BLM and feminism - 2017-04-07 (page 1 of 2)

next day → last day (39 days later) »

4:05 PM

Created this room to keep this discussion out of Workplace.SE water cooler, where it started

Here is the transcript between me and Richard U that started it all:

chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/3060/2017/4/6

My original comment that Richard replied to, was in reference to an update from a user about sexual harassment in the workplace - turns out the hiring manger (and other managers) knew about similar prior incidents in this employee's past.

So I said that this was an example of "institutional sexism", which Richard replied to

4:24 PM

and then it escalated into a surprisingly respectful conversation over multiple days!

hopefully

4:48 PM

All of which (covering for friends, downplaying reports of sexual harassment, etc) is part of that (duh duh DUUUUUUUUUH) institutional sexism!

These aren't isolated incidents, these are well known patterns, and that pattern has a name

When there is a bad work situation, it is almost always better for the wronged party to leave than try to fight. Personal experience here: You'll end up in courts for years with no way to pay your bills.

@BradC give it a rest already

lol

still don't believe its real?

@BradC It happens against (and for) every group of people

oh my god

Not really institutionalized sexism. Just nepotism.

4:49 PM

take it to chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/56736/blm-and-feminism

@BradC Nepotism and the disadvantages faced by those on the wrong side of it happen to everyone

so... men and women are equally sexually harassed in the workplace?

No, but thats a different discussion entirely

men, who are typically physically larger, are just as often cornered in a back office by women, who are typically smaller?

On the flipside if a woman accuses someone of sexual harassment in the workplace the accusation is given more credence then when a man does it

4:53 PM

so let me clarify which of the following is your argument. Which is it:
1. You don't believe there is a pattern of sexual harassment in the workplace
2. You don't like the term "institutional sexism" to refer to that pattern?
Or 3. You don't think this particular case is an example of it?

Just so I know what I'm arguing against

I believe sexual harassment happens to women more often then men in the workplace

I also believe it's a problem rooted in a biological imperative and not because of some form of social construct (or rather, the social construct supporting it is formed by the biological imperative, not the other way around)

And I think this case is more an example of how nepotism damages people then some instutionalized sexist wave in the workplace

@RichardU Yeah, I really don't understand the mindset of some people, who wake up every day thinking, "who am I going to sue today?" Don't go to court over stupid things, move on.

that's certainly an unfortunate calculation that everyone has to face in that situation.

Gender roles in the broadest sense aren't really social constructs. They're biological imperatives that have evolved with us from the apes. They also cover physiological difference between the sexes, and for instance why men on average (even when factoring socialization out) are more likely to pursue women then women are to pursue men. This comes from the general disparity that women's biological imperative is to be monogamous while Men's is to have as many partners as possible

Due to the inherent desire to spread one's genes.

That of course trickles down into people with no decency or self control

I think arguing about the "cause" (biological imperative, historical sexism, social constructs, whatever) is mostly a waste of time, because the suggested remedies still work

I mean, i absolutely have an opinion about that, but its mostly a diversion

4:59 PM

What remedies do you suggest?

Every single one I've heard has been along the lines of eroding our presumption of innocence (aka "Listen and believe") which I consider a strict non starter

@Magisch no, it never happens to people with disabilities, and it has NEVER happened to me </sarcasm>

Boy, do I have opinions about that, but that's also a bit of a diversion.

@Magisch apparently, if the boss's friend had been a woman, he would have thrown her out instead of the OP, because, you know.... patriarchy

I think awareness of the issue across the workplace is a HUGE starting point. The freedom of employees to know that they can report real issues without being blamed or fired for reporting

Problem with that is, such a report carries a lot of weight

So if someone is found to make up an report or report something trivial, they should be fired and/or sued for that

5:02 PM

As it should, it is a serious accusation

It's the same basic conundrums as with false rape allegations

@MaskedMan I had a real discrimination case and my lawyer said I could have won, but I was so sick by the time I could have proceeded, I probably wouldn't have lived to see a dime. Dropping it was the best course of action.

I'm of the opinion that a deliberately false report (as in you knew it didn't happen but decided to fuck someone's life anyways) should carry a smilar punishment to the actual crime

Plus, according t @BradC discrimination only happens to black people and women.

It's a delicate balance between encouraging people to report incidents and not allowing people to use reports of sexual harassment for vengeance

5:04 PM

I think that when we examine the real world in which we live (how often it occurs, the impact of the crime, etc), that rape is a worse problem than false rape accusations.

