Support NeoGAF

[Night Angel]

you don't have a viewpoint worth discussing

on one side: not advocating raping

other side: advocating raping <-- you are here

My actual opinion: not advocating violence in response to words.

Which obviously makes me a rape apologist. Am I a racist Nazi as well? What other things do you want me to be?

 

[Media]

Oh, so you mean I shouldn't try to belittle a worldview I don't and can never truly understand because of my privilege?

It's a fucking good thing I never did that, because that's a shitty thing to do. What DID happen, and what's made me so flippant and sarcastic, was that a baseless accusation that I did so was flung my way because said poster had no desire to discuss this topic in good faith. They wanted to silence me with a lazy GOTCHA instead of actuality attempting to understand my viewpoint.

But as I read through the thread, it did feel as you were belittling my 'worldview' by dismissing the very real damage threats of rape can to women, especially if they are the 1 in 6 that are already victims.

And how, again, not wanting go be threatened with rape is a 'viewpoint' is as baffling to me as advocating rape being considered one.

 

[Plumbob]

It's completely possible to recognize that the way someone is behaving is legal while also seeing that their behavior made it extremely likely something violent would happen.

 

[Veelk]

Yes, it was directed at me that I was mansplaining to A WOMAN (imagine me clutching pearls here) while discussing the potential that what the preacher was doing was not, legally speaking, a threat. Turns out Eden isn't a woman based on his post. Can I mansplain to another man? Wouldn't that just be called discussing? Hmmmmm

Or is it mansplaining because I'm a man? Can I ever explain my position to anyone, or is it always mansplaining because I identify as male?

Once again, it's not up to me to educate you on what mansplaining actually is, but it is not literally just a man explaining something to a woman. So Crossing Eden is not mansplaining.

You come off as a 5 year old kid who giggles at the name "aspergers" because it sounds funny but don't have any idea what it actually is. That is the level of ignorance you are displaying.

My actual opinion: not advocating violence in response to words.

Which obviously makes me a rape apologist. Am I a racist Nazi as well? What other things do you want me to be?

You know...lots of people display your kind of mentality. They insist and insist that they are not this vile thing that they actions are identical to. "I'm not racist, but...*Says racist thing or holds racist belief or whatever*" Substitute racist for sexist or transphobic or etc.

I don't know how the cognitive dissonance doesn't split your head in two. But more than anything, I'd like a way of stopping it so that atleast we'd all be honest about our actual positions.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Oh, so you mean I shouldn't try to belittle a worldview I don't and can never truly understand because of my privilege?

It's a fucking good thing I never did that, because that's a shitty thing to do. What DID happen, and what's made me so flippant and sarcastic, was that a baseless accusation that I did so was flung my way because said poster had no desire to discuss this topic in good faith. They wanted to silence me with a lazy GOTCHA instead of actuality attempting to understand my viewpoint.

And once again, not believing that violence is the appropriate response is not the same as believing the preacher isn't a complete and total shitbag. Why people continuously conflate the two is beyond me.

Edit: lmao not even a minute after I posted.

This is such a trash ass post. You really aren't worth engaging.

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

I'm not advocating for violence. I'm advocating for righteous retaliation to violence. I disagree with the notion that he wasn't being violent. I consider the act of holding that particular sign at that particular place to be destructive. Sometimes you have to destroy destroyers. That's life, and not all life is precious. Cancer is a living thing, too.

So holding a sign is violence, but smashing someone's head is not? Please just agree that hurting people isn't ok. Please just agree that normalizing violence will not lead to a good outcome, and then I will shut up.

 

[Night Angel]

But as I read through the thread, it did feel as you were belittling my 'worldview' by dismissing the very real damage threats of rape can to women, especially if they are the 1 in 6 that are already victims.

And how, again, not wanting go be threatened with rape is a 'viewpoint' is as baffling to me as advocating rape being considered one.

Once again, I've made it very clear that this asshole preacher shouldn't have been allowed to say those things where he did. I imagine a case could easily be made that he harassed those women and should have been arrested or escorted away.

