Telford UK Sex Abuse and no word from #metoo

[Srivijaya]

Can I just say, what's your evidence that this kind of sexual abuse was carried out 'in the name of Islam'? By Muslims, yes. But I don't see any evidence that they abused these vulnerable young girls/women in the name of Islam?

Any more than western guys having sex with underage girls in Thailand and elsewhere are doing it in the name of Christianity.

It's a mixture of causes, the root of which is economic disparity which presents an opportunity for sexual exploitation to occur. The exploiters cannot easily perpetrate their deeds among their own community, so they look outside. Most of their victims come from very poor backgrounds, broken homes, care homes etc. The predators know what they are looking for and how to get it; flashy cars, new phones, drugs and drink and plenty of flattering attention.

These guys can afford it, as they are from relatively affluent backgrounds (more so than the girls). This initial grooming is seen as an investment. They were making serious money out of pimping these girls up and down the country. This comes at a time when there is a reported increase in slavery in the UK. Homelessness and the use of food banks is also a growing issue here. Economic disparity, zero-hour contracts, benefits cuts etc. Join the dots.

Also, being a feminist in principle does not mean that a woman gives one for socially disempowered people. Gender equality and social equality are two different issues. A woman may feel very strongly about her rights but still use her vote to put a party in power which fosters economic disparity

 

[crossfire]

If it's a general claim you can debate it on its general merits. If it's an individual claim then of course, like any individual claim, you'd have to have access to the specifics.

But, for example, the SJW might say, "Because I'm a gay, black female, and you're a white male, my 'lived experience' trumps your expertise on the topic, and I simply will not listen to anything you have to say."

Is this in regards to the #metoo hashtag, or to SJW?

 

[icehorse]

Do you mean I am to assume this world view? That sounds like begging the question if this is supposed to show me how you know there is a proclivity towards this simplistic worldview of oppressors v. oppressed.

You seem to be looking for a formal proof. I never said there was one, and I don't think there is. This is simply a theory. It's an attempt to understand how a certain group of people view the world and behave. We have a lot of evidence to support the theory, and we have the testimony of many member of the group that also supports the theory.

My examples are not meant to be a formal proof, merely a demonstration of how one would apply this worldview in practice.

 

[icehorse]

I, on the other hand am certain that this abuse did not occur in the name of Islam. Instead it's racism and patriarchal sexism.

You make two points here:

On Islam, well we could discuss Islam's history, and I might agree that originally Islam was just the codification of the local culture of the time. I'd be happy to grant you that. But over the span of 1400 years, Islam has acted like the flywheel in an engine, keeping the engine spinning through various bumps in the road. Islam is the mechanism that's kept the misogyny of 1400 years ago alive in this culture.

On racism and patriarchal sexism, can you explain this a little more?

 

[icehorse]

Is this in regards to the #metoo hashtag, or to SJW?

That specific example was an example of SJW reasoning. But more broadly, the #metoo movement has been invaded by the same sort of worldview. Of course not every person who has a #metoo story thinks like an SJW, but many do. Enough do, that the usefulness of the movement has been negatively impacted.

 

[icehorse]

Any more than western guys having sex with underage girls in Thailand and elsewhere are doing it in the name of Christianity.

We've all heard this fallacy argument many, many times. Should we infer from your post that you believe two wrongs make a right? Or perhaps you're telling us that we're not allowed to criticize one set of ideas at a time?

 

[crossfire]

That specific example was an example of SJW reasoning. But more broadly, the #metoo movement has been invaded by the same sort of worldview. Of course not every person who has a #metoo story thinks like an SJW, but many do. Enough do, that the usefulness of the movement has been negatively impacted.

Could you please answer the question: was it a #metoo hashtag or not?

 

[Curious George]

You seem to be looking for a formal proof. I never said there was one, and I don't think there is. This is simply a theory. It's an attempt to understand how a certain group of people view the world and behave. We have a lot of evidence to support the theory, and we have the testimony of many member of the group that also supports the theory.

My examples are not meant to be a formal proof, merely a demonstration of how one would apply this worldview in practice.

