Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen anyone say that it's automatically a precursor to sexual assault.

Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?

Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?


These two posts certainly tread that line (if not outright imply it indirectly through the notion that 'in a society that doesn't demonize catcalling, this is what we can expect')

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen anyone say that it's automatically a precursor to sexual assault. But what I have seen here and elsewhere is that it tends to make women feel:

• Uncomfortable
• Unsafe
• Degraded
• Guarded
• Powerless
• Intimidated

I could probably go on, but you get the idea. None of these are criminal; none of these are automatically even physical. But they're all bad.

The 3rd girlfriend I ever had I had approached as a stranger in public and hit on her. Sorry, but you don't get to decide that I was somehow immoral for doing so. She was flattered...no harm done.

You (or men in general) don't get to decide the totality of this situation.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing?!? You're deciding for everyone that such behavior is automatically wrong.

When did you become the arbiter of all morality?

 

[Paidiske]

No, we're not saying it's automatically wrong.

We're saying it's not automatically right, that it often isn't right, and that men ought to be aware of that and judge the person and the context before engaging in behaviour which is - as noted - threatening, intimidating, etc.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No, we're not saying it's automatically wrong.

We're saying it's not automatically right, that it often isn't right, and that men ought to be aware of that and judge the person and the context before engaging in behaviour which is - as noted - threatening, intimidating, etc.

This.

Honestly, it's frustrating that this distinction is so hard to get across.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Dp

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or, we do what we actually did, raise awareness about drunk driving, promote use of cabs and designated drivers, tell people that we need to stop that guy that is obviously drunk from getting behind the wheel. Alcohol isn't the culprit, it's how alcohol is used that is the culprit. You can drink until you pass out, just don't get behind the wheel.

Ok.

Likewise, there is no issue with a man approaching a woman to ask her out on a date; however, soliciting a woman on the street, is not the most appropriate time.

This is you drawing a direct comparison to catcalling and drunk driving. The problem isn't that drunk driving is inappropriate....it's dangerous....always.

To compare it to catcalling....which is "inappropriate" in your opinion....is nonsense. It's not dangerous...and it's certainly not illegal.

Go to a bar, nightclub or some other social activity, not on the street.

Does the same apply to women?? If they approach a guy in public somewhere...are they wrong for doing so? Are they morally deficient??

My guess is that you don't have any problem with women approaching a man in public to express interest or attraction.

 

[Ironhold]

Yeah?

Kaepernick denies giving Travis Scott blessing to perform at Super Bowl - sports - att.net

Now, I don't really know who Travis Scott is...country singer is my guess...but I think we can all agree, he doesn't really need Kaepernick's approval to perform at the Super Bowl does he?

Yet, look at what Colin's wife says...

"If you’re with them, then you are definitely not with us. "

So without any real discussion...Travis Scott is now "part of the problem". No....they didn't ask him his position on police brutality. No....they didn't ask his position on anything. That's the core of virtue signaling....its just to create a "us vs them" mentality so that you can promote yourself while bashing others.

Nobody needs Kaepernick's "blessing" to work with the NFL.

Travis Scott is an up-and-coming rap (is that the right genre?) artist. All 17 tracks of the album he released last year hit the Billboard Hot 100, with the song "Sicko Mode" hitting #1 for a single week.

I ended up highlighting him in one of my "year in review" columns as a highlight of the year since I can't recall anyone pulling off another chart feat like what he did.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, we're not saying it's automatically wrong.

We're saying it's not automatically right, that it often isn't right, and that men ought to be aware of that and judge the person and the context before engaging in behaviour which is - as noted - threatening, intimidating, etc.

Well here's the problem. First you say...

No, we're not saying it's automatically wrong.

Then you say...

...before engaging in behaviour which is - as noted - threatening, intimidating, etc.

Which is it? Because those two statements are completely contradictory. See the problem?? Either it's not wrong all the time....or it's threatening and intimidating and it is wrong all the time. It can't be both though.

Can you at least acknowledge that some women, some of the time, find it flattering? I had a female coworker talking about an incident just two weeks ago where a guy was hitting on her while she was in her car in traffic and to quote her....it "made her day".