At the same time, the woman who hit him was absolutely wrong to do so.

Where did I say these girls wanted to be threatened with rape or that I wanted him to do so? Have I ever said that rape threats aren't harmful? You folks sure like to make shit up.

 

[Got]

So holding a sign is violence, but smashing someone's head is not? Please just agree that hurting people isn't ok. Please just agree that normalizing violence will not lead to a good outcome, and then I will shut up.

no, hurting this person is okay

 

[Vicetrailia]

Free speech crowd doesn't like it when you drownd out their speech with more effective non-violent protesting, and of course they don't like being violenced. They're the only ones trying to oppress others though speech and just prefer that you hold out signs. Yeah, right. It's not gonna happen like that because it's not just word. Here we are talking about the livelihoods of people targeted.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

So violence is never ok? You're gonna lay there on the ground and wait to die if someone decides to attack you? If you see someone coming at someone else with a knife and you could stop it, you're gonna stand there and beg them not to do it while he's slashing at them?

This guy is the perpetrator and his sign is the knife in this situation. He has active intent towards causing people grevious harm. You stand on the sidelines and do nothing but judge that girl while he continues to peddle his poison? You're a coward.

 

[Media]

Once again, I've made it very clear that this asshole preacher shouldn't have been allowed to say those things where he did. I imagine a case could easily be made that he harassed those women and should have been arrested or escorted away.

At the same time, the woman who hit him was absolutely wrong to do so.

Where did I say these girls wanted to be threatened with rape or that I wanted him to do so? Have I ever said that rape threats aren't harmful? You folks sure like to make shit up.

Again, I come back to my first post in this thread. No one stopped him. He was there for a long time, the cops were called a lot, and never did anything until he kicked a woman.

What would you have them do? They had to deal with this for who knows how long with no one helping them or standing up for them.

On the flip side, what would you have me do if a guy stood in front of my house for a month yelling about how I deserved to be raped and the cops did nothing?

 

[The Kree]

So holding a sign is violence, but smashing someone's head is not? Please just agree that hurting people isn't ok. Please just agree that normalizing violence will not lead to a good outcome, and then I will shut up.

They're both violence, but two different kinds. I found her behavior was righteous, I found his to be despicable. Saying "all violence is bad" is something a child says. We know that violence is inevitable and sometimes necessary just by looking at human history. There are conflicts in the world that could never be resolved any other way. You can argue that what she did might have been unnecessary, but I won't agree that it was wrong.

I agree that this man should not have been attempting to normalize violence towards women because it does not lead to positive outcomes, as made evident by him getting attacked for it.

You can shut up whenever you're ready. I'm not gonna ask you to do that because that would be rude.

 

[akira28]

I keep seeing this thread and it keeps reminding me of the comic Preacher.

This is something I would expect to see in that. And Jesse Custer would not be kind.

 

[Night Angel]

Again, I come back to my first post in this thread. No one stopped him. He was there for a long time, the cops were called a lot, and never did anything until he kicked a woman.

What would you have them do? They had to deal with this for who knows how long with no one helping them or standing up for them.

On the flip side, what would you have me do if a guy stood in front of my house for a month yelling about how I deserved to be raped and the cops did nothing?

And it's a damn shame no one stepped in to deescalate the situation. None of those girls/women should have been subjected to those views. I can't tell you what exactly I'd have them do in this situation, I can only tell you what I WOULDN'T want, which is to attack the man with weapons or for random people to start taking the law into their own hands. I'm sure there are many legal ways this could have been defused, but even if not, solving the issue with violence is not something I'm ok with. A good portion of that unease comes from the precedent it would set: violence is OK if the law doesn't do what you want.

I'd recommend you do everything you legally can to make it stop. What do you want from me here?