No, I am looking for reasonable evidence and trying to understand how you understand the issue. When I asked, you told me to reread the OP. I did. It doesn't explain much. I have a handful of speculations about frequency of appearance in the news and a two conclusions that do not follow. I am asking you to connect the dots and you are pretending that you already have.

I am not trying to dismiss what you are saying or have said. I am asking for you to make a reasonable argument. I do not see your OP as a reasonable argument. There are too many gaps.

I am not trying to look for a technical argument to dismiss your point of view. Or a hole to slide through. I can't imagine I am going to be completely convinced by the available arguments (barring an outright proof)but I was hoping for food for thought. I want to understand your point of view and be able to see how you make these connections. Perhaps you are right. But the OP does not show me any of that.

No rational person could reasonably conclude what you have from what you said in the OP without making several big assumptions along the way. All I am asking is for you to break down your thought process a little more.

 

[sayak83]

You make two points here:

On Islam, well we could discuss Islam's history, and I might agree that originally Islam was just the codification of the local culture of the time. I'd be happy to grant you that. But over the span of 1400 years, Islam has acted like the flywheel in an engine, keeping the engine spinning through various bumps in the road. Islam is the mechanism that's kept the misogyny of 1400 years ago alive in this culture.

On racism and patriarchal sexism, can you explain this a little more?

Just as some of white people have racist attitudes towards blacks and browns, similarly some of brown and black people have racist attitude towards whites. Coupled with patriarchy, this leads many of these people to think of women from these races only in terms of exploitable sex objects.

 

[icehorse]

Could you please answer the question: was it a #metoo hashtag or not?

I'm discussing this with you in good faith and I tried to answer your question. If you look back over the last few posts and can restate your question I will try again to answer it. I'm not being evasive, I really thought my post #85 was answering your question. thanks.

 

[icehorse]

No, I am looking for reasonable evidence and trying to understand how you understand the issue. When I asked, you told me to reread the OP. I did. It doesn't explain much. I have a handful of speculations about frequency of appearance in the news and a two conclusions that do not follow. I am asking you to connect the dots and you are pretending that you already have.

I am not trying to dismiss what you are saying or have said. I am asking for you to make a reasonable argument. I do not see your OP as a reasonable argument. There are too many gaps.

I am not trying to look for a technical argument to dismiss your point of view. Or a hole to slide through. I can't imagine I am going to be completely convinced by the available arguments (barring an outright proof)but I was hoping for food for thought. I want to understand your point of view and be able to see how you make these connections. Perhaps you are right. But the OP does not show me any of that.

No rational person could reasonably conclude what you have from what you said in the OP without making several big assumptions along the way. All I am asking is for you to break down your thought process a little more.

My evidence comes mostly from two sources:

- videos of SJWs in public protests or in the act of disrupting public talks.
- videos of the thoughtful people I listed above discussing their experiences of SJWs in action

I could post a collection of links if you want, but they would represent many hours of videos.

In other words, I am attempting - in good faith - to synthesize a lot of material.

One of my hopes is that if anyone is interested in this, they could understand the "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview and then when they encounter events (in the real world or on the news), they can see whether this worldview helps predict or explain the behavior of SJWs. In my experience, when I see SJWs in action and hear what they say, understanding this worldview helps me make sense of what often seems to be non-sensical.

One gap I can try to fill here is that many of the people I listed above have noticed that in many Humanities departments "in the West", a sort of post-modern mindset has taken hold. That in fact, many Humanities professors are teaching their students this "oppressed vs. oppressor" mindset which - when taken to extremes - can undermine reason and science and logic. And in fact, in some cases you can hear SJWs claim that science and logic are tools of the oppressors.

 

[crossfire]

Is this in regards to the #metoo hashtag, or to SJW?

That specific example was an example of SJW reasoning. But more broadly, the #metoo movement has been invaded by the same sort of worldview. Of course not every person who has a #metoo story thinks like an SJW, but many do. Enough do, that the usefulness of the movement has been negatively impacted.

Could you please answer the question: was it a #metoo hashtag or not?

I'm discussing this with you in good faith and I tried to answer your question. If you look back over the last few posts and can restate your question I will try again to answer it. I'm not being evasive, I really thought my post #85 was answering your question. thanks.