This is made worse by the nature of these crimes because they're usually private (no 3rd party witnesses)

Of course false accusations are bad, but so are false accusations of muggings

But the truth is that they aren't any more common

Right. But the western justice system is based on the bedrock presumption of innocence. As in I'd rather 100 guilty people go free then 1 innocent is convicted

Show me where I said that

They are so uncommon precisely because it's not easy atm and the burden of proof is high

The easier you make it, the more opportunistic people will take advantage to gain leverage

It's the same damn thing with having policies on stuff like discrimination vs people with disabilities. You want these to protect people with disabilities. But you also want the burden of proof high enough so as to discourage spurious accusations sufficiently

5:07 PM

I think the "false rape accusation" is, by and large, a trope. Not that you can't find some real examples, but it really is a fake crisis. Who would actually voluntarily put themselves through the hell of that process?

Opportunity makes criminals.

@BradC Precisely the point

The process is designed to be adversarial so only real victims will go through it

All we want is for rape victims to receive the SAME benefit-of-the-doubt that victims of other crimes do. The "let me fairly investigate this allegation" that police and prosecutors are supposed to do.

And by and large, in this country, they DON"T

If I accuse someone of mugging me, their counsel has a right to a cross examination. And filing a false accusation is illegal. And lying under oath is illegal. These measures are intended to make sure only people who've actually been mugged do that and not just anyone who wants to screw someone they don't like.

They are blamed, they are

they are raked over the coals,

they are accused

And this isn't by the defense attorney

Well of course

5:09 PM

this is by the police and prosecutors

It's because of the private nature of the crime

no, NOT of course.

If i get mugged and there are no witnesses, I'll be raked by the defense attorney too

Asked if I really was mugged or just got into a fight

Asked if I didn't drop my stuff and claim I was mugged later

Convictions have to be beyond a reasonable doubt

Yes, but they don't say "you gave him $5 once, you should have been fine with him taking the other $100!"

of course I despise the retrograde dipshits that go "well she was asking for it"

5:10 PM

Here, when you have the opportunity, I'd encourage you to read this:

But there are cases where people regret an encounter and later decide it was rape to get back at the other person

THIS is the way that rape victims are ROUTINELY treated in this country

THIS is why they dont' report (actual) rapes

Unfortunate consequence of a rigorous fact finding process, largely.

If you don't have any evidence, you have no business accusing

We don't convict on he said vs she said in an adversarial justice system

No, its not. Read the article. Its misconduct

Again, I've never heard any proposals on this that don't in some way want to change the standard for presumption of innocence

or due process

5:13 PM

Well, there are lots of them.

If I'm accused I have a right to confront my accuser and ask questions and cross examine and demand evidence

Right to victim's advocates

Of course defense attorneys will play dirty in this to discourage victims from pursuing

@BradC "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WHITE PEOPLEZZ!!" Obviously, any white person mentioning any difficulties offends you greatly.

Education about rape methods and victim behavior, which are frequently very different than people think

5:14 PM

Thats part of the game where one attorney tries to convict at all costs and one tries to defend at all costs

Read the article, there aren't any defense attorneys in there

Don't be afraid to stand up for what you really mean

That's cops berating her and accusuing her until she backs down

That is part of a different problem with police culture

That doesn't just touch rape, it's one toxic stew of bullshit that has tendrils in a lot of what's wrong in this country

And I'd actually call american police culture to some extent institutionally racist

But its measurably WORSE for rape victims. That is a particularly bad part of policing and prosecution.

5:16 PM

Course it is

just like it's worse for black people

yes

doesn't mean it's not just shit all around

so we agree!!!!!!

worth changing as a whole

If we fix police culture we'll fix the rape victim problem with it

without having to specifically focus on it

It's many legitimate issues caused by the same root issue

← 19 messages moved from The Water Cooler

5:17 PM

just like it's shit for mentally ill people

The problem is people are always attacking the symptoms and not the cause

I bet that will be really fun for the transcript to mix/match convos. oops

trying to put unfair-policy bandaids on a deeper running issue

@Magisch Yep, and when you single out one group, you ignore all the others.

Thats not really the point there

when you single out one group, you lose the willingness of the others to change

And you don't adress the root cause

But if the problem (in this case) is "police don't understand rape very well so they mishandle those cases in specific ways that we can identify", why do we have to ignore those details and zoom out to a higher level?

5:19 PM

Same difference

Which means everything you do will be covering symptoms which will invariably resurface

Why can't we deal with the actual issue?

The problem is police are callous and frequently manned by sociopaths

@Magisch the cause is police misconduct. Address it across the board and all issues will be resolved.

