We were wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: We were wrong

#361

Post by arrrg » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:36 PM UTC

rlt wrote: post #79

maximilianburke wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the guide is written like a rape manual, yes, yes it is. It features quotes like: "Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don't ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick." (from: http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_... ) The whole thing is disgusting, degrading, and has no pl…

Are you saying you consider that "rape", even if the subjects were already kissing and fondling? I wonder how many people outraged at this have explicitly asked for permission before every step of physical escalation in every one of their relationships.

Yeah, if you do shit like this you are Schrödinger's rapist, i.e. completely dependent on consent you do not know you have.

Re: We were wrong

#362

Post by malandrew » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:36 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #107

Dear fellow HN dwellers, If you read the writings of the Guide's author and do not recognize that it is misogynistic and advocating sexual assault, you have a problem. That problem is that you are mistaking sexual assault for "taking the first step." You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that…

   "Without that consent, it is assault."

I hate to be contrarian, because by the standards in most cultural spaces in the US I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but I've traveled enough to know that there are exceptions to the exceptions people are taking with this material when you take culture differences into account. The majority of women in the majority of cultural spaces we on HN frequent of are saying it is assault. In those spaces and for those women it is. However this is not a universal truth.

I've lived abroad several times in different places and the behavior of women in certain culture actively promotes/encourages the behavior being promoted by this book. For example, I've lived in Rio de Janeiro (and several places in the US) and there in particular you are expected, by the women, to behave in the manner promoted by this book otherwise you simply won't meet women when going out to many night venues. Seriously, the nice guy approach will net you not one number in a nightclub/dance club in Rio, you actually have to "manhandle" women to enter into a conversation. I'm a decent looking guy and normally don't have too much difficulty meeting women, but when I was in Rio, my US-acceptable "passivity" relative to the culture norm in Rio, got me absolutely no where there. It was only when I forced myself to be physically assertive that women started responding well and flirting back and I started getting dates.

With this in mind, I honestly would not be surprised if the backlash we are seeing here is indicative of a cultural echo chamber that finds this behavior reprehensible that is also ignorant of of the existance of cultural spaces in the US where this behavior is not only acceptable but welcomed by women, and that this guide is geared towards men who frequent those cultural spaces. Examples of cultural spaces in the US where this behavior is expected by women are probably the same spaces that the cast of Jersey Shore and their real life analogues frequent. Watch this video of interviews with people on a certain beach on the Jersey shore and try to tell me that these assertive "mating practices" are not only acceptable but welcome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5weU2olAl-E . What is unfortunate is that behavior that is acceptable in those spaces bleeds intquo the common cultural spaces where this is not acceptable behavior.

Anyways, I'm neither defending nor supporting this kickstarter, but merely saying that a lot of the people on their high horse need to realize the relativism of culture and that some things that may be wildly offensive to many women may actually be encouraged by certain subsets of women in certain cultural spaces. With this in mind, public outcry and censorship of material you may find objectional can sometimes suppress culture and you need to be aware of when you may be doing so.

I think Neil Gaiman's thoughts "Why defend freedom of icky speech" is particularly relevant here.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...

I personally would prefer that this speech be protected even if I don't agree with it, but that Kickstarter require that the author write a chapter on the importance of being discriminatory in practicing this behavior in cultural spaces where it is not acceptable and helping them identify women that don't welcome these advances in those cultural spaces where they may be acceptable.

Re: We were wrong

#363

Post by alipang » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:36 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #101

hacker789 wrote: post #28

Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men. If it becomes necessary to take a few quotes out of context in our noble quest to protect the fairer sex, so be it. Kudos to Kickstarter for adhering to feminist principles. > The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advic…

”5) Get CLOSE to her, damn it! To quote Rob Judge, “Personal space is for pussies.” I already told you that the most successful seducers are those who can’t keep their hands off of women. Well you’re not gonna be able to do that if you aren’t in close! ” “All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They…

I'd say his use of the word "escalate" would mean to start somewhere innocuous, touching a shoulder or whatever, and go from there.

You portray the potential customer of this as some kind of rapist dreg, but I'm guessing it'd be more like a shy guy who is too timid with women (which he seems to portray himself as as well). In that light I find this delivered in slightly bad taste, but not really something to be up in arms about.

Kickstarter pulled this cause it's not politically correct, and people were upset about some quotes taken out of context. That's also fair, it's their right as a business, but still kind of weak, nice apology or not.

Re: We were wrong

#364

Post by merlincorey » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:37 PM UTC

blocking_io wrote: post #288

shawabawa3 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to who? Your opinion? Did you even read the author's defense?

Yes of course I have. I have also read the guides on reddit where he tells the reader to sexually assault their partner.

Please link to said guide and describe exactly how to navigate to this section.

Re: We were wrong

#365

Post by Cushman » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:38 PM UTC

papsosouid wrote: post #319

Cushman wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This is ludicrous revisionism, and you should be ashamed for saying it. You do not get to treat a group of people as property for thousands of years, and then when they finally claw a measure of autonomy back from you say, "Well, that about evens the score."

>You do not get to treat a group of people as property for thousands of years Ignoring the fact that your scenario is absurd hyperbole, and men had things just as shit as women did, the you in question wasn't involved. Nobody in this discussion ever owned a woman. Pretending they committed some horrible crime to justify your prejudice is pathetic.

Ignoring the fact that the status of women as property was a literal and legal fact for thousands of years...

I don't subscribe to such a convenient ethics, I'm afraid. The enormous power I derive from the society I live in I owe, in good part, to racial slavery, to the genocide of the people who lived where I live now, and, yes, to the systematic oppression of women, all in the name of the very nation I now consider myself a part of. By my privilege, I owe a moral debt to those murdered, enslaved, and terrorized people, and if it cannot be repaid it should at least be atoned for.

I could likewise say that I do not enslave children, while I purchase products made by those who do; but I do not believe that is the path to a better world.

Re: We were wrong

#366

Post by lewispollard » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:39 PM UTC

newnewnew wrote: post #342

lewispollard wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because women, funnily enough, are individual human beings with their own tastes and desires.

Women are, funnily enough, female members of the species homo sapiens and there is a lot of scientific evidence on what they find attractive in a potential mate.

Show me this evidence. If that is really your attitude towards women then it's no wonder you feel the need to read a book like this. Try a little respect for your fellow people, you'll have much more fulfilling experiences with women if you stop believing what science tells you and actually take an interest in the people around you

Re: We were wrong

#367

Post by AnIrishDuck » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

dkokelley wrote: post #334

AnIrishDuck wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire. This meme really needs to die. The "fire in a crowded theater" standard hasn't been relevant for half a century [1]. > He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street"). This sounds like the "imminent lawless action" standard [2]. IANAL, but it seems that the "imm…

Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.) Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawle…

> Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.)

The "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote comes from the supreme court decision in Schenk v. US, which is all but defunct today.

> Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.

I don't believe the "imminent" part of that phrase leaves much open for interpretation.

> Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued

Of course not. But as my father (who is a lawyer) is fond of saying, anyone can sue anyone else at any time. That doesn't mean they are likely to succeed.

> I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.

I'll concede that legal liability might be an issue in this case, though that's for lawyers to decide. The point of my original comment was primarily to debunk an outdated legal standard. I got sidetracked with what I will now admit is poor additional legal analysis.

I will now admit my initial analysis was poor because after doing a tad more research, I stumbled into a far more pertinent case. That case is Rice v. Paladin Enterprises [1]. Back in 1983, Paladin Enterprises published a limited-run hitman manual [2]. A decade later, a convicted hitman noted that he had picked up tips from this book; this led a circuit court to hold that book was unprotected speech. This paved the way for civil sanctions against Paladin Enterprises. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and Paladin's insurance company settled for an undisclosed sum.

Drawing parallels to the current issue is left as an exercise for the reader.

1. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/rice.html 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for...

Re: We were wrong

#368

Post by tomjen3 » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

blocking_io wrote: post #293

tomjen3 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of arguments are not worthy of HN. Nothing here is beyond debate (it may be of topic but that is different), nothing, no matter how strongly you feel about it is beyond debate here and shutting down a debate and declaring the other a monster simply for opening a debate is tantamount to admitting that you hold believes that you are so weakly tied to that you can't defend them.

I am not shutting down the debate. I am not declaring anyone a monster. I am merely pointing out that if you are defending the guide, you are defending a sexual assault manual. That is the reality of the situation.

Now you go a head and do it again - simply declaring your point of view as fact is shutting down the debate. Please, post your arguments and how you came to your conclusion not just state it (I think schools used to call it show your work).

Re: We were wrong

#369

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #327

300bps wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And for what? To avoid the embarrassment of saying, "So do you wanna fuck?" How old are you? I'm not the person you wrote this to, but I can answer that I am 41 years old, have been married for 11 years and have three children (including a daughter). When I think of the little scene you've played out there occurring, I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwa…

> When I think of the little scene you've played out there occurring, I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwardly stops and says, "Do you consent to fornication at this time?" ...really? Sure, whatever, let's go with it. If that's the only way you know how to figure out consent, that's what you need to say. And I bet it will work more often than not, too. T…

[deleted]

Re: We were wrong

#370

Post by figglesonrails » Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #335

Cushman wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great. So all you've gotta do is replace, "Try to have sex with her, and stop if she says no" with, "Find out if she wants to have sex with you, and do so if she does." The difference that makes to whether or not she consents -- the "downer" -- is precisely the point.

If you’ve been making out, fondling, and fingering her for a while, asking her if she wants to have sex is going to make you seem obtuse. She’s been standing in line at an ice cream truck, it’s finally her turn, and now you, the guy behind the counter, are asking her whether you should make her some ice cream. ’No, I’m here to get movie tickets!’

All I can say is... +1

This is exactly what I was thinking, but unable to verbalize it so well.