Now if this was about a #metoo post:

If it's a general claim you can debate it on its general merits. If it's an individual claim then of course, like any individual claim, you'd have to have access to the specifics.

But, for example, the SJW might say, "Because I'm a gay, black female, and you're a white male, my 'lived experience' trumps your expertise on the topic, and I simply will not listen to anything you have to say."

...I would say that this was a very mild and reasonable response if it was specifically about a #metoo post. For instance, if you would have challenged a #metoo post I had made, suggesting it was partially my fault or something like that, I would have unequivically told you to go **** off and quit harassing victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault. If that makes me sound like Iike I'm parroting SJW view because of it, you would be mistaken. I would take it as a personal insult and would react accordingly.

I'd still be more than happy to debate the issues, however, outside of the #metoo hashtag.

 

[icehorse]

...I would say that this was a very mild and reasonable response if it was specifically about a #metoo post. For instance, if you would have challenged a #metoo post I had made, suggesting it was partially my fault or something like that, I would have unequivically told you to go **** off and quit harassing victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault. If that makes me sound like Iike I'm parroting SJW view because of it, you would be mistaken. I would take it as a personal insult and would react accordingly.

Again, in an individual case, it would depend on the details. Of course I would agree that there are many instances in which victims get blamed, and that that's a real problem. OTOH, there are also cases that exist in gray areas. For example, let's say a woman at work is interested in man A and flirts with man A. And man B observes this flirting and so man B flirts with the same woman. Is this necessarily a case of "sexual harrassment"? I think the details would be important, and that it's not enough to consider only the "lived experience" of the woman in question.

I'd still be more than happy to debate the issues, however, outside of the #metoo hashtag.

Cool! ( I could say "metoo" in reference to the debate).

So, given the temporary label of SJW, my claim is that they often operate from an overly simplistic and detrimental worldview that places everyone into either "the oppressed" or "the oppressors". And further, these people are frequently behaving as so to set up heckler's vetoes so as to shut down reasoned conversations. In fact, some go so far as to say that opinions they disagree with threaten their very existence. That in fact the use of some words should be considered acts of violence.

 

[crossfire]

Again, in an individual case, it would depend on the details. Of course I would agree that there are many instances in which victims get blamed, and that that's a real problem. OTOH, there are also cases that exist in gray areas. For example, let's say a woman at work is interested in man A and flirts with man A. And man B observes this flirting and so man B flirts with the same woman. Is this necessarily a case of "sexual harrassment"? I think the details would be important, and that it's not enough to consider only the "lived experience" of the woman in question.

Flirting is flirting. If the woman told man B to stop, that she's not interested, and he continued, then I would consider that harassment. She'd have to tell him to stop first.

Cool! ( I could say "metoo" in reference to the debate).

So, given the temporary label of SJW, my claim is that they often operate from an overly simplistic and detrimental worldview that places everyone into either "the oppressed" or "the oppressors". And further, these people are frequently behaving as so to set up heckler's vetoes so as to shut down reasoned conversations. In fact, some go so far as to say that opinions they disagree with threaten their very existence. That in fact the use of some words should be considered acts of violence.

I know of many feminists who have gotten threats of rape and violence for their views, and calls for others to do the same, and even one that the threat was followed through. I would say that these qualify as such.

One of the reasons why we have a "Feminist Only" DIR in the political section where no one except those who identify as feminists can post is because any thread with a feminist issue in the open debate sections would regularly get hijacked and some of the feminists would get threated via PM. I would say that the hecklers shut down open debate in this case, as well, so I agree with you about the hecklers.

 

[Estro Felino]

I know of many feminists who have gotten threats of rape and violence for their views, and calls for others to do the same, and even one that the threat was followed through. I would say that these qualify as such.

One of the reasons why we have a "Feminist Only" DIR in the political section where no one except those who identify as feminists can post is because any thread with a feminist issue in the open debate sections would regularly get hijacked and some of the feminists would get threated via PM. I would say that the hecklers shut down open debate in this case, as well, so I agree with you about the hecklers.