Because you can't deal with the issue without dealing with it's cause

5:20 PM

With your magic wand?

@Magisch the cause is too many laws.

And it's cause isn't that policemen are sexist, it's that they're callous psychopathic people on a power trip with way too much ego and implied authority

Which allows for selective enforcement.

It brings the worst out in people

Yep, Milgrem experiment

Power corrupts.

5:21 PM

And good police officers are frequently outed by that culture so a lot of bad ones accumulate

I agree with a lot of that, but when you zoom out to the super-vague level, there are FEWER effective ways to handle it

And all that is reinforced by the sickening nepotism between police and prosecutors

When you zoom back in to the detail we find useful techniques

@Magisch the "us vs them" attitude that people have towards the police doesn't help either

Oh there are very effective ways of handling it

5:22 PM

Like?

Like what Cop Block does

A much better disciplinary process with independant prosecutors. Less ambiguity in the laws that allow for outright racial discrimination. Less ambiguity in what police can do if someone reports a crime.

@BradC Let me ask you a question: If Cop Block had their way, would life be better for blacks, as well as everyone else?

And fucking blacklisting from the entire process for officers that are fired for blatant misconduct

I like all those ideas. Those are great ideas. "the greatest"

5:23 PM

@Magisch and preventing good ones from being railroaded

But why can't we ALSO work on rapes as a crime category, and deal with the specific issues there?

Many of the callous fuckers that end up shooting black people for no reason have a history of being racist and shit at their job

@Magisch Agree. Trackign history of bad cop behavior is important

The issue is that people that are supposed to be fielding the reports and aid in the report process are frequently retrograde sexist and racist dimwits

If we got rid of those things would invariably be a lot better for rape victims

While also solving a larger issue with the police force

Great, I'm all for it. I'm also for educating police and prosecutors about specific problems with rape cases in particular

Just like I'd prefer they get training in high-tech bank robberies when they work those cases

5:25 PM

That wont work as long as you're dealing with power tripping sociopaths as police officers

It may be worth doing after, but cleansing the police force is a prerequisite

Kind of preposterous that america has allowed it to get this bad

Do you really think that the kind of cowardly dipshit who murders someone in broad daylight for non-infractions just because they feel like it or felt "threatened" will care about a rape sensitivity training

We have to do both. And working from the specific (like police shootings of blacks) can very well drill back up to the general problem (like body cams help identify bad cops, etc)

working on police violence in general is better and more inclusive

brb, gotta warm my lunch

Why do we consider it ok for police to murder people when there is no threat

In my country you'd go to jail for life on that as police officer

@Magisch Blacks are 1000 times more likely to be murdered by other blacks than by police.

don't believe everything you read

5:31 PM

As are whites

People are more likely to be murdered by their peer group

And people are more likely to be murdered by poor people

guess what? More black people are poor then white poeple (relatively)

Generational inequality takes a long time to even out

Thats also a non sequitur btw

Inner city violence being bad doesn't make it ok for cops to execute people for minor issues

The biggest and most accurate indicator of proneness to crime is socioeconomic status

Or to put bluntly, poor people crime more then well off people

for obvious reasons

5:52 PM

So, one of the above-discussed points, about the importance of getting rid of "bad apples" in the police. This is certainly necessary, but its not sufficient.

It's necessary before anything else can be fruitful

There are huge problems that are systemic to the system: police training on escalation/de-escalation, accountability to someone besides themselves, the 'blue wall of silence" covering for each other

these all are part of the system, good cops as well as bad ones

Which all harkens back to the core issue

Getting rid of the bad ones isnt' enough

police culture fosters sociopathy and collectivism and punishes decency

The whole culture needs a changin

5:54 PM

I agree. But look at the US Dept of Justice reports on Ferguson, on Baltimore, on Chicago (that the Trump admin is trying to roll back).

I don't have them in front of me, but there is FAR more than just "get rid of bad cops" in there.

I'm curious how much more political change would happen if people approached it from actual compromise. For example, "we will institute policies to get rid of bad police offers if you let us get rid of bad unionized teachers"

I just don't understand why the fact that these things are being raised on our consciousness because of BLM is a problem

@enderland I don't see how those have any connection whatsoever

political change now is scorched earth, all or nothing driven

either you're 100% with me or should go burn in a fire for being a <idiot, sexist, naive, whatever>

You should run for President and fix things. Oh wait ...

user image

I'd never get elected since I'm not radical enough

6:00 PM

good politicians do work with the other side, and compromise (which is one of the many reasons Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie, he had no idea how to work across the aisle)

the problem is, that all the outspoken political folks do not even attempt to do this

the Republicans don't. And they've gotten away with it. For the democrats to succeed, they're being forced to use the same dirty tactics

@enderland I'm doing what I can in my own backyard.