I get that sometimes women find it intimidating....but can you at least admit that sometimes they find it flattering and enjoy it??? I'm not saying all the time, I'm not even saying most of the time...because frankly, the percentages don't matter. I'd just like to see if you can acknowledge that some of the time women enjoy it.

 

[Ironhold]

And which of those instances were a positive use of force? Can’t we all agree that in a civil society not at war, most use of violence or force by civilians is wrong? Why would you have a problem with an ad discouraging aggression?

Strength without justice may be tyranny, but justice without strength is meaningless.

It's actually an act of aggression to enforce any sort of rules on someone, as you're limiting what they're able to do and implying consequences if they don't limit those actions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is you drawing a direct comparison to catcalling and drunk driving. The problem isn't that drunk driving is inappropriate....it's dangerous....always.

To compare it to catcalling....which is "inappropriate" in your opinion....is nonsense. It's not dangerous...and it's certainly not illegal.

Or perhaps a different way of putting it...

There are ways of hitting on women in public or even "catcalling" that don't end in any form of assault, any form of harassment, or any form of them being uncomfortable.

However, there is no way to get drunk and drive a car, without the end result being drunk driving.

...and thus, I think that puts the "this is just like taking your drunk friends keys away" argument to bed. They'll have to come up with something else.



PS: I think this is the first time you and I have been on the same side of a debate on CF in almost 8 months lol

 

[Ana the Ist]

Travis Scott is an up-and-coming rap (is that the right genre?) artist. All 17 tracks of the album he released last year hit the Billboard Hot 100, with the song "Sicko Mode" hitting #1 for a single week.

I ended up highlighting him in one of my "year in review" columns as a highlight of the year since I can't recall anyone pulling off another chart feat like what he did.

Is he?? Cut me some slack Iron lol...I acknowledged that I didn't know who he was....I don't listen to popular music. My point remains the same, it doesn't matter what genre of music he makes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or perhaps a different way of putting it...

There are ways of hitting on women in public or even "catcalling" that don't end in any form of assault, any form of harassment, or any form of them being uncomfortable.

However, there is no way to get drunk and drive a car, without the end result being drunk driving.

...and thus, I think that puts the "this is just like taking your drunk friends keys away" argument to bed. They'll have to come up with something else.



PS: I think this is the first time you and I have been on the same side of a debate on CF in almost 8 months lol

Haha... I was thinking the same thing! It's not every day you and I end up making similar points.

It's a weird feeling lol.

 

[A_Thinker]

It's hard to imagine another motivation. Can you imagine any possible way that kneeling for the anthem during a football game would ever affect "police brutality"?

It was a protest . Isn't this country founded upon protest against oppessive power ? Were those protestors trying to make a name for themselves ?

And as I noted, protest did appear to make a difference in the cause he championed.

 

[A_Thinker]

...actually, I'm sure you've noticed that I'm very pro-choice. It's not an abortion thing. It was a meme someone made directly to respond to ads like the Gillette one.

Kind of misses its mark, doesn't it ???

 

[A_Thinker]

Just to make sure we have things in proper context. I didn't say assaults are rare (in fact, DOJ data would imply they're far too common).

Is this not the point ???

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was a protest . Isn't this country founded upon protest against oppessive power ?

Not really...no. The country was founded upon direct action....literally shooting and killing our colonial masters.

If you're talking about protests like the Boston Tea Party though...that had both relevance of time and action. The actions taken in protest and the time that it happened were both directly related to the thing being protested.

I mean, if I went and urinated on MLK's grave....and live streamed it to the public....and told people that it was a protest of Venezuela's government....you'd be right to question my motives. After all, those things aren't related.

Similarly, kneeling during the national anthem during a football game doesn't have anything to do with police brutality or anything to do with police....at all.

And as I noted, protest did appear to make a difference in the cause he championed.

I must've missed that....which post?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, for one, they would recognize that women are not the only party to an abortion ... there are also "fathers" and doctors ...

Exactly, it would be wrong to demonize women specifically for actions that everyone does and recognizes as wrong.

 

[A_Thinker]

There's plenty of ways that he could really have made a difference....from volunteering his time with inner city youths, to fundraising, etc. Instead, he chooses to do what will garner him the most attention and praise.