 

[Media]

And it's a damn shame no one stepped in to deescalate the situation. None of those girls/women should have been subjected to those views. I can't tell you what exactly I'd have them do in this situation, I can only tell you what I WOULDN'T want, which is to attack the man with weapons or for random people to start taking the law into their own hands. I'm sure there are many legal ways this could have been defused, but even if not, solving the issue with violence is not something I'm ok with. A good portion of that unease comes from the precedent it would set: violence is OK if the law doesn't do what you want.

I'd recommend you do everything you legally can to make it stop. What do you want from me here?

But everything legally was done. They called the cops a bunch. They tried talking to him. They pleaded with him. And yet he stayed. What other recourse do they have? Ignore it, have it upset and may e traumatize a bunch of women and it poison a few minds who will eventually go on to do just what he was advocating?

As for what I want? I want people to stop treating rape culture as a thing that doesn't exist. I want women to be respected as much a men, and not have to carrying the fear that anytime we are out alone we might be raped just for being women.

 

[mashoutposse]

But everything legally was done. They called the cops a bunch. They tried talking to him. They pleaded with him. And yet he stayed. What other recourse do they have? Ignore it, have it upset and may e traumatize a bunch of women and it poison a few minds who will eventually go on to do just what he was advocating?

Kill him.

 

[Night Angel]

But everything legally was done. They called the cops a bunch. They tried talking to him. They pleaded with him. And yet he stayed. What other recourse do they have? Ignore it, have it upset and may e traumatize a bunch of women and it poison a few minds who will eventually go on to do just what he was advocating?

I'm not going to pretend the only avenue left to these people was smacking him with a bat.

 

[Got]

You guys are right. Hitting him in the head wasn't good.


She should've pulverized his crotch.

 

[Metaphoreus]

This guy is the perpetrator and his sign is the knife in this situation. He has active intent towards causing people grevious harm. You stand on the sidelines and do nothing but judge that girl while he continues to peddle his poison? You're a coward.

A sign is not a knife.

This isn't complicated.

 

[Media]

Kill him.

I'm not going to pretend the only avenue left to these people was smacking him with a bat.

I guess I am done. A lot of you can't seem to empathize with the very real fear women live with everyday and how that might occasionally provoke a violent reaction when pushed far enough.

 

[Got]

A sign is not a knife.

This isn't complicated.

your avatar reminds me of his death and I get happy. like really happy that he's dead.

 

[TestOfTide]

I'm not going to pretend the only avenue left to these people was smacking him with a bat.

Well then give an actual goddamn answer as to what they should have done.

You come off as nothing but a contrarian shmuck when you are now literally admitting you don't even have an answer as to what that woman should have done instead.

 

[akira28]

your avatar reminds me of his death and I get happy. like really happy that he's dead.

he used to have a cute puppy dog, and i didn't like it because it made me hate puppies.

 

[Got]

he used to have a cute puppy dog, and i didn't like it because it made me hate puppies.

poor puppers

 

[The Kree]

And it's a damn shame no one stepped in to deescalate the situation. None of those girls/women should have been subjected to those views. I can't tell you what exactly I'd have them do in this situation, I can only tell you what I WOULDN'T want, which is to attack the man with weapons or for random people to start taking the law into their own hands. I'm sure there are many legal ways this could have been defused, but even if not, solving the issue with violence is not something I'm ok with. A good portion of that unease comes from the precedent it would set: violence is OK if the law doesn't do what you want.

I'd recommend you do everything you legally can to make it stop. What do you want from me here?

It's not just about what you want the law to do. It's about what it already allows, and when you're left with no legal recourse to address a problem, you act outside the law because the law is not the source of your morality. If it were, unjust laws would never be undone. Until the flaw in the law is corrected, people are going to inevitably catch hands for things like this.

If you wanna have a debate about competing conceptions of the good, that's fine and dandy. But you don't get to demand order in place of justice because you're "uneasy" about the methods with which genuine evil is struck down while not providing a viable alternative.

 

[mashoutposse]

I guess I am done. A lot of you can't seem to empathize with the very real fear women live with everyday and how that might occasionally provoke a violent reaction when pushed far enough.

