of the doubt when women claim the shadow of doubt has been exceeded. I think the biggest area of weakness is the male tolerance of male predatory behavior. It allows some men to turn their predatory problem into some woman's assault problem, and if we can't stand against that, why do we think we're protecting them by making it easier to report abuse? Hey, I'm not directing this conversation. If you have more on the what-else-should-women-do angle, feel free to share. I feel like you view this the way you would prepare your home for a big storm, seeing it as common sense to cover the windows, store some drinking water, tie down anything that will blow away, all the things that will improve the overall outcome. I don't look at the kind of predatory aggression we're talking about as an implacable storm I can only defend against. I see it as something human that can be dealt with offensively if we stop ignoring half the equation.

And there's no pushback against this, either. Again, it seems like a pretty obvious given that people, ALL people, should avoid being victims wherever they can. And it's a given that actual assault should be dealt with by the letter and spirit of the law. I hope everyone agrees with this, please sing out if you don't. Exploring more options for women to be unobtrusive and unremarkable seems like repeating bad history. When we observe what actually goes on, we see that women are not given the same treatment with regards to sexual assault. In today's society, this means women, for reasons your arguments seem to support, have to take this to the extreme when it comes to dress and behavior, far more so than men. Is there a reason why we should condone it, given that assault is bad and common sense vigilance is good? When women come forth to fight against this prejudice and inequality, shouldn't we do more than remind them that some men can't be trusted to observe what the rest of us take as given? Does vigilance end in prevention, or should we be putting similar efforts into punishment and rehabilitation? Part of the justice system is making the consequences of repeated crimes something to avoid at all costs. I think we've explored the what-else-should-women-do options long enough. I'd like to explore the put-the-sexual-predators-in-jail-with-each-other options, and the let's-teach-our-sons-some-respect-for-women options, and the shatter-stupid-stereotypes options.

And this amazing story got to turn out well for all involved because you didn't assume that a snog at a rock festival gave you some kind of male-based permission to do more. Many men would have, and it's their behavior that's in the spotlight right now, not yours. That's why there's so much pushback against the simple argument that women ought to be more careful. We aren't talking about any kind of behavior you'd condone from men if you witnessed it firsthand.

If you absolutely know the house is burning down and you can't do anything about it, you don't ask, "How painful will it be if we just sit here?" If it takes us more than a billion years to find a safer neighborhood, then we deserve to cook. LOL. My mom was Missouri folk, and she used that expression when things didn't turn out quite right. "Beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

Overfocusing on the victim's behavior helps the perpetrators of sexual assault, as I'm sure you'll agree. And it seems like that's exactly what you're doing, overfocusing, bringing it up whenever it's suggested that men should instead be the focus. Is it that far out of bounds to suggest your approach lends a tacit support to the men involved? You think it's a dishonest approach, and I don't understand why. Please help.

If we can agree that practicing reasonable situational awareness is required moving forward, and that considering assault on women to be a bad thing is also a "given", then how else are we going to change the prejudiced approach to investigations and other injustices, other than trying to change how men conduct themselves? I, for one, am not content to assume we can't do better in this regard. This is how a society gets better, by refusing to ignore problems any longer. I also don't feel anyone is trying to shut down discussion of any particular area. Isn't part of debate trying to show the folks you're talking to a different POV, expose them to sides they maybe hadn't taken into consideration? In this case, I feel we have laws that should protect women, but they aren't fairly enforced because, in large part, of this knee-jerk assumption that the woman did something stupid.

First, I feel this is a non-response to sexual assault on women, first making sure they weren't doing anything "risky" that might somehow mitigate the perpetrator's responsibility. Also, since this is such a basic point, it's insulting to keep using it as an argument with isolated and vivid examples used to admonish the majority. It perpetuates the prejudice and maligns the intelligence of women.

You're presenting this abnormal, prejudicial, gender-specific risk mitigation as de rigueur, or socially required. And I'm saying your attitude is a big part of why the problem never goes away. Men are expected to have potentially uncontrollable urges, and women are held to some Old Testament moral judgement with regard to how they handle the way men express this. This is what I hear you defending. If I'm being idealistic, then I think you're being hypocritical. I doubt you'd feel the same way about being assaulted if the tables were turned. And if all you have as a retort is something like, "women can grab me all they want", then you've again missed the point badly.

Your antiquated argument, the same one my father used when he would clean his shotgun in front of my sister's dates while waiting for them to come downstairs, is that men can't help themselves and must be threatened before they'll stop being animals, because that's just the way the world is. You and others would defend vigilance, but I and others are trying to point out that it's not a sustainable stance, never has been, and it needs to change. Under your argument, women will have to remain abnormally vigilant forever. As a man, I think we need to stop allowing other men off the behavior hook when it comes to assaulting women. Do we let anyone off the hook for driving while intoxicated? Working while intoxicated? Why allow drinking to be an excuse for any abuse, from any gender? We shouldn't let men off the hook for assault while intoxicated. We should NEVER think in terms of "should have expected to be assaulted". How is THAT beneficial to a society? I sincerely hope my fellow men can move beyond this defense of how things are, and demand that we treat women and ALL their body parts with the same respect we demand for ourselves. Imagine what life would be like if you had to be vigilant against people reaching out squeezing your nose (or anything else, really), and then defending themselves with all the excuses we hear. Honestly, the whole thing is beginning to smell like defending the arms industry. "We all know about the horrible worldwide atrocities, but wow that's a LOT of money and we get to vent our aggression, so don't take my guns away!" "Sex trafficking, wage gaps, open discrimination, morality arguments, all these make even MORE MONEY and let us vent even MORE AGGRESSION, so women should just be more careful!"

! Moderator Note OP, when asked for specific information, which you seem to believe is located within the bulk of the page you cited, why not point out the relevant parts with a simple cut and paste of exactly what supports your idea? Opening to a specific page in a book and pointing out where the reader should start is much more helpful than simply throwing the book at them and demanding they guess. Remember, in this section you need to support your ideas and respond to requests for clarification. Please help those willing to discuss this with you, rather than making it more difficult. Don't respond to this; respond to the questions already being asked of you.

And we're back to imagining things about the victims. First it's their lack of morality, and now their lack of intelligence. These are often the first, and sometimes only, responses to accusations of sexual assault. The evidence is all around us that men don't have to be goaded into taking unfair advantage of women. You don't have to imagine that the woman did something to him to make him turn animal. This is about shining the light on these animals, and I really hate that this attitude helps them hide in the dark.

This was dealt with earlier in this very thread. These are two different events, and you are making a mistake by equating them with each other. A limited analogy: It's like being able to track the path of a rocket probe sent from another star system with amazing accuracy without knowing exactly how it left its home planet in the first place.

! Moderator Notesf Creationism isn't a legitimate argument here at SFN (or anywhere reason is used), based on years of witnessing first hand an utter lack of evidence in support. Don't bring it up here again.

Absolutely. But all his locks have been set to 1111111, surely.

! Moderator Note It seems the OP is doing well on this topic without an unnecessary branch-off into entanglement. Please stop.

Are we talking about the best place to look for other life, or about looking for a better habitat for human ecosystems?

He wants a bigger naval, but he'll settle on playing with his bully-button.

I promise that he doesn't really represent half the US citizens. There are those of us who can count past five and understand about colors other than black and white. Some of us can show strength without bluster and bluff, and we have the integrity that lets us ignore insults designed to drag us into the mud. He has to do these provocative things to avoid a French Revolution while he helps rig the game to favor the wealthy, because apparently huge amounts of cash just don't cut it these days. It's not morally questionable when the POTUS has no morals, and it's not illegal when you're writing the laws.