Really ???

Is it your contention that Kaepernick's chosen course had NOTHING to o with registering a protest against unnecessary police killing of blacks ?

You think that his motivation was to get attention and praise ?

Wasn't being a quarterback in the NFL a better shot at that ?

Kaepernicks's chosen course of action got him booted from the NFL, something I'd assume he enjoyed being a part of. But protestors will do that.

Martin Luther did it ... as did Martin Luther King Jr.

(because Colin can't possibly affect police brutality by kneeling during the anthem anymore than Gillette can affect sexual assault with a commercial lol)

This is an opinion ... and not a particularly good one ...

You agree that people can dislike or disagree with the commercial and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are a moral person, right?

I like this commercial because it mostly agrees with my feelings on the subject.

Consequently, ... I can really ONLY IMAGINE why someone wouldn't like it.

I have experienced that people can have very strong feelings that don't agree with my feelings. Fortunately, we live in a society where we can advocate for our views.

 

[A_Thinker]

I mean, if I went and urinated on MLK's grave....and live streamed it to the public....and told people that it was a protest of Venezuela's government....you'd be right to question my motives.

I'd be right to question your judgment. It really wouldn't speak well of you to anyone ... with the exception of certain fringe elements ... and might earn you some jail time.

I must've missed that....which post?

From post #129 ...

Colin decided to take the knee ... hoping that dong so would help to decrease the incidence of us SEEING black men being killed by police (on video).

Out of the protests (kneeling and otherwise), I would say, came the call for increased video-graphy of police encounters (i.e. dash-cams, body-cams, etc). That is a good thing.

And, for what ever reasons, we are SEEING LESS black men being killed by police (on video).

(According to FBI records, there was a spike of 50 more police killings of black men in 2015, ... which has since abated, and continues to decrease annually.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Really ???

Is it your contention that Kaepernick's chosen course had NOTHING to o with registering a protest against unnecessary police killing of blacks ?

Yes...obviously. The first attempt he made at a protest, where he just sat instead of kneeling, went completely unnoticed lol. That's when he proceeded to kneel. After kneeling, he still had to explain why....because nobody knew what he was doing....it was even clearly a protest. After that, he still had to explain that he didn't intend to disrespect the military. Why? Because when people hear the anthem....they don't associate it with police brutality. I doubt police brutality is the 2nd, 3rd, or 50th thing people think of.

So it's not a matter of if I think they have nothing to do with each other....I know they don't lol.

You think that his motivation was to get attention and praise ?

Wasn't being a quarterback in the NFL a better shot at that ?

It's virtue signaling....so when I say that he wanted to draw attention to himself and garner praise, I mean attention and praise for his virtue. I'm not talking about attention in general. Sorry if there was any confusion, but I figured that was obvious.

Kaepernicks's chosen course of action got him booted from the NFL, something I'd assume he enjoyed being a part of. But protestors will do that.

Martin Luther did it ... as did Martin Luther King Jr.

Lol great comparison....he's a real MLK. Hey, I know what MLK protested for....he had specific laws he wanted changed. He wanted specific rights for everyone.

What exactly was the goal Colin was working towards?

This is an opinion ... and not a particularly good one ...

This is an opinion...and a bad one. Look, don't get upset just because I'm willing to tell you the truth. The truth isn't always popular. Colin's great at virtue signaling...but at protesting he stinks. After his "protest"....all anyone talked about was him....nobody really talked about police brutality. Why? Because there's nothing to talk about...no one really supports police brutality lol.

That's why you shouldn't compare him to MLK. People actually supported racial segregation....people openly supported Jim Crow....and he took an unpopular stand against those things. Colin took a stand against something that 99.999% of people are against lol.

I like this commercial because it mostly agrees with my feelings on the subject.

Consequently, ... I can really ONLY IMAGINE why someone wouldn't like it.

Don't keep it a secret....please, share why you think someone might dislike it?

I have experienced that people can have very strong feelings that don't agree with my feelings. Fortunately, we live in a society where we can advocate for our views.

That's the important thing, right? It would be awful if someone disrespected the very nation which grants them such freedoms. After all, not every nation allows such freedom to share one's views.