I would like to know if we are able to formulate a universal definition of "feminist".
For example in my country we have a politician of Moroccan origin, Souad Sbai who has been trying to propose a law that bans the veil in all cases of proven coercion by men...and in all the places of public administration.

Is she a feminist or not?

 

[Curious George]

My evidence comes mostly from two sources:

- videos of SJWs in public protests or in the act of disrupting public talks.
- videos of the thoughtful people I listed above discussing their experiences of SJWs in action

I could post a collection of links if you want, but they would represent many hours of videos.

In other words, I am attempting - in good faith - to synthesize a lot of material.

One of my hopes is that if anyone is interested in this, they could understand the "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview and then when they encounter events (in the real world or on the news), they can see whether this worldview helps predict or explain the behavior of SJWs. In my experience, when I see SJWs in action and hear what they say, understanding this worldview helps me make sense of what often seems to be non-sensical.

One gap I can try to fill here is that many of the people I listed above have noticed that in many Humanities departments "in the West", a sort of post-modern mindset has taken hold. That in fact, many Humanities professors are teaching their students this "oppressed vs. oppressor" mindset which - when taken to extremes - can undermine reason and science and logic. And in fact, in some cases you can hear SJWs claim that science and logic are tools of the oppressors.

So I am hearing that I should watch more youtube videos?

I guess the difference between our thought process is that YouTube videos do not make up my experience with SJWs. I am an considered a SJW. I do not think I have a postmodern oppressed vs. oppressor mindset by which I judge all interaction.

I have friends that are considered SJWs. They too fail to exhibit this trait. I wonder what role propaganda has in your worldview? Are you not, in a sense, categorizing the SJWs as oppressors and other individuals as the oppressed?

As I stated before, the term SJW is meant to paint people of that cringy edge lord they saw that one time on youtube. It works. Your own identification stems from YouTube. I try not to follow propaganda. While sometimes this is hard and I need to reflect on my thinking, I still try. Have you questioned whether these conclusions of yours are accurate representations?

When you have to carve out exceptions, as you did with @crossfire noting:

Of course not every person who has a #metoo story thinks like an SJW, but many do

You have said up a no true Scott's man type argument: "Well I didn't mean those ones, I meant the other ones." It leaves an escape route in order to prevent your views from being challenged. Could it be that some SJWs behave reprehensibly just as some of all people behave so? From where is this diatribe of SJWs coming? Cringy videos on YouTube? Right wing leaning sources that have a vested interest in painting SJWs in a bad light?

All of us can on occasion be caught vilifying the opposition. The group of people whom you are vilifying are no different. We can certainly find individuals who attack anyone who tries to argue, who relies on ad hominems, and refuses to acknowledge any middle ground. We can even showcase them on you tube and hold them up as mockeries. But where is the discussion of the actual issues?

In this thread, your point of view is being discussed. #metoo is being discussed. And SJWs are being discussed. I am not seeing the lack of ability to challenge the point of view.

I am not seeing the simplistic worldview of oppressors v. Oppressed. But this is written off as an exception to the rule. You walk away thinking #metoo are SJWs that are apathetic towards rape victims when the attacker is Muslim, and I walk away still not understanding your point of view.

I think the problem here is that there are so many layers involved that we are having a hard time unpacking it all. If we just focus on the #metoo, is it wrong to share ones experience of sexual assault and harassment in order to indicate that there is a problem in our society? I do not think that is wrong. Is it wrong to discuss the different severity of sexual assault when addressing the problem? No, I do not think that is problematic.


Is it questionable to try to say well that isn't really that bad when dealing with inappropriate sexual behavior? Absolutely it is questionable. Such statements indicate a want to dismiss confrontation of inappropriate behavior. Is it questionable to try to categorize sexual harassment with rape or to otherwise conflate the degrees of sexual assault? Yes.

So what do we have? We have one group of people that is worried about sexual assault and another group who is not. We have one group of people who is dismissive of some sexual assault and harassment and another that is not. We have one group of people that are trying to group all sexually inappropriate behavior together and one who is not. I do mother think that we can ascribe membership to any of these groups based on support of #metoo or lack thereof.

