A Facebook friend of mine had the perfect thing to say about this creep:
This is why, despite being a nonbeliever and a scientifically minded person, I hesitate to identify as a member of the skeptic/atheist community- it is dominated by pompous white men who find doing things like categorizing rape into different “levels” of badness, and playing logical fallacy “gotcha” games with anyone hurt by this, to be a diverting intellectual exercise. In truth, they may act like this is nothing more than a fun little project, but this is to hide how much emotional validation and sexual enjoyment they derive from this game. Their intent is to do harm, and to assert power by the further gaslighting and violation of boundaries of those who protest. The more you ask them to stop, the more excited they get, and the more they will try to pull you into a “debate” and harm you further. This is not done in the spirit of true inquiry and debate; it is abuse disguised in the sterile wrapping of “discourse.”
Dawkins is such a moron. Largely because he seems to think women think of rape exclusively as a crime rather than as a traumatic experience.
Nobody cares how many years in jail you can get for a rape, Dickie, if they’re trying to put the pieces of their psyche back together and are fairly certain it’s not worth it to bother even telling the police. Your utilitarian calculations of badness don’t matter to someone who feels totally destroyed, and apparently evolution forgot to include the notion of human empathy and compassion in your general asshole program.
Also, just let’s clarify why this is stupid legally as well as stupid empathically: the justice system in most countries knows that a-crime-with-violence-added should be a charge of the base crime, plus the crime of using violence to commit a crime. That’s why you can have more than one charge. Here’s how it works:
1) Rape is a crime.
2) Threatening someone with a knife is a crime.
If you committed the crime in (2), you may deserve harsher punishment for (1), the way we do sentencing, but maybe not (up to the judge really); you get punished for two separate crimes, even if committed together, as separate charges.
In other words, even our justice system tries to keep these things separate so that you don’t dilute the badness of them.
You shouldn’t have to “compare” date rape and rape at knifepoint. Crime at knifepoint is wrong. Rape is wrong. Both are crimes, both can be committed independently of one another. Comparing them creates the even more awkward situation where you start comparing “knifepoint attack plus rape” to “knifepoint attack alone,” and then we really go down a shitty rabbit hole to a hell dominated by White Men who think rape victims give half a shit about everything I just mentioned.
This is basically why Richard Dawkins should just stop talking. He gives the rest of us evolutionists a bad name.
why test on animals when there are prisons full of rapists
because the prisons aren’t actually full of rapists
the rapists run free and the prisons are full of people charged with weed possession
I am awake but at what price
|—||bell hooks, Feminism is for Everybody (via marinashutup)|
I tend to ignore asks like this, but I feel like I have to answer this in light of the rage my satirical ask answer about being visited by ‘The Misandry Fairy’.
It frightens me that there are so many men that could not see the satire. At first I was confused, because, I mean, quite obviously I used the most ludicrous situation I could imagine. I wasn’t going for realism.
But then it hit me. There are men out there with such burning misogyny inside them, that they honestly believe that we could hate them in the same irrational and vile way. They are frightened of the tables turning.
Well, I am sorry to say that you have underestimated us.
If you think I would be happy to see any man executed, then you are wrong. You are so worried about this liberation we feminists speak of ending up like some sort of reverse patriarchy, that you honestly cannot see that we want better than that.
You can’t imagine better than that. It’s all you know.
You’ve seen men abuse the power they have granted themselves for years and years and years, and now you can’t imagine women being granted equal, or perhaps even more power, without abusing it, without using it to the detriment and disadvantage of another gender.
Feminism is not about hurting or hating men. Feminism is a movement that aims to end the privilege of men over women and non-binary genders.
It does scare me that so many cannot see a difference between hating men, and hating a system that is rigged in the favour of men (in terms of gender, of course, other intersecting oppressions are very relevant), at the expense of everyone else.
To the person who sent this ask, you frighten me. I am not afraid to say so. You frighten me because you are projecting. You imagine we could find the same pleasure in dead men that so many men do in dead and abused women.
I will say it again: You underestimate us.
You sicken me.
Blacklist. The unfollow button. Logging off every now and then. Consider this before sending anon criticism to someone.
I told my mom I didn’t wanna go to the store with her
Okay, so this is Troll SJ Blogger Bingo, and it’s supposed to be a way to clue you in on which bloggers are actual social justice bloggers and which ones are just trolls playing a part in the human centipede that is the anti-SJ/TiA community. Some of them I really liked, some of them I had mixed feelings about, and some of them I disagreed with, so strap in because I’m gonna run through them real quick. Left to right, top to bottom.
- Mixed feelings depending on if the phrase “non specific” modifies the word “queer” or “WOC.” A lot of people use queer as their personal identifier for their sexuality. But someone calling themselves a WOC in their about instead of saying “black woman” or “asian woman” I could see as a potential sign.
- I wouldn’t know.
- Well duh.
- Mixed feelings. There’s tons of valid anger in these communities, and over the top anger, while it could be a sign of a troll, might just be, you know, a very angry person.
- Agreed. Either a troll or a tool.
- I wouldn’t know. But I’ve seen people get pretty wild with stuff like this.
- Agreed a thousand times.
- Disagree. That is the sign of a condescending blogger who’s probably annoying as hell, but that does not a troll make.
- Agreed. I don’t know any social justice blogger who only blogs about social justice. I can’t imagine anyone who’d be able to take all the negativity.
- Disagree. That shit is a common occurrence in social justice blogging and needs to stop.
- Agree, especially if the tags don’t even relate to the post.
- Agree, mostly.
- Disagree. It happens.
- Disagree. It’s a valid label many women of color choose to take to differentiate themselves from the issues they have with mainstream feminism.
Basically, it’s really good that we’re identifying the trolls among us, but at the same time, let’s not just pin all our bad habits on trolls. There are legitimate issues with this community and labeling everyone who perpetuates those issues as “not real social justice bloggers” does little to solve the problems.
the whole theme of isaac is him going down the rabbit hole.. im suprised people havent made the connection more.
it uses a lot of the same allegory and abstract themes alice in wonderland did. a kid leaves reality and travels into their imagination where everything in the mirrored world is distorted by the childs view on things and how those things view them.. i just used religion as a focus.. but yeah same story that has been old a million times.