Telford UK Sex Abuse and no word from #metoo

[icehorse]

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

With respect. I read your post the first time and I just read it again. My questions to you were sincere, I found the post to be ambiguous. Are either of my conclusions correct? If not, would you kindly reframe your points? thanks!

 

[Curious George]

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.

Not at all. I am pointing out that it seems your goal is to cast this group as bad and opressive, regardless of what they are called. I do think that your hours of observation on youtube of protesters (often referred to as SJWs) in those videos, illustrates the intent to paint the target of your attack, regardless of how you classify them as depicted in those videos.

Now this depicted group was the only group to which you referred, I might object but I think you would have a stronger argument. Instead you have now painted the list you originally provided as part of that group. Thus,

BLM
- hate speech
- the gender pay gap
- the use of "intersectionality" to drive policy
- the right to be shielded from offense
- fighting "Islamophobia"
- fighting "micro-aggressions"
- fighting for "safe spaces"

(A non exhaustive list) are all part of this attack. All of these you are attempting to label oppressors while others, outside this group are oppressed.

These groups are associated with cringy protesters and set up for an attack. It does not matter what you call them. The end result is the same.

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".

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing how these groups:

1) cause social injustice by pushing for what they believe to be social justice.

2) maintain an oppressed vs. Oppressor worldview

3) do not allow challenge to their views.

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 agree. I am pretty sure I am aware of the videos you are watching. But if you would like to osteoporosis some of the depictions of protesters about whom you are talking, by all means.

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.

Unfortunately we live in a world where media is shaped by money, views and likes. Jimmy down the street will quickly find he gets more views from crazy outlandish extremists and violence than he will from just documenting and digging in deep to understand the views.

Sally might find she gets more views by depicting happy go lucky version as well.

Narrative sells, and almost any media you view will have a narrative. It is important to realize that nearly every piece with which you come in contact is trying to sell you a narrative. This is true whether we are discussing facebook, youtube, or major media. It is best to always question the narrative even your own.

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

Again this is just the oh it's the other ones about whom I was talking argument.

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"

You just got done carving out a group.

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.

And I just want to know how you arrive at the conclusion that they only view the topic in this framework.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Well it's a good point, I don't have specific evidence in this case. But I do have a lot of circumstantial evidence and Occam's razor to fall back on.

Please expand.

 

[icehorse]

Not at all. I am pointing out that it seems your goal is to cast this group as bad and opressive, regardless of what they are called. I do think that your hours of observation on youtube of protesters (often referred to as SJWs) in those videos, illustrates the intent to paint the target of your attack, regardless of how you classify them as depicted in those videos.

I am absolutely claiming that viewing the world thru "oppressor vs. oppressed" goggles will lead to bad results. We can focus on only that claim if you want to.

(A non exhaustive list) are all part of this attack. All of these you are attempting to label oppressors while others, outside this group are oppressed.

(In reference to a list of what I claim are bad ideas)

No, what I'm saying is that when a SJW goes about defending these ideas (BLM, hate speech laws, intersectionality and so on), they will often defend the idea by painting the world as oppressed vs. oppressor. It is often the only tool in their debating toolbox. So in these situations, the ideas themselves are hard to defend (e.g. I think you have a difficult challenge to defend the idea that we should have hate speech laws), and so the SJW often falls back to the "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview to defend the bad idea.

These groups are associated with cringy protesters and set up for an attack. It does not matter what you call them. The end result is the same.

No, I would say that these groups - well intended as they might be - all suffer from poor planning to begin with. E.g., there is no good way to promote hate speech laws, and if you really want to improve black lives (a very worthy goal), then protesting against the police should be about number 812 on your list of ways to make black lives better.

But if you would like to osteoporosis some of the depictions of protesters about whom you are talking, by all means.

Can you restate this?

Narrative sells, and almost any media you view will have a narrative. It is important to realize that nearly every piece with which you come in contact is trying to sell you a narrative. This is true whether we are discussing facebook, youtube, or major media. It is best to always question the narrative even your own.

I've read my Daniel Kahneman, I agree we all have biases we have to keep in mind. But that doesn't mean we can't challenge bad ideas and make reasoned criticisms.

But this is more than what's in the media. This is what's happening on many college and university campuses.

Again this is just the oh it's the other ones about whom I was talking argument.

I have not shifted any goalposts. From the beginning I have been open to a different label. If you and your friends do not attack social issues from the oppressed vs oppressor worldview, then you were NEVER the target of this thread.

And I just want to know how you arrive at the conclusion that they only view the topic in this framework.