 

[crossfire]

I would like to know if we are able to formulate a universal definition of "feminist".
For example in my country we have a politician of Moroccan origin, Souad Sbai who has been trying to propose a law that bans the veil in all cases of proven coercion by men...and in all the places of public administration.

Is she a feminist or not?

I don't think you can formulate a "universal" definition of "feminist," as there are so many different feminist movements and so many people who identify with some feminist movements but not others, and vice versa. It is truly a grassroots movement.

 

[Srivijaya]

We've all heard this fallacy argument many, many times. Should we infer from your post that you believe two wrongs make a right? Or perhaps you're telling us that we're not allowed to criticize one set of ideas at a time?

My post clearly explains my take on it; if you care to read it through.

 

[icehorse]

I have friends that are considered SJWs. They too fail to exhibit this trait. I wonder what role propaganda has in your worldview? Are you not, in a sense, categorizing the SJWs as oppressors and other individuals as the oppressed?

First off, I appreciate the tone and thoughtfulness of this conversation, thanks. Next, your post brings up many points, so many ways we could go from here. So I'll dive into a few areas:

It strikes me that in this post you're reversing a previous agreement. Again, I am more than happy to discontinue the use of the term "SJW" in this thread. I thought that for the purpose of this thread we had agreed to a definition.

So... please provide an acceptable term for the set of people who base their words and actions on the "oppressed vs. oppressors" worldview. Those are the people the OP is addressing.

Now in general "social justice" ought to be a good goal. We could put aside the bad actors for a minute and we could talk about social justice more broadly. We could discuss which are "good" social justice goals and which are not. For example, I'm mostly of the opinion that:

- "equal opportunity" is a good goal

but

- "equality of outcomes" is a bad goal.

So it might be interesting to tackle the question from that angle. Because for example, I think it's very difficult to champion the goal of "equality of outcomes".

I guess the difference between our thought process is that YouTube videos do not make up my experience with SJWs. I am an considered a SJW. I do not think I have a postmodern oppressed vs. oppressor mindset by which I judge all interaction.

First I'd say that not all YouTube videos are the same We can watch videos of cats chasing laser pointers or we can watch taped lectures given by accredited professors.

I have friends that are considered SJWs. They too fail to exhibit this trait. I wonder what role propaganda has in your worldview? Are you not, in a sense, categorizing the SJWs as oppressors and other individuals as the oppressed?

I agree that we always have to be on the look out for biased perspectives and propaganda! But I've watched hours and hours of taped student protests, and as I mentioned in the OP, the claims I'm making here are based on synthesizing the thoughts of a lot of people. That doesn't prove that it's not propaganda, but I'd say it reduces the likelihood.

Ny best guess in your case is that you and your friends pursue social justice in more reasonable and thoughtful ways - hooray!

I am not seeing the simplistic worldview of oppressors v. Oppressed. But this is written off as an exception to the rule. You walk away thinking #metoo are SJWs that are apathetic towards rape victims when the attacker is Muslim, and I walk away still not understanding your point of view.

I'm not sure I understand this paragraph? What I'm claiming is that for the group of people I'm criticizing, the "oppressed vs. oppressor" mindset IS the rule, not the exception to the rule. This is their "one rule to rule them all rule"

I think the problem here is that there are so many layers involved that we are having a hard time unpacking it all. If we just focus on the #metoo, is it wrong to share ones experience of sexual assault and harassment in order to indicate that there is a problem in our society? I do not think that is wrong. Is it wrong to discuss the different severity of sexual assault when addressing the problem? No, I do not think that is problematic.

This could also be a good point to focus on. Of course I agree that sexual assault and harassment are very real, very serious problems, and of course we should discuss and solve these problems. My concern is that they cannot truly be discussed if everything has to be viewed through the "oppressed vs. oppressor" set of goggles.

 

[icehorse]

I don't think you can formulate a "universal" definition of "feminist," as there are so many different feminist movements and so many people who identify with some feminist movements but not others, and vice versa. It is truly a grassroots movement.

While I agree that feminism isn't monolithic, I refuse to accept the idea that no analysis of the movement can be made. I would start by asking whether we are talking about 2nd wave or 3rd wave or 4th wave feminists. There ARE characteristic beliefs associated with each group.