@BradC nobody is forced to use dirty tactics, they CHOOSE to do so.

Actually, there are a TON of brand new candidates getting into politics since the election, on the local level.

@BradC I'm not really sure this is true, they did have a majority in both houses of Congress and the president for quite a large percentage of the last 8 years

2

6:06 PM

nytimes.com/2017/03/22/nyregion/…

"Roused by Trump, First-Time Female Candidates Eye Local Seats"

@BradC The problem is the uncompromising nature of modern progressive activists

2

If "You either agree with everything I do and say or you're the enemy" is your modus operandi you alienate a whole lot of people

2

@enderland Democrats did, early on. But even then, (in my opinion) they didn't just ram crap through because they could, they strove to get bipartisan support. Look at the ACA, for example. For all the s--t that Republicans have given it since, it was a serious compromise bill, most of it full of conservative ideas about the market. It wasn't until later Repubs decided it was the spawn of satan.

And the conservatives are standing on the sidelines eagerly waiting with "It's okay, we'll fight these pesky liberals for you"

It's not fair, I get that

But you have to appease the majority to get anything done here

the polarization of US politics is largely responsible for why the entire country is going to hell in a handbasket right now

@Magisch In some ways I agree, but what if they're asking you to compromise on fundamental elements, like "do we have to treat you like a human being"?

@BradC Progressives are by and large not tolerant of being lied to

I'm not, for one

6:12 PM

@Magisch it can be summed up simply: People are trying to silence people.

2

If the democrats try the same tactics as the republicans I'll vote something else

@Magisch the progressives do a hell of a lot of lying though.

2

@BradC This language is on the core of the problem

I'm a progressive, I don't lie a lot

@BradC interestingly, this as applies to abortion is also a particularly controversial element in politics

@BradC The problem is most people don't see it like that at all

6:14 PM

@Magisch clearly

@Magisch I became a conservative from being around liberals, and I became a libertarian after hanging around with conservatives

Most people are mildly indifferent to most things and supportive of general progressive principles

They're not on the same page on "my way or the highway"

@Magisch the problem is when you will brook no disagreement, there is no talking

I am and have been a progressive

Do you know what you call someone you don't talk to? An enemy

6:14 PM

I'm also fervently in favor of discussing my ideas as much as possible with people with different opinions

2

I need that reality check to keep my convictions current and tested

I was a conservative, I now consider myself progressive/liberal

It's entirely possible that some of what I believe is complete hogwash and I need that exposed

@Magisch that's why you are strong

@Magisch the difference between a fool and a wise man is that a wise man questions his own thoughts, a fool never

I'm not in favor of particular policies, I'm in favor of improving human lives and all else stems from that

@Magisch you are not an ideologue, that much is certain.

I enjoy reading your opinions.

6:16 PM

@Magisch But surely that overall aim leads you to certain particular policies, and not others?

Sure

But I can be convinced otherwise if someone demonstrates a particular policy I favor isn't worth it or detrimental

for instance I used to be very much against atomic energy

before some physicist sat me down and taught me how much worse coal and gas is

Absolutely. You have to be open to questioning of your own beliefs. that's why I'm no longer a conservative

I really hate dogmatism. I really hate "this isn't up for debate"

And I hate with a burning passion "If you question this you're a <insert derogatory ism>"

me too. WOW AGREEMENT ON SOMETHIGN!

Many of my family members used to be conservative but no longer are

my dad even admitted to me he voted for the left party the last election

6:21 PM

@Magisch I'd much prefer "that position is (sexist/whatever)" rather than "you are (whatever)

It's because we talk regularly and I don't start the conversation with "I think you're <insert insult> because you believe is and you'll have to educate yourself before you're worth talking to"

But there are times that, in fact, holding to a certain view IS demonstrably sexist/racist/whatever

should that not be pointed out?

I prefer to have people reach that conclusion themselves by asking the right questions

it's an incredibly powerful tool in conversations

to make people realise their own position's shortcomings

That change sticks because they were the ones that reached that conclusion

perhaps, but sometimes you just don't have the time, or the belief that someone is debating in good faith. And not every conversation is one-on-one. Sometimes it is a public debate, where part of your points are (in fact) directed at the audience, not at the one you are debating.