As I've already said, by watching them in action and by listening to and reading the opinions of the people I listed earlier. Here's another fact that might help - about 1/3 of colleges and universities in the US have speech codes. The organization called FIRE has analyzed these speech codes and almost all of them run counter to the country's free speech laws. These speech codes tend to attempt to shield students from ideas they might find offensive, ideas that might conflict with their O vs O worldview. For example, when the argument is made that gender pay gaps are NOT primarily due to sexism, most SJWs simply cannot tolerate this idea. It is not an idea they can even discuss. This idea is in conflict with the O vs O worldview.

 

[Curious George]

I am absolutely claiming that viewing the world thru "oppressor vs. oppressed" goggles will lead to bad results. We can focus on only that claim if you want to.

Yet you are claiming this group as oppressors and others as oppressed.

(In reference to a list of what I claim are bad ideas)

No, what I'm saying is that when a SJW goes about defending these ideas (BLM, hate speech laws, intersectionality and so on), they will often defend the idea by painting the world as oppressed vs. oppressor. It is often the only tool in their debating toolbox. So in these situations, the ideas themselves are hard to defend (e.g. I think you have a difficult challenge to defend the idea that we should have hate speech laws), and so the SJW often falls back to the "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview to defend the bad idea.

It certainly does not seem like that is what you are claiming. It seems more what you are claiming is that group x is a group that does harm. These causes are examples of people who are in group x.

No, I would say that these groups - well intended as they might be - all suffer from poor planning to begin with. E.g., there is no good way to promote hate speech laws, and if you really want to improve black lives (a very worthy goal), then protesting against the police should be about number 812 on your list of ways to make black lives better.

Whoa nelly, I am getting dizzy. There is just so much. And that is part of the problem with working with an amorphous categorization. Regardless of whether the groups can be individually criticized, we are dealing with your criticism of the larger system.

Can you restate this?

Whoops...autocorrect.
--if you would like to post some examples of the depicted protesters, please feel free.

I've read my Daniel Kahneman, I agree we all have biases we have to keep in mind. But that doesn't mean we can't challenge bad ideas and make reasoned criticisms.

And that is what I want to hear, criticisms of ideas. I just want the reasonable and understandable. But I am not seeing from where you are coming yet. I do not see the connection.

But this is more than what's in the media. This is what's happening on many college and university campuses.

You were discussing media representations of protesters.

I have not shifted any goalposts. From the beginning I have been open to a different label. If you and your friends do not attack social issues from the oppressed vs oppressor worldview, then you were NEVER the target of this thread.

I am not accusing you of shifting goal posts. I am suggesting that you are carving out exceptions so you can say that any instance that challenges your beliefs do not count as they were not your target.

As I've already said, by watching them in action and by listening to and reading the opinions of the people I listed earlier. Here's another fact that might help - about 1/3 of colleges and universities in the US have speech codes. The organization called FIRE has analyzed these speech codes and almost all of them run counter to the country's free speech laws. These speech codes tend to attempt to shield students from ideas they might find offensive, ideas that might conflict with their O vs O worldview. For example, when the argument is made that gender pay gaps are NOT primarily due to sexism, most SJWs simply cannot tolerate this idea. It is not an idea they can even discuss. This idea is in conflict with the O vs O worldview.

Those are some broad statements. Specifically this one: "These speech codes tend to attempt to shield students from ideas they might find offensive, ideas that might conflict with their O vs O worldview."

 

[icehorse]

Yet you are claiming this group as oppressors and others as oppressed.

No, I'm focusing on those of them who are also activists - I made no claim, nor do I count them as oppressors.

It certainly does not seem like that is what you are claiming. It seems more what you are claiming is that group x is a group that does harm. These causes are examples of people who are in group x.

I am using examples here and there to try to clarify points. That said, if we were to construct a Venn diagram, I would bet money that the folks who defend these ideas will frequently defend them using the O vs O worldview. It's not strictly necessary of course, but it's an extremely common pattern. So - for example - one could defend BLMs policies without resorting to the O vs O worldview, but in practice, the O vs O approach is common.

Whoa nelly, I am getting dizzy. There is just so much. And that is part of the problem with working with an amorphous categorization. Regardless of whether the groups can be individually criticized, we are dealing with your criticism of the larger system.

It's a big problem, I agree. As I've said several times, if you want to focus on just one or two of these examples, pick one or two, and we can narrow it down a bit.

And that is what I want to hear, criticisms of ideas. I just want the reasonable and understandable. But I am not seeing from where you are coming yet. I do not see the connection.

These are two different requests (at least):

1 - I am criticizing the use of the O vs O worldview as a way to achieve a better society. We can focus on that.

2 - I am also claiming that SJWs (our temporary label), frequently use the O vs O worldview in their quest to better society. We can focus on that.

But I don't think that there is any built-in reason why claim 2 is predictable, it just seems to be how things have shaken out. But I will say again that many of the folks I listed, are of the opinion that the O vs O worldview has been popularized by an overwhelmingly left-leaning army of humanities professors. Can we agree that in recent decades humanities professors have become overwhelmingly left leaning? Maybe even far-left leaning?

You were discussing media representations of protesters.

I did not intend to limit the focus to the media. Many incidents of the SJWs use of the heckler's veto (I know I'm bending the definition a bit), is not covered by the official MSM.

I am not accusing you of shifting goal posts. I am suggesting that you are carving out exceptions so you can say that any instance that challenges your beliefs do not count as they were not your target.

I don't think I've done that. I will agree that it's a hard group to describe, but from the OP on, my focus has been on the O vs O crowd. As I've tried to do several times in this thread, I'd be happy to craft a new label for "that subset of SJWs who rely heavily on the O vs O worldview".

Those are some broad statements. Specifically this one: "These speech codes tend to attempt to shield students from ideas they might find offensive, ideas that might conflict with their O vs O worldview."

I agree. I'm making some broad, statistical claims.

 

[Curious George]

No, I'm focusing on those of them who are also activists - I made no claim, nor do I count them as oppressors.

When put in light of your claim that they are causing social injustice it seems like you are coloring them as oppressors.

I am using examples here and there to try to clarify points. That said, if we were to construct a Venn diagram, I would bet money that the folks who defend these ideas will frequently defend them using the O vs O worldview. It's not strictly necessary of course, but it's an extremely common pattern. So - for example - one could defend BLMs policies without resorting to the O vs O worldview, but in practice, the O vs O approach is common.



It's a big problem, I agree. As I've said several times, if you want to focus on just one or two of these examples, pick one or two, and we can narrow it down a bit.

Lol, no. I think it puts you in a harder position to deal with the ever growing group of SJWs as a whole. Any one of these groups would be a good discussion in and of itself. However what I am trying to contend with is how the o vs o is a reasonable inference based on belonging to this larger group. It is becoming apparent that you are classifying this o v o group as its own group separate from these causes. And in doing so perhaps better defining the phenomenon of SJW.


I find it interesting though, because defining any group by o v o will necessarily lead to an o v o categorization. It seems to create a paradox. It is a good/bad mentality but done in a way that myopically considers people as good or bad, oppressors v oppressed.

These are two different requests (at least):.

2 - I am also claiming that SJWs (our temporary label), frequently use the O vs O worldview in their quest to better society. We can focus on that.

This is the one.

But I don't think that there is any built-in reason why claim 2 is predictable, it just seems to be how things have shaken out.

So it is intuitive? Just to be assumed? How can we be certain that our observations are impartial and representative?

But I will say again that many of the folks I listed, are of the opinion that the O vs O worldview has been popularized by an overwhelmingly left-leaning army of humanities professors.

This is interesting.

Can we agree that in recent decades humanities professors have become overwhelmingly left leaning? Maybe even far-left leaning?

Absolutely. Academia has long been recognized as a bastion of progressive thought.

I did not intend to limit the focus to the media. Many incidents of the SJWs use of the heckler's veto (I know I'm bending the definition a bit), is not covered by the official MSM.

I would have no problem believing something counter to MSM if the idea was coherent. But I am suggesting all media is largely propaganda in part. And even youtube media and academic lectures are often persuasive not solely educational or entertaining.

I don't think I've done that. I will agree that it's a hard group to describe, but from the OP on, my focus has been on the O vs O crowd. As I've tried to do several times in this thread, I'd be happy to craft a new label for "that subset of SJWs who rely heavily on the O vs O worldview".

I think you now have by labeling them o v o. I do not think the current conception of SJW is so limited, but you have made clear that this is the people about whom you are talking. Perhaps that is all the group is: Just o v o; consequently, would we not more aptly claim not that SJWs tend toward o v o, but the opposite: O v o tends toward what is commonly lumped into SJW categories. This would explain the growing group of SJWs and create a criterion by which they are judged so. Finally, should we have lumped Xian that claim oppression under the SJWs if enough have an o v o mindset?

It seems you want to claim a frequency of o v o within the SJW group. My additional questions are: how do we identify this o v o in an abstract way that can be generally applied? What is the frequency that you believe exists? Does o v o exist in other groups that are not SJW with this same frequency? Is a group without this o v o frequency considered SJW?

I agree. I'm making some broad, statistical claims.

And I am asking how can we see this without relying on confirmation bias.

 

[Srivijaya]

We've all heard this fallacy argument many, many times.

I think you have to view it in context of my subsequent remarks. I'm highlighting (in both cases) two combined factors; economic disparity and a cultural one. They both act in unison. Sexual predators don't want to be caught, so they usually avoid putting themselves in danger. In the case of westerners, it's easier to go abroad to poorer countries where conditions are favorable. Muslim youth in Telford would find it almost impossible to exploit Muslim girls in the same way. Firstly the girls are more controlled by their families but also if a youth gets caught by the girl's family, he will lose respect in his community, bring shame upon his own family and be 'punished' by the girl's male relatives.

It's worth bearing in mind that some people who reported this abuse were Muslims, but like others, they were ignored. The girls were failed by the system.

Should we infer from your post that you believe two wrongs make a right?

I really hate exploitation of any kind by anyone, so I don't know how what I have written could be construed as justifying criminal acts. None of it is right.

Or perhaps you're telling us that we're not allowed to criticize one set of ideas at a time?

The OP was asking why meetoo celebs aren't mentioning Telford, which deals with two issues. So, of course it's okay to discuss any amount of issues. I've just focused on the Telford issue, as I'm UK based and I see what's happening here, rather than in Hollywood.

I think it's just that it's two different worlds; Hollywood and a council estate in Telford. I can't imagine any educated, professional woman being happy if she was groped by her boss or potential employer. She has every legal and moral right to complain, then go and vote for a party, like the UK conservative party, whose ideological economic choices perpetuate the economic disparity I've mentioned if she wishes. Such is democracy.

Sadly, whilst the underlying causes of exploitation remain, there will be more cases of it happening.

 

[icehorse]

When put in light of your claim that they are causing social injustice it seems like you are coloring them as oppressors.

While I agree that there are oppressors in the world, I don't hold to the O vs O worldview. But I suppose if I twisted it around a bit I could say yes to your question. For the sake of discussion, let's say that I agree - this is not the only aspect of their views that defies logic.

 

[icehorse]

I can't imagine any educated, professional woman being happy if she was groped by her boss or potential employer.

Telford is indeed just another in a huge and growing collection of cases in which Muslim men abuse women. I understand that men of all faiths abuse women, but on the continuum, Islam appears to be among the highest when it comes to misogyny. One key point of the OP is to ask why western feminists mostly give Islam a pass when it comes to misogyny? This is pass-giving is ongoing, comparing Telford to #metoo is just the latest instance.

The people I listed in the OP seem to arriving at a consensus as to why this pass-giving occurs, and that is that many of the most vocal feminist-activists were educated to view the world through an overly simple perspective, that all people fall into one of only two categories: oppressed or oppressor. Further, these most vocal feminists tend to classify white males as the most egregious of oppressors, which means "the poor brown Muslims" must fall into the "oppressed" category, and therefore their actions, no matter how despicable, must be overlooked.

I understand that this is a twisty-turny theory, but many people are observing this ongoing and weird interplay (or lack of interplay), between feminists and Islam, and this theory has a lot of evidence to support it. From how the humanities are taught these days, to how SJWs consistently manage to cause heckler's vetoes to be invoked, to what SJWs say when they protest, and to the other ill-conceived causes and ideas they promote. Ideas like "intersectionality theory" and "laws for hate speech" and microaggressions and on and on.

 

[Srivijaya]

many of the most vocal feminist-activists were educated to view the world through an overly simple perspective

Overly simple perspectives never get to the heart of the matter.

I'm very much a bystander when it comes to the US culture war which is raging at the moment but I am aware of it through forums mainly. From my perspective as an outsider it seems that both sides relish misrepresenting the other to the extent that it has degenerated into a meaningless reflex - also to the extent that there is no longer any common ground between both sides or even the wish for any.

Not sure where it will end.

 

[icehorse]

Overly simple perspectives never get to the heart of the matter.

I'm very much a bystander when it comes to the US culture war which is raging at the moment but I am aware of it through forums mainly. From my perspective as an outsider it seems that both sides relish misrepresenting the other to the extent that it has degenerated into a meaningless reflex - also to the extent that there is no longer any common ground between both sides or even the wish for any.

Not sure where it will end.

From my perspective there are extremists everywhere and to me the way to deal with extremists is to hold them to being logical and using critical thinking.