Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We were wrong

kickstarter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#531

Post by blocking_io »

merlincorey wrote: post #529
blocking_io wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Consent is assumed in the situation because of all the stuff leading up to it. Like the getting the number, the going out on dates, talking a lot, and finally ending up alone with them in their or your own residence. Consent should never be assumed. Just fucking ask. This chapter is explicitly talking about transitioning from a non-sexual to a sexual relationship. Assuming that your partner wants this to happen is a…

> Consent should never be assumed. Just fucking ask. This chapter is explicitly talking about transitioning from a non-sexual to a sexual relationship. Assuming that your partner wants this to happen is a recipe for sexual assault. I think you're mistaken, and I think you're inexperienced with women. Most women absolutely do not want to be asked every step of the way. Many women I have been with have specifically enj…

I don't think you've read much PUA material. A lot of it is about trying to have sex with a partner who does not (at least initaially) want to have sex. Escalating physically until they say no, lying and saying you'll stop and then escalating again. Charitably it is about convincing someone to have sex with you, uncharitably it is wearing them down until they give up resisting.

There have been clear descriptions of rape which have been posted by redditors on the PUA subreddit, which the poster apparently did not realise were rape.

Re: We were wrong

#532

Post by blocking_io »

Crake wrote: post #520
blocking_io wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole premise of The Little Mermaid is paternalistic and problematic.

Oh my god. Really? Guess you better go tell a bunch of little girls that they aren't allowed to like whatever their favorite female Disney protagonist happens to be.

Just because little girls like it, doesn't mean it isn't problematic.

Re: We were wrong

#533

Post by blocking_io »

Crake wrote: post #523
Chris2048 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the insinuation here?

That if you are white, or cis, or a male, then you are innately evil and do not deserve to be treated with the respect that all humans deserve.

If you are white, cis and male, you need to understand how that affects positively how society treats you. Because society treats you better than any other group. Then you need to think about how that shapes your opinions so that you can understand the complaints of the less privileged.

For example, if you are a white New Yorker, you might say "stop and frisk is fine, I never get stopped so they must only be stopping criminals". However, once you realise that the police disproportionately stop black people, you are better able to understand black people's complaints about the policy. It's nothing sinister or hateful. It's a way to critically evaluate ones own biases.

Re: We were wrong

#534

Post by blocking_io »

Crake wrote: post #522
blocking_io wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is ground zero for privilege denying wealthy cis white men.

Just like tumblr is ground zero for privileged females attending $30,000/year liberal arts colleges for women's studies, right?

I wouldn't know, I'm a male computer scientist.

Re: We were wrong

#535

Post by merlincorey »

blocking_io wrote: post #531
merlincorey wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consent should never be assumed. Just fucking ask. This chapter is explicitly talking about transitioning from a non-sexual to a sexual relationship. Assuming that your partner wants this to happen is a recipe for sexual assault. I think you're mistaken, and I think you're inexperienced with women. Most women absolutely do not want to be asked every step of the way. Many women I have been with have specifically enj…

I don't think you've read much PUA material. A lot of it is about trying to have sex with a partner who does not (at least initaially) want to have sex. Escalating physically until they say no, lying and saying you'll stop and then escalating again. Charitably it is about convincing someone to have sex with you, uncharitably it is wearing them down until they give up resisting. There have been clear descriptions of r…

If consent is not violated, it's not rape. You can't assume that consent is not established... which is what you're doing. Convincing someone they raped their girlfriend or their boyfriend raped them is pretty reprehensible, but I am aware that it goes on.

I don't actually recommend following the lead of these so called Pick Up Artists... but I don't think they were trying to teach anyone to rape. Apparently we should agree to disagree on that point.

Re: We were wrong

#536

Post by Chris2048 »

dirkgadsden wrote: post #501
Chris2048 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because opinion here isn't dictated? Feel free to express your own opinions on the matter, but don't start with the slander because you dislike the opinion of others.

Slander is spoken falsehood, I think you meant libel. Also something is only a falsehood if it is false, and much of the writings here are quite characteristic of misogyny, rape culture (esp. apologetics), and male privilege as commonly used in SWE.

I wasn't talking in legal terms, but 'characteristic of' and 'commonly used' are weak arguments.

Re: We were wrong

#537

Post by Crake »

blocking_io wrote: post #533
Crake wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That if you are white, or cis, or a male, then you are innately evil and do not deserve to be treated with the respect that all humans deserve.

If you are white, cis and male, you need to understand how that affects positively how society treats you. Because society treats you better than any other group. Then you need to think about how that shapes your opinions so that you can understand the complaints of the less privileged. For example, if you are a white New Yorker, you might say "stop and frisk is fine, I never get stopped so they must only be stopping…

It's not a way to critically evaluate biases, the way you and others use it today. It's a way to insult people for the sexuality, sex, or ethnicity they were born to. Do you really want to behave in the same way the people on Fox News do?

Re: We were wrong

#538

Post by Crake »

blocking_io wrote: post #534
Crake wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like tumblr is ground zero for privileged females attending $30,000/year liberal arts colleges for women's studies, right?

I wouldn't know, I'm a male computer scientist.

There's a term for people like you, but it's not very flattering.

Re: We were wrong

#539

Post by Crake »

blocking_io wrote: post #532
Crake wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my god. Really? Guess you better go tell a bunch of little girls that they aren't allowed to like whatever their favorite female Disney protagonist happens to be.

Just because little girls like it, doesn't mean it isn't problematic.

So, the male computer scientist now feels qualified to tell little girls what is and isn't ok for them to like. I thought you didn't like men telling women what to do?

Re: We were wrong

#540

Post by Crake »

lewispollard wrote: post #527
Crake wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>stop believing what science tells you You can't be serious. Someone on Hacker News advocating not to believe in science? Really?

Preaching to the wrong crowd. I love science, but I can't stand it when people try to apply 'logic and reeeason' to social concepts like this one. It's pseudoscience at best. We're human, not vulcan, after all...

Well, the nice thing about science and nature is that they keep working whether or not you think they're applicable.
Post reply on HN