It's a super important difference because instead of preaching to them you're guiding them to reach the conclusion you know to be true in their own logic

for instance, my grandpa used to hold some serious retrograde view of other races

telling him thats racist would only elicit a defensive response

Instead I asked him questions until he was forced to admit in his own chain of logic that that's pretty racist

6:27 PM

Socratic method

Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point. This method is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates and is introduced by...

This is the only way I've been able to permanently change people's perceptions without alienating them

And it's also the only way I'm not just preaching but crticially examining my own ideas at the same time

also, Inception talks about this idea ha

It's weird how powerful it is

It's very important that people know they reached the right conclusions themselves by following through the logic

and not just being told the conclusion

Fully agree, for a one-on-one sitdown conversation with someone.

but am I obligated to walk through this for every disagreeing twitter reply?

Or chat.SE response to my comment about institutional sexism?

Ôn chat it's actually pretty easy

twitter isn't a good medium for debate

there's no shortcut to making someone truly realize the error of their ways

6:32 PM

(only given 2 free days to hang out in chat)

there are loads of ways to make people defensive and alienate them though

If you really want to convince people and not just virtue signal for others who already agree you have to take the time

Abstractly, I agree with you. Practically, though, opponents of progressive values choose to be defensive and alienated by virtually anything.

right

What's your end goal?

So at some point, especially if you're discussing ideas/tactics/values within the movement, among people that generally agree, someone new coming in and demanding a 101-handholding through the issue is just a distraction

To change minds? Or to shame the opposition into ceasing resistance?

6:39 PM

so you link them to a FAQ and move on, but they get all huffy about how you're not explaining yourself nicely enough

You can never "not have time to explain it to someone"

Political movements dont work like stack exchange

You need to help people understand

thats the most important work within the movement

Always? More important than hashing out practical strategies? Every "but what about..." comment from drive-by opponents must be carefully and meticulously answered?

What's the saying? "Ain't nobody got time for that"

You want to get people on your side

Being welcoming is imperative for that

The goal is to make people understand and agree, and make them care

A 400-level college class doesn't need to be welcoming to freshmen who aren't familiar with the 100-level content

We're getting to the core of the error

None of these comparisons matter

you can't afford to leave people behind

It's precisely this snobbery that turns so many people off

You need these people, you need their friends and relatives, you need their aquaintances, you need people they know

6:45 PM

but that approach, taken at face value, means that no real work can ever be done. You can't get through the 400-level material if you stop every minute to answer 100-level questions.

You can sit there and discuss amongst yourselves and tell inquiring people that you have no time to tell them why they should support you

and then they go to the next best other people who pretend to care about them

(And even that example presumes good-faith freshmen, not deliberate trolls, which are many)

I'm not saying it's easy

But it's not something you can chose not to do. Thats how political movements die

I'm saying there's plenty of people and room for both.
You're saying that one kind of work can never be done.

I'm not saying that

I'm saying that responding to inquiry with snobbery and finger pointing is the death of your movement

There will be a point where society as a large could swing in favor of progressivism and then the explaining needed will be fielded by much more people and will be easier

But we're not there we need everyone desperately

6:48 PM

I'm saying there are times for painstakingly patient socratic conversations. And other times for links to "intro" articles. And other times for "I don't believe you are asking in good faith, go somewhere else"

And other times for persuasive speeches or documentaries or expose's of horrific police brutality

Yeah

I think you underestimate the amount of bad-faith "but what about..." that goes on in these communities

Oftentimes, they're not asking sincerely, they're derailing

on purpose

and what I've gotten many many times is someone preaching from above and telling people to agree with them but when asked "but why" they say "I don't have time for this, educate yourself"

If you want me to adapt your position, you have to convince me, not tell me the conclusion is X and I need to do my own work to arrive there.

And I'll bet that's annoying to hear that. But sometimes it's correct.

Correct is what works

this doesnt

Remember the goal is to get societal change, for that you need consensus and agreement

If you have a public discussion be prepared for people unfamiliar with all of your in-group words and theories to want to have a word

6:56 PM

Again, it depends on the situation. There is plenty of solid research, and documented history, and tragic personal tales about (for example) racial discrimination in this country, I don't actually have a right to demand that BLM protestor put down her sign and walk me into the library and how me how to use the card catalog.

And that's the kind of thing we're talking about, (mostly) in the virtual space

And again, that even assumes those people are asking in good faith, which is far from assured

I do have the right however if a BLM protester is demanding me to change my opinion that they make a persuasive and logical argument

An argument that I can understand, no less.

next day → last day (39 days later) »

Transcript for

Apr '177

BLM and feminism

Discussion of BLM and feminism, overflow from workplace.SE chat

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile