UVA Rape Culture

[Wu Wei Wu]

Ok, so first more updates. We have the following piece which demonstrates the modification of the Washington Post's exposing of Jackie's story. Between Friday and Saturday, they apparently changed their tune, see here: _http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2014/12/if-you-were-an-early-reader-of-the-wapo-uva-rape-expose.html
The end of that article is pretty good. It lays out what we DO know, factually, as said by the author of the above piece:

1. Jackie was reportedly an energetic, successful high school student (unrefuted from Rolling Stone, WaPo; might be false, but she did get into a good school and lifeguards have always struck me as athletic and can-do).

2. Something happened that night, Sept 28 2012. Her suitemate, Soltis, says she went into a downward spiral afterwards; her rescuers say she was "visibly shaken" and alleged forced oral sex with a group of men; per the possibly useless Rolling Stone story, Jackie failed three courses in one semester. From which I will at least take that Jackie is telling people she failed three classes; who knows whether any attempt was made to verify that?

3. She is now being treated for depression (RS, WaPo), has been diagnosed with PTSD (she claimed to WaPo) and is on medication (her claim). No word on whether she showed the WaPo her prescription bottle or waived privacy and allowed her psychiatrist to be interviewed. She has (reportedly, RS) gained 25 pounds and spends a lot of time with the rape advocates group.

4. She has reported a sexual assault to the Dean, a year too late.

5. Symptoms of PTSD include memory deficiencies around the events of the trauma. In other words, details get lost or confused. ThinkProgress is hardly my usual go-to, but Aviva Shen gathers some checkable anecdotes about rape victims and PTSD.

I think that's a pretty solid summary of what we know for sure. Also, this came out which I missed before:

“He never said he was in Phi Psi,” [Jackie] said

So yeah. Guess that makes Erdely's attack on the fraternity straight up defamation.
Then this article was a longer summary of a lot of the discrepancies. I don't think I posted it before: _http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html?postshare=221417802737104

Now, on to the dialogue.

This is a rape story. Rapists fall outside the generalization. To use a generalization that applies to normal men, and apply it to rapists, is a misuse of the generalization.

I don't think so. That's the whole issue really. We don't know if this is really a rape story. The media has gone ahead and put the frat on trial despite lack of evidence. What's the term for this, trial by media? I think we're on the different pages here. You believe the story, then wonder why I use a generalization. But I'm using the generalization because I don't know if the story is true, and the generalization assists in ascertaining its truth or falsity. My applications of the generalizations all reflect fundamental doubt as to the truth of the story. The article at justoneminute made a good case for PTSD based on the evidence, such as the subsequent depression and weight gain, but he acknowledges, as do I, that the evidence is by no means solid for rape, nevermind gang rape. We have one source for this claim: Her word, which we know is unreliable based on the discrepancies.

I applied the generalizations carefully because red flags were set off, and the red flags led to a search that revealed major discrepancies, and hopefully a little closer to the truth. For example, we now know that no one but Erdely implied that a fraternity member was involved. Seems to me like I'm using generalizations pretty effectively.

The duration is a really odd thing to nitpick on, given the emotional context of the perception. When someone is being tortured, like when being raped, one minute can seem like 5, easily.

I agree, it is nitpicky and odd given the context. But that's just it. I didn't make the claim. Jackie, through Erdely, did. Doesn't that seem an odd thing to know, given the traumatic circumstances? Doesn't that seem unlikely? Hence the red flag. If Jackie was being traumatized, how could she know this? And why would it take so long? Possible, but odd, certainly worth questioning in conjunction with the other flags.

Patriarchy is a culturally-engendered attitude toward women and how men can or ought to behave toward women, usually leading to women's decreased control over themselves, their lives, their environment, etc. Cultures are things, just like the Anglo-Saxon culture you mentioned further down. Cultures are general conventions or behaviors a collection of people act out. In trying to pin it on an organization or conscious decision, you might as well be asking "which snowflake shall we sue for the avalanche?"

Patriarchy as an attitude doesn't confer privilege, now does it. Suppose Patriarchy is a cultural phenomenon, and I think it is. It doesn't have the power to grant entities privileges, advantages, etc. We should also look at the causes of patriarchy. Why is it there? What purpose does it serve? If you want to talk about this, we can, but we'd have to take it to a new topic. Discussion of Patriarchy will go in a whole lot of directions real quickly, most of which aren't related to this story.

There is no rape if there is no rapist in the room.

For sure. We're on the same page. Here's the thing though. Robbers really are gonna rob. Psychopaths gonna psychopath. It is a fact of nature. Destructive societies like ours necessarily cause individuals to express their natures in destructive ways. Does that remove responsibility for them? No, it doesn't. Robber is still responsible for his acts, totally. But that means you act with awareness when you enter situations where robbers tend to rob. If a young men walks through a slum laden in gold, we blame the robber, sure, but we berate the young man for being stupid.

Whether something is *likely* to happen is an altogether different question from whether something *has* happened. Hence why we look at the case instead of relying on generalizations.

I know, but that's the point. We don't know if it did happen. The case doesn't match up with the generalizations, that's fine. It means its an outlier, and we apply greater scrutiny. Greater scrutiny reveals more discrepancies and contrary accounts, and the story begins to fall apart. That is the point.

I agree with Hesper about the combative attitude. It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about the ideology of Feminism, and are treating it unfairly. When you disparage an ideology in its entirety, rather than the pathologicals and authoritarians that have infiltrated the ideology, you are immediately discounting all the good that the ideology has accomplished in its uncorrupted, humanistic angles. In the case of Feminism this would be universal suffrage, reproductive rights, employment equality, increased social/financial protection for single mothers, et cetera.

I can understand how you'd come to this conclusion. I will say that I'm well acquainted with the ideas and ideology. It is because of my acquaintance with the ideas that I spurn them so. Feminism sees those examples as goods, but are they? That's a matter for political philosophy, beyond the scope of this discussion as well. I'd be happy to talk about it for our mutual benefit, but this topic isn't the right venue, I think. Also, I don't see a lot of political philosophy in general in the Cass Forum, so I'm not sure its an area we want to dive into. It can prove very divisive. I say this to be externally considerate, I don't want to stir up the pot needlessly.

Are those spears guilt, by any chance?

No.

In light of this the proper action is to take responsibility for making the world better for those who are less fortunate and empowered.

Yes. That's the point of this discussion, and all interaction here isn't it? Mutual assistance and improvement, and through each of us, the world. All through a sharpening of the mind and the conscious experiencing of real Truth and Knowledge. Knowledge in turn will show us how to live the best lives. Or at least that's my current idea.

 

[Oxajil]

I think we have to accept the fact that the typical man of any race feels marginalized because he's a selfish "dude" who thinks the world owes him everything. First initiation and all that, OSIT.

For sure, though I'd apply that to most women. I've found most millennials think they are special snowflakes that deserve the world on a platter. I certainly don't hide my combative attitude. Just as how I avoid psychopaths and sociopathic individuals wherever possible, and declaim destructive lies where external considering warrants, so I resist feminism like others. It is healthy to fight that which is destructive and deceptive.

Sorry for going off-topic here, but WWW, have you had profound negative experiences with women, your mother, or female caregivers in your life? (No need to answer this, just food for thought) You seem to have the tendency to give men the benefit of the doubt, and that will most likely cloud your judgment when such cases are discussed. You will probably not agree with me, as judging by your posts, you mostly have not taken the feedback given to you so far into account, or have questioned your thinking. You speak of applying scrutiny, but perhaps, when you notice that a bunch of people see something in your behavior here, which you do not see or agree with, it might be very useful for personal growth to ask yourself why, and apply scrutiny to your own thinking. I hope that you will at least consider the possibility that the feedback given to you so far, could be true, even if you have a great tendency to explain it all away and justify yourself.

If there's anything we've learned, it is that we can't think with the way we think, and that others see ourselves better than we do. Which makes me wonder whether you have read Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious by Timothy D. Wilson.

You may also be interested to read Political Ponerology by Dr. Andrzej Łobaczewski, to gain a better understanding of the effects of a ponerized society on any person, man or woman.

I could be wrong so fwiw, but I hope this helps and offers food for thought.

 

[lainey]

Quote
She came home completely black and blue and she said it was the best fun she had ever had.

There are women who do this, I know a few. Some of them have their partner inflict it on them, and call it rape. All the more reason to be careful of claims.

That kind of gives me the impression that you think that people who say they are raped should be guilty until proven innocent of lying about being raped.

I interacted a lot with feminists in college and in the workplace. I found that good manners and a little social skill allowed me to evade conflictive situations.

Of course, more awareness is better. But such activist groups generally serve other ideologies as well: Post-modernism, feminism, and Marxism are the most common. Its surprising how partisan these institutions really are. It would be like having a campus institution for reporting fraud, yet being openly Neocon or Neoliberal. Sure, they provide a great service, but you can't help but be suspicious of who they are and what they do. Their partisan nature warrants greater scrutiny.

I make no secret of my disdain for ideologies that are contrary and harmful to human nature, of which feminism is one of many

If the feminist tells me she was the victim of misogyny, apply scrutiny.

For sure, though I'd apply that to most women. I've found most millennials think they are special snowflakes that deserve the world on a platter. I certainly don't hide my combative attitude. Just as how I avoid psychopaths and sociopathic individuals wherever possible, and declaim destructive lies where external considering warrants, so I resist feminism like others. It is healthy to fight that which is destructive and deceptive.

I can see that you sure don't like feminists very much. It's as if you see feminists as something below you and you studied feminism not as a human study of equals but as a sample on a petri dish of some failed experiment. The way you used "the feminist" like she is not human but an object/lesser animal; the cat, the dog, the feminist. All I can do is agree with whitecoast:

It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about the ideology of Feminism, and are treating it unfairly. When you disparage an ideology in its entirety, rather than the pathologicals and authoritarians that have infiltrated the ideology, you are immediately discounting all the good that the ideology has accomplished in its uncorrupted, humanistic angles. In the case of Feminism this would be universal suffrage, reproductive rights, employment equality, increased social/financial protection for single mothers, et cetera.

You seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Feminism sees those examples as goods, but are they?

Aren't they? I am interested to her more on why they wouldn't be.

 

[Hesper]

Feminism sees those examples as goods, but are they?

Aren't they? I am interested to her more on why they wouldn't be.

For sure. We're on the same page. Here's the thing though. Robbers really are gonna rob. Psychopaths gonna psychopath. It is a fact of nature. Destructive societies like ours necessarily cause individuals to express their natures in destructive ways. Does that remove responsibility for them? No, it doesn't. Robber is still responsible for his acts, totally. But that means you act with awareness when you enter situations where robbers tend to rob. If a young men walks through a slum laden in gold, we blame the robber, sure, but we berate the young man for being stupid.

Young men walking through a slum dressed in gold? Ummm...WWW I would suggest researching external consideration before you say another thing as potentially hurtful as the above. You have no idea who is reading these posts and who has been through a similar situation, and who did not deserve to be "berated for being stupid". Seriously.

 

[Beau]

For sure. We're on the same page. Here's the thing though. Robbers really are gonna rob. Psychopaths gonna psychopath. It is a fact of nature. Destructive societies like ours necessarily cause individuals to express their natures in destructive ways. Does that remove responsibility for them? No, it doesn't. Robber is still responsible for his acts, totally. But that means you act with awareness when you enter situations where robbers tend to rob. If a young men walks through a slum laden in gold, we blame the robber, sure, but we berate the young man for being stupid.

Young men walking through a slum dressed in gold? Ummm...WWW I would suggest researching external consideration before you say another thing as potentially hurtful as the above. You have no idea who is reading these posts and who has been through a similar situation, and who did not deserve to be "berated for being stupid". Seriously.

I agree. Your implication is that a young girl who goes to a party, drinks and flirts with guys who is then raped should be berated for putting herself in that position. That is totally 100% wrong and your attempt at blaming the victim is an example of what's wrong with a large majority of men's (and some women's) point of view in the discussion on rape. A women should be able to do all those things I mentioned without having to worry about being raped or taken to task after the fact by people like you. It's a man's responsibility to be able to control himself and to not commit such a heinous and destructive act as rape. We absolutely cannot downplay that by putting the onus on women to "be smarter" so as to avoid the uncontrollable urges of men. That is just ridiculous, one because I can guarantee you that no matter how much someone works to avoid putting themselves in a position like you are saying, rape will still happen and two, because it is apologizing for the men who do this, even after blaming them, by pointing out what the women was wearing, what she was doing, etc. None of that matters. Rape is wrong, period. If you think otherwise (by your statement above, you do), then you are no better than the rapists and are basically a ponerized individual with a misogynistic view of women. Your statement above betrays any attempts to say otherwise.

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

Now that we've gone off topic towards an analysis of the politics and ethics of this kind of situation, I should make something clear. I concern myself with how things are, not how they ought to be. While it's fun to make moral judgements about the universe, it is the way it is. I'll try my best to make the world a better place, but in the end I must subordinate my thoughts to nature. Nature knows the truth better than I. Onwards!

You will probably not agree with me, as judging by your posts, you mostly have not taken the feedback given to you so far into account, or have questioned your thinking. You speak of applying scrutiny, but perhaps, when you notice that a bunch of people see something in your behavior here, which you do not see or agree with, it might be very useful for personal growth to ask yourself why, and apply scrutiny to your own thinking. I hope that you will at least consider the possibility that the feedback given to you so far, could be true, even if you have a great tendency to explain it all away and justify yourself.

You have a very amenable way of writing Oxajil, great for giving feedback. I have considered the option. For example, I'm doing more research into this 'Right Man Syndrome' and reading more of 'Caricature of Love'. Here's the state of these ideas in my mind, for all to see. A lot of the feedback I've got depends on priors, assumptions, which I did not hold. If someone makes a criticism based on those priors, that I don't hold, thinking I do, then I get confused, because I see it as a nonsense statement. Like the comments on generalization. Do I think a rapist falls outside of generalizations about the human race, the human mind, and human desire? Not at all. That the fall out of step in one area (sexual deviancy) does not mean they fall out on the others.

Now all that aside, it's possible that I am afflicted with delusions as you say, I do consider this viable. And these delusions necessarily prevent clear insight into the nature and scope of the delusion itself. In which case, I need a way to verify or falsify the idea. I must test it out. So far, everything follows logically from my priors, my premises. Regardless, I'll keep reading, and keep watching the workings of my own mind. Maybe you're right, after all. I only got a few dozen pages into Strangers, I'll have to pick it up again. I read and enjoyed Political Ponerology.

That kind of gives me the impression that you think that people who say they are raped should be guilty until proven innocent of lying about being raped.

Not at all. Innocent before proven guilty. But as always, apply maximum scrutiny.

I can see that you sure don't like feminists very much. It's as if you see feminists as something below you and you studied feminism not as a human study of equals but as a sample on a petri dish of some failed experiment. The way you used "the feminist" like she is not human but an object/lesser animal; the cat, the dog, the feminist.

I could apply the same example to the way others talk about Rapists here, as he-beasts, as if they were not people. I simply think that feminism is wrong in its ideology, which is a really, really, easy point to prove in the case of post-modernist, subjective feminism. Their incorrect priors breed delusion, which breeds self destructive acts, which causes additional suffering and little good. I am friends with lots of feminists, but that doesn't change my position. I'm friends with lots of logical positivists and scientific materialists, fascists and marxists, and I think they're wrong too. Your implicitly think egalitarianism is true in a practical way, and I think it only true in an abstract way. Again, different priors.

Aren't they? I am interested to her more on why they wouldn't be.

I'll supply an example in good faith, but please be aware most people get mightily offended if you aren't progressive like them, so I'm going out on a stretch here. Let's talk suffrage, political franchise, the right to vote through a democratic process. Implicit in the idea that this is a good is the idea that here and now, in our current world, democracy is a good, voting is a good, universal voting is a good, and probably a whole connected classical liberal doctrine. Have you really examined that though?

Lets just pick the first word there, 'universal'. At first glance, that means all humans, but that's not what we see in reality. We limit it, we don't actually have universal suffrage. No foreigners of course, only citizens. But is that enough? No, we eliminate children. And we eliminate the senile, those lacking agency. And most countries eliminate prisoners. That leaves us with adults who aren't criminals, liberalism says all these people will be basically moral and reasonable. But wait a minute, that's a falsity. Psychopaths aren't moral, and if ever there was psychopath-detecting machine they would not be allowed to vote. And most human beings don't vote with reason, they vote with their feelings. See the below link. So, although we haven't wrote them off, since they don't fit the liberal ideal someone will eventually write them off. Probably write off young adults as well, since their reason isn't as fully developed as it ought to be. But who knows, since we're on a roll we mind as well ban the middle aged too, after all, we only want those with well-developed reason and morality voting and sharing power.

I didn't even need to approach the good of suffrage per say to reveal the sham in the statement. We've never had universal suffrage, we never will, and nobody pretends its a good thing. We have restricted political franchise, yes. But is that a good? Well lets think about it. How does being able to vote contribute to human good? Maybe you feel good after voting, but if go help out family you probably feel good too. And better to help family than vote, as voting leads to no real productivity. But wait, it's an expression of agency, right? Well no, not at all. Men with guns letting you write your preference of rulers and then pretending to count those votes, I would not call that agency. But it allows us to pick our rulers in a real way, right? See above example, see recent American, Canadian elections, Scottish referendum, Ukrainian election, French election, and who knows how many others. And that's just from the cream of the crop of the world's democracies.
_http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2014/10/02/ideas-from-the-trenches---too-dumb-for-democracy/

In practice, voting does no good. But what about in theory? For that we must first look at the purpose of the state, and of the purpose of man, and then reorient the question in that context. We could (and should) stretch it back to ethics and metaphysics too, if we want to have a firm base. I'm open to diving into this, because it is a subject I'm familiar and one that is very important if we want to design institutions that select and encourage virtue and knowledge-seeking. But not here. Someone can open a new topic, and we talk about political philosophy there, because that's what this is.

That is totally 100% wrong and your attempt at blaming the victim is an example of what's wrong with a large majority of men's (and some women's) point of view in the discussion on rape. A women should be able to do all those things I mentioned without having to worry about being raped or taken to task after the fact by people like you. It's a man's responsibility to be able to control himself and to not commit such a heinous and destructive act as rape. We absolutely cannot downplay that by putting the onus on women to "be smarter" so as to avoid the uncontrollable urges of men.

I think you lost your cool. What you've made here are moral judgements on the world. "A woman should..." That's nice, but that's not what the world is like. I'd love a world where we can all go through life without the horrors of theft, rape, hunger, suffering and murder surrounding us, but that's not how the world is. I'm not interested in judging the world and telling it that it should change. It is the way it is. I live in it in the here and now, and want to find out what to do to make mine and your world a better place. That means accepting that, as things are, you won't be able stop theft, rape, or murder in the world. I'm an idealist too, but I won't blind myself to the real world.

And that is the crux of all this, I think. I'm trying to make factual judgements, which are more limited, and very basic moral judgements (Like you 'ought not dangle meat by a starving dog and expect it not to bite'). Whereas you come up with statements like this:

Rape is wrong, period. If you think otherwise (by your statement above, you do), then you are no better than the rapists and are basically a ponerized individual with a misogynistic view of women.

You just expect it to be accepted, just because. And while it happens I do think rape is destructive, I don't think of it as WRONG, as some kind mighty attack against Nature itself, but rather a necessary fact of life like other unpleasant things. I don't deny them the right to exist, like you just did. I think you are offended that I hold a very different view from you. You're idealism seems to me a cover for naivete, or a very Judeo-Christian attitude. Either your with God, or with Lucifer, that's the feeling I get.

I know parts of this discussion have triggered me, and I can see clearly that's triggered a lot of other people too. Hopefully we can take all this as a lesson going forward, and learn from it. If anyone wants to talk of more in depth philosophy, I'm open to that. It would be, for me, productive, enjoyable, and the insights of others would be enjoyable. But by its very nature it would be contentious, and if we didn't all go in with good faith ahead of time, open and willing to interact with new ideas that will trigger us, then we shouldn't go there. This just comes with conflicting ideas.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Wu Wei Wu, I think what you need to do is take a sabbatical from logic. Try to just feel and not think. Other people might do well to do the opposite, but you seem really unbalanced towards that direction. Maybe there are some underlying emotions there.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
You just expect it to be accepted, just because. And while it happens I do think rape is destructive, I don't think of it as WRONG, as some kind mighty attack against Nature itself, but rather a necessary fact of life like other unpleasant things. I don't deny them the right to exist, like you just did. I think you are offended that I hold a very different view from you. You're idealism seems to me a cover for naivete, or a very Judeo-Christian attitude. Either your with God, or with Lucifer, that's the feeling I get.
[/quote]

Bad things happen - that does not imply they are "necessary facts of life". In some parts of the world, a few hundred years ago, young women married to much older men were forced/encouraged to end their lives by self-immolation at the funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. I would speculate that there were people living in those times who felt that such a custom was a "necessary fact of life" and rationalized it. At the same time there were humans who
- felt this was wrong
- dreamed how it could be different
- acted to make the dream into reality.

It sure was not easy - nor was it an unmitigated success. It was a process - longdrawn and painful. But now, looking back at such senseless barbarism, one is usually astounded - what kind of people would accept such a custom as necessary .

So, no, Heimdallr's perceived idealism is not a cover for naivety. On the other hand, Wu Wei Wu's conception of what is a "necessary fact of life" is pathological. For extra clarity, I am stating that the concept is pathological, not necessarily the man. Pathology can and often does hide behind apparently logical arguments.

 

[Beorn]

Wu Wei We I think there's a danger in becoming amoral. You appear to be all up in your head and I guess you're attempting to be objective but your bias really is quite evident.

[quote author="WWW"]Now that we've gone off topic towards an analysis of the politics and ethics of this kind of situation...[/quote]

It appears you're trying to distance yourself here. People are connecting with you to try to get to the heart of where you're at. Not engage in an analysis of politics or some other topic.

To be truly objective an analysis must be done while the head is connected with the heart, otherwise we can get all askew. If you are willing to share, only if you want to, what were the triggers in people's posts you mentioned earlier and how did they make you feel?

 

[Renaissance]

Wu Wei Wu, I think what you need to do is take a sabbatical from logic. Try to just feel and not think. Other people might do well to do the opposite, but you seem really unbalanced towards that direction. Maybe there are some underlying emotions there.

I agree with Mr. Premise. It's not uncommon that the intellect can overpower useful emotions. A few posts back you mentioned being angry when you first read the article. While stirring emotions can sometimes point towards manipulation, it can also be an indication that we have justified emotions that connect to the injustices of the world or personal experiences.

Perhaps going back to that starting point where you experienced anger might be useful? If you're like me you'll want to go back into your head to intellectualize things, but as an exercise it could be useful to try and stick with it and see if there is anything else that comes up for you.

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

Wu Wei Wu, I think what you need to do is take a sabbatical from logic. Try to just feel and not think. Other people might do well to do the opposite, but you seem really unbalanced towards that direction. Maybe there are some underlying emotions there.

That's like taking a sabbatical from sight, to enhance hearing. Obviously both are desirable and should be improved, but development of one doesn't preclude the others. I haven't communicated my feelings here, because they didn't seem relevant to me. I'll communicate my emotional response in one of the responses below, so you guys have more insight into my character, lest you think I'm a stone cold logical machine.

Bad things happen - that does not imply they are "necessary facts of life". In some parts of the world, a few hundred years ago, young women married to much older men were forced/encouraged to end their lives by self-immolation at the funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. I would speculate that there were people living in those times who felt that such a custom was a "necessary fact of life" and rationalized it. At the same time there were humans who
- felt this was wrong
- dreamed how it could be different
- acted to make the dream into reality.

It sure was not easy - nor was it an unmitigated success. It was a process - longdrawn and painful. But now, looking back at such senseless barbarism, one is usually astounded - what kind of people would accept such a custom as necessary .

So, no, Heimdallr's perceived idealism is not a cover for naivety. On the other hand, Wu Wei Wu's conception of what is a "necessary fact of life" is pathological. For extra clarity, I am stating that the concept is pathological, not necessarily the man. Pathology can and often does hide behind apparently logical arguments.

Lets not mischaracterize the argument. The idea itself is not pathological though it does point towards an environment that encourages pathological traits. Rationalization is not a part of it. I'll break it down:
1. Bad things happen in the world, this is self-evident.
2. We want to live optimal lives.
3. Generally, bad things happening prevents living optimally.
Conclusion: Therefore we take measures to avoid bad things so as to live optimal lives.

Measures may include not provoking destructive desires in others as well as building communities and developing skills that prevent destructive acts from taking place in the future. There are aspects of my culture that I don't like, like willing self-delusion and wanton violence and general unhappiness, and I take measures in my life to change that. And if I want to live a most optimal life, I need to make maximal efforts to prevent bad things from happening. Such as not tempting fate.

But I'm under no illusion that we're going to prevent bad things from happening. Such a place would be Utopian. Sure, that's the goal, but I don't expect to get there, if I do great. I only do my best, and that requires looking at reality honestly, objectively, and objectively there are a lot of ugly things. Do you really think this is a pathological idea? I don't. I think that if we want to change the world for the better, we need to look at the ugly things and the beautiful things, and understand both, then take action in alignment with the reality of both.

It appears you're trying to distance yourself here. People are connecting with you to try to get to the heart of where you're at. Not engage in an analysis of politics or some other topic.

To be truly objective an analysis must be done while the head is connected with the heart, otherwise we can get all askew. If you are willing to share, only if you want to, what were the triggers in people's posts you mentioned earlier and how did they make you feel?


I agree with Mr. Premise. It's not uncommon that the intellect can overpower useful emotions. A few posts back you mentioned being angry when you first read the article. While stirring emotions can sometimes point towards manipulation, it can also be an indication that we have justified emotions that connect to the injustices of the world or personal experiences.

Perhaps going back to that starting point where you experienced anger might be useful? If you're like me you'll want to go back into your head to intellectualize things, but as an exercise it could be useful to try and stick with it and see if there is anything else that comes up for you.

Sure, I'll respond in good faith. I'll communicate my feelings at the time of the reading. Anger, rage, and disgust in no small amount. It infuriated me. I made no effort to suppress these feelings though, and so I decided to take a break halfway and do something else. I came back and finished reading, and while still angry, my mind was clearer. I had noticed red flags in the story before, but the clearing of my mind helped bring them to the fore. After finishing the article, doubts in mind, I decided to go off and do something else. Some time after, some friends of mine were talking about the case, and that's when my own research begun. After connecting if enough dots, I decided to post it. My investigation brought forth a new kind of anger: Anger of being lied to and deceived, directed towards Erdely. In an ideal-truthful world, journalism is a sacred trust. While the reality here is different, it still made me angry, and none too disappointed that so few others had not seen the red flags in the story.

Anger can be righteous and is only negative under certain conditions where its expression is detrimental to the whole of man's being. My feelings were appropriate to the situation, but when it came time to verify, there anger has no place. My feelings, as they supply a different kind of knowledge, have a place there too but only insofar as they enable me to reach closer and inspire me to pursue the truth of the matter at hand. I want everything in me rightly ordered, productive and healthy: Body, Emotions, and Mind. I certainly don't want to waste energy by using a center in one place where it should not be used, such as using feelings to determine the veracity of a story when I should use reason, which is what I saw.

The reason I haven't communicated this earlier is because I did not see a need. I did see a need for cautious analysis and dispassionate reasoning, and I acted to fill that need and enlighten others. Let it not be said that I denied my emotions in the process. On the contrary, my emotions inspired me to the act in the first place, with anger, a love of truth, and disgust for deception all acting together.

The internet is a difficult medium to work with. You see only my written word, here reflecting my necessarily cold analysis. You see not my burning desire to know the truth, nor my anger at the suffering caused to others, nor my sadness at the necessity of such a discussion, nor my disappointment that I failed to communicate my internal state objectively which lead to confusion in others. And that's just the reality of communicating in this medium.

The ability to use reason where it should be used does not point to a corresponding lack of emotional development. It points towards the proper use of reason. I hone, to the best of my ability, all my faculties. If I did not feel a love for my fellow man, and a desire to assist them in their own self-improvement, I would not have responded at all, for the response itself reveals a motivating force to interact with others. I affirm that the interaction is for the purpose of mutual betterment, but each of you will believe what each of you thinks is most likely.

 

[Hesper]

And if I want to live a most optimal life, I need to make maximal efforts to prevent bad things from happening. Such as not tempting fate.

Hello, earth to Wu Wei Wu, what you are saying is hurtful to survivors of sexual assault. By the way, there will be many individuals who have had similar situations looking for this particular topic, and your attitude will likely turn them off from this forum. So external consideration?

And the gods do take on the look of strangers
dropping in from abroad –
Disguised in every way
as they roam and haunt our cities, watching over us –
All our foul play, all our fair play too! (Od. 17.535-539)

I'm not interested in judging the world and telling it that it should change. It is the way it is.

Heimdallr was obviously not telling the world to change. What Heimdallr held up was a mirror to your own attitude. Seriously WWW, comparing a rape victim to some imaginary guy walking with gold plated boots through the ghetto? There is quite a bit wrong with that, and most of what you're posting. That was the point. The article and your "truth seeking" has faded into the distance because something very sinister is on parade right now and you are oblivious to it. So how much do you really love the truth? Here it is, everyone's pointing it out!

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
Lets not mischaracterize the argument. The idea itself is not pathological though it does point towards an environment that encourages pathological traits.
[/quote]

To restate exactly what is pathological

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
And while it happens I do think rape is destructive, I don't think of it as WRONG, as some kind mighty attack against Nature itself, but rather a necessary fact of life like other unpleasant things.
[/quote]

Think about it. It does not take any special knowledge to see what is wrong in the above statement. If you cannot see it, then there is a problem.

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
Rationalization is not a part of it. I'll break it down:
1. Bad things happen in the world, this is self-evident.
2. We want to live optimal lives.
3. Generally, bad things happening prevents living optimally.
Conclusion: Therefore we take measures to avoid bad things so as to live optimal lives.
[/quote]

Ok. So here are some excerpts from what transpired earlier in this discussion.

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
let's talk about Jackie, and Jackie's gang rape. That's a straight up joke. I used to work as a bouncer, and you see some bad stuff with bad people. But even then, human nature comes to the fore. Generally people are lazy, men look for the quick fix, and nobody inflicts pain on themselves if they can avoid it.
[/quote]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
For sure, rape is more than one-sided orgasm, otherwise all bad sex would be rape. Rape is also about power and control, but who takes. The question is length here, duration of the rape. I tried to find some numbers on the duration of rape, but didn't find any. Three hours seems excessive, especially for 7 guys with better things to do. The second question is time needed for the guys to ejaculate, and the number was an average of 20 minutes. That would point to extreme erectile dysfunction in the lot of them. Possible? Yes. Likely? Less so. Plus, the other men might shame whoever takes a long time.
[/quote]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
The Beer Bottle scenario was also totally unrealistic. Who does that? Nobody. You derive no pleasure from that, there is no incentive for it. The possibility of torture is there, but it's not realistic to expect a group of horny, inebriated guys play with a bottle. Major red flag. Men are not sadistic animals desiring only the suffering of others. They act for their happiness, usually derived from pleasure.
[/quote]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
If a young men walks through a slum laden in gold, we blame the robber, sure, but we berate the young man for being stupid.
[/quote]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
I'm trying to make factual judgements, which are more limited, and very basic moral judgements (Like you 'ought not dangle meat by a starving dog and expect it not to bite').
[/quote]

From there to the conclusion
[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
Conclusion: Therefore we take measures to avoid bad things so as to live optimal lives.
[/quote]


There are threads in the forum where the topic of safety has been discussed in practical terms - as in what women can do to protect themselves from predators - physically, emotionally and intellectually. Such discussion comes from a completely different context than what the preceding views expressed in this thread would indicate.

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
You see only my written word, here reflecting my necessarily cold analysis. You see not my burning desire to know the truth, nor my anger at the suffering caused to others, nor my sadness at the necessity of such a discussion, nor my disappointment that I failed to communicate my internal state objectively which lead to confusion in others. And that's just the reality of communicating in this medium.
[/quote]

Written words reveal a lot about a person.

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]
If I did not feel a love for my fellow man, and a desire to assist them in their own self-improvement, I would not have responded at all, for the response itself reveals a motivating force to interact with others. I affirm that the interaction is for the purpose of mutual betterment, but each of