Grab the sign out of his hands and rip it up?

Grab the bullhorn and throw it to the ground?

There are at least a couple of things that could've been done before hurting someone.

 

[Night Angel]

I guess I am done. A lot of you can't seem to empathize with the very real fear women live with everyday and how that might occasionally provoke a violent reaction when pushed far enough.

I empathize with the fact that they may have felt threatened. I get that a violent response is very compelling to silence asshats like this preacher.

Why do I have to believe that violence is justified? People do bad shit all the time with justifications for their behavior. I can definitely empathize with the idea that the woman in this story couldn't think of another way to silence this creep, but that doesn't mean I can't simultaneously condemn her attack and hope she faces the consequences of that act.

Is my absolute acquiescence required for me to engage in discussion on this topic?

 

[Veelk]

Grab the sign out of his hands and rip it up?

Grab the bullhorn and throw it to the ground?

There are at least a couple of things that could've been done before hurting someone.

Then we'd be arguing about what possible right the woman could have to destroy another person's property and how she was as much in the wrong as the guy who was advocating rape to high school students.

 

[Lundren]

A sign is not a knife.

This isn't complicated.

You're right. It isn't complicated. He encourages violence. Violence was committed.

 

[Media]

Grab the sign out of his hands and rip it up?

Grab the bullhorn and throw it to the ground?

There are at least a couple of things that could've been done before hurting someone.

All things also considered illegal. Possibly even assault. They would have been arrested for that too. What else?

 

[MastAndo]

By no means am I defending his hateful rhetoric, but it's a pretty slippery slope to suggest cracking someone over the head with a bat for saying/supporting abhorrent things is the proper course of action.

 

[TestOfTide]

Grab the sign out of his hands and rip it up?

Grab the bullhorn and throw it to the ground?

There are at least a couple of things that could've been done before hurting someone.

Except I know that you know that those two things would inevitably escalate to violence within 45 seconds.

 

[Night Angel]

Well then give an actual goddamn answer as to what they should have done.

You come off as nothing but a contrarian shmuck when you are now literally admitting you don't even have an answer as to what that woman should have done instead.

So I can't have an opinion on whether or not physically assaulting someone is the right way to go because I can't give an exact answer of how else this situation could've been resolved? Nah.

 

[Media]

I empathize with the fact that they may have felt threatened. I get that a violent response is very compelling to silence asshats like this preacher.

Why do I have to believe that violence is justified? People do bad shit all the time with justifications for their behavior. I can definitely empathize with the idea that the woman in this story couldn't think of another way to silence this creep, but that doesn't mean I can't simultaneously condemn her attack and hope she faces the consequences of that act.

Is my absolute acquiescence required for me to engage in discussion on this topic?

I don't think anyone has said as much. You've spent the entire thread, however, condemning the woman, talking about how violence is never justified, declaring he was not threatening, and defending the preachers right to free speech.

Do you expect people not to have a discussion about those concepts when they disagree with your reasoning?

 

[TestOfTide]

So I can't have an opinion on whether or not physically assaulting someone is the right way to go because I can't give an exact answer of how else this situation could've been resolved? Nah.

Yes actually, because considering the girl didn't decide to use a bat until other avenues failed, I would say that she is using similar logic as someone who does literal self-defense. The baseball bat was basically a last resort.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

A sign is not a knife.

This isn't complicated.

It might as well be for all the victims these assholes have created.

 

[mashoutposse]

Then we'd be arguing about what possible right the woman could have to destroy another person's property and how she was as much in the wrong as the guy who was advocating rape to high school students.

She's likely not a convicted felon if she destroys the sign and bullhorn.

I have no idea what this thread would've looked like in that case.

 

[Veelk]

She's likely not a convicted felon if she destroys the sign and bullhorn.

I have no idea what this thread would've looked like in that case.

If she wrestles the sign away from him, then that's basically assault.

And I would be willing to bet my account that we'd be having this same exact discussion, except about how she shouldn't have torn down the sign rather than how she shouldn't have the guy.

