4 ms·

This is like some kind of Clickhole parody that mashes up MRA literature with How Millennials are Destroying the World(TM). There's no discussion to be had beca

by Lancey 11y ago

This is like some kind of Clickhole parody that mashes up MRA literature with How Millennials are Destroying the World(TM). There's no discussion to be had because the author's engaged in a dialog in his head about what the counter argument is and decided to format his thoughts in regards to that. Pepper a little Orwell here and some allegory there and you've got an article that shows exactly what's wrong with this argument - a refusal to listen to reason and instead substitute your own perception of how the world works.

Karunamon 11y ago
Except, for that part where he directly responds to a WaPo author who thinks due process isn't a thing that should exist.
- wpietri 11y ago
  The WaPo author explicitly says, "This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system." The Medium piece conflates social justice and legal justice. Slavery was legal, so forcibly returning slaves to their owners was legally just. However, we came to recognize it as a moral wrong, something socially unjust. Eventually, we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    What is the end game in a world where an accusation of a crime is accepted as factual, and any questioning of that accusation makes one an apologist for the crime at best? The legal system is supposed to be a reflection of society's morals. If you challenge the moral framework, by asserting that an accusation should never be questioned, you challenge the legal framework by extension.
    - wpietri 11y ago
      Nobody is saying that accusations should never be questioned in court. But we live in a society that, outside of court, treats rape victims very differently than victims of other crimes. The dynamic is lampooned here: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-useful-rape-analogy/ https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-usef... It is that aspect of the moral framework that people are attempting to change. Like it or not, society has collectively acted to excuse rapists for millennia. That has been gradually declining; at least now it's a crime that is taken somewhat seriously.
  - ManFromUranus 11y ago
    >The Medium piece conflates social justice and legal justice >we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first >This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system So basically you are describing the very means that will be used to change the laws to remove due process. "Morality" will be used change the legal environment.
    - wpietri 11y ago
      As far as I know, nobody serious is advocating for removing due process. If you have examples of that, I look forward to seeing them.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    So, your slavery example corroborates what the others in the discussion are accusing the WaPo author of. Slavery was legally just, but socially unjust. Thus "we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first." The WaPo author's position is "doubting the accounts of rape victims is legally just, but socially unjust". Do you see where this is going?
    - wpietri 11y ago
      Yes. It is going to a world where we take rape as seriously as other crimes, and treat its victims with the same respect as other victims.
  - classicsnoot 11y ago
    The two justices are inextricably intertwined regardless of their momentary inconsistencies.
- Lancey 11y ago
  Nobody ever said due process shouldn't exist except the author. Again, another scarecrow the author sets up to dehumanize the opposition. The point raised was about listening to rape victims, taking their accusations seriously, and not blaming the victim, but somehow this is against due process? This isn't about the accused but the accuser. Due process is a legal situation, and it matters after an arrest and during the investigation of a crime. Listening to rape victims at face value is not a violation of due process.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Quote from the article: In the Washington Post, Zerlina Maxwell argued that “we should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser [of rape] says,” for “the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.” (Which is another quote in of itself) Is there another way to read these words that I am aware of?
  - classicsnoot 11y ago
    >Due process is a legal situation, and it matters after an arrest and during the investigation of a crime. Listening to rape victims at face value is not a violation of due process. Listening, yes. Blanket accusation based on a single account is de facto limitation of due process. Shaming a rapist who gets off on a technicality is one thing. Shaming a person who has been accused of rape is quite another.
zxcvcxz 11y ago
You're not really refuting any of his points, you only compared it to "MRA literature" to deflect from having to actually form a counter argument. It's the same as when the "MRAs" compare feminism to nazism. >There's no discussion to be had That's the problem. SJWs don't want to discuss anything, just point fingers while sitting atop their high-horse. >a refusal to listen to reason and instead substitute your own perception of how the world works. It sounds to me like you're using the same exact rhetoric that the "MRAs" use against the SJWs. Personally I think the article is very well thought out and I've seen first hand how self described "social justice warriors" can be completely authoritarian, racist, and bigoted.

by Lancey 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago

Except, for that part where he directly responds to a WaPo author who thinks due process isn't a thing that should exist.

wpietri 11y ago
The WaPo author explicitly says, "This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system." The Medium piece conflates social justice and legal justice. Slavery was legal, so forcibly returning slaves to their owners was legally just. However, we came to recognize it as a moral wrong, something socially unjust. Eventually, we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  What is the end game in a world where an accusation of a crime is accepted as factual, and any questioning of that accusation makes one an apologist for the crime at best? The legal system is supposed to be a reflection of society's morals. If you challenge the moral framework, by asserting that an accusation should never be questioned, you challenge the legal framework by extension.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Nobody is saying that accusations should never be questioned in court. But we live in a society that, outside of court, treats rape victims very differently than victims of other crimes. The dynamic is lampooned here: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-useful-rape-analogy/ https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-usef... It is that aspect of the moral framework that people are attempting to change. Like it or not, society has collectively acted to excuse rapists for millennia. That has been gradually declining; at least now it's a crime that is taken somewhat seriously.
- ManFromUranus 11y ago
  >The Medium piece conflates social justice and legal justice >we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first >This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system So basically you are describing the very means that will be used to change the laws to remove due process. "Morality" will be used change the legal environment.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    As far as I know, nobody serious is advocating for removing due process. If you have examples of that, I look forward to seeing them.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  So, your slavery example corroborates what the others in the discussion are accusing the WaPo author of. Slavery was legally just, but socially unjust. Thus "we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first." The WaPo author's position is "doubting the accounts of rape victims is legally just, but socially unjust". Do you see where this is going?
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Yes. It is going to a world where we take rape as seriously as other crimes, and treat its victims with the same respect as other victims.
- classicsnoot 11y ago
  The two justices are inextricably intertwined regardless of their momentary inconsistencies.
Lancey 11y ago
Nobody ever said due process shouldn't exist except the author. Again, another scarecrow the author sets up to dehumanize the opposition. The point raised was about listening to rape victims, taking their accusations seriously, and not blaming the victim, but somehow this is against due process? This isn't about the accused but the accuser. Due process is a legal situation, and it matters after an arrest and during the investigation of a crime. Listening to rape victims at face value is not a violation of due process.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Quote from the article: In the Washington Post, Zerlina Maxwell argued that “we should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser [of rape] says,” for “the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.” (Which is another quote in of itself) Is there another way to read these words that I am aware of?
- classicsnoot 11y ago
  >Due process is a legal situation, and it matters after an arrest and during the investigation of a crime. Listening to rape victims at face value is not a violation of due process. Listening, yes. Blanket accusation based on a single account is de facto limitation of due process. Shaming a rapist who gets off on a technicality is one thing. Shaming a person who has been accused of rape is quite another.

zxcvcxz 11y ago

You're not really refuting any of his points, you only compared it to "MRA literature" to deflect from having to actually form a counter argument. It's the same as when the "MRAs" compare feminism to nazism. >There's no discussion to be had That's the problem. SJWs don't want to discuss anything, just point fingers while sitting atop their high-horse. >a refusal to listen to reason and instead substitute your own perception of how the world works. It sounds to me like you're using the same exact rhetoric that the "MRAs" use against the SJWs. Personally I think the article is very well thought out and I've seen first hand how self described "social justice warriors" can be completely authoritarian, racist, and bigoted.