 

[The Kree]

If she wrestles the sign away from him, then that's basically assault.

And I would be willing to bet my account that we'd be having this same exact discussion, except about how she shouldn't have torn down the sign rather than how she shouldn't have the guy.

I have no doubt the discussion would be the same.

 

[Got]

I have no doubt the discussion would be the same.

most definitely. goal posts and shit

 

[mashoutposse]

All things also considered illegal. Possibly even assault. They would have been arrested for that too. What else?

Except I know that you know that those two things would inevitably escalate to violence within 45 seconds.

I don't condone any actions beyond ignoring the guy and calling the police. Anything else risks escalation or prosecution.

You asked what she could've done other than bash him in the head with a baseball bat and I gave you two reasonable ones.

 

[Night Angel]

Yes actually, because considering the girl didn't decide to use a bat until other avenues failed, I would say that she is using similar logic as someone who does literal self-defense. The baseball bat was basically a last resort.

That's a ridiculous expectation for discourse. And I get that she may have felt it was a necessary last resort. I don't have to agree.

 

[Veelk]

I don't condone any actions beyond ignoring the guy and calling the police. Anything else risks escalation or prosecution.

Then you don't condone any action that stops him from advocating rape to high schoolers.

Sorry, but that's the bottom line. What your suggesting has no effect. So to ignore the guy and call the police is tantamount to letting him advocate rape to high schoolers. They are one and the same.

 

[Media]

I don't condone any actions beyond ignoring the guy and calling the police. Anything else risks escalation or prosecution.

You asked what she could've done other than bash him in the head with a baseball bat and I gave you two reasonable ones.

So in the face of violent threats, women should just ignore them and call the police, even when the police do nothing?

And in the mean time more young boys get their minds poisoned with the whole 'rape is totally something you should do "value"'?

 

[Lundren]

So in the face of violent threats, women should just ignore them and call the police, even when the police do nothing?

And in the mean time more young boys get their minds poisoned with the whole 'rape is totally something you should do "value"'?

Threatening violence is fine. Anything less than ignoring threats of bodily harm is one step too far.

 

[Hierophant]

A sign is not a knife.

This isn't complicated.

I want to scream how hard is it for you people to understand people see different things as threats, it must be easy for you to say it's not a threat sitting in your armchair but a sexual assault victim may not feel as easy as you do in the face of such threats

 

[Veelk]

Threatening violence is fine. Anything less than ignoring threats of bodily harm is one step too far.

What the fuck

 

[Hierophant]

What the fuck

What I'm getting here is that a woman had to be raped by this guy before any action is taken

 

[mashoutposse]

If she wrestles the sign away from him, then that's basically assault.

And I would be willing to bet my account that we'd be having this same exact discussion, except about how she shouldn't have torn down the sign rather than how she shouldn't have the guy.

My speculation is that this thread wouldn't exist because ripping up a sign with a disgusting message on it is not newsworthy and she likely would've been able to go home without being charged. She likely does not spend 60 days in jail and receive 3 years of probation for ripping up a sign and destroying a bullhorn.

My suggestions are far superior to what she did. She had options if she felt he must be silenced. There is zero excuse for hitting him with a bat.

 

[TestOfTide]

I don't condone any actions beyond ignoring the guy and calling the police. Anything else risks escalation or prosecution.

You asked what she could've done other than bash him in the head with a baseball bat and I gave you two reasonable ones.

Sorry, but considering that we already know that calling the police and doing nothing were both things that didn't work with this douchebag, you come off pretty scummy saying the bolded.

The bat wasn't done a first response, but as a last resort because this fucker WOULD. NOT. STOP.

That's a ridiculous expectation for discourse. And I get that she may have felt it was a necessary last resort. I don't have to agree.

It's not though, because if you can't give an alternative for dealing with the situation, given what we know about the things the students had already tried and the dangers that douchebag posed, then you are in no position to criticize how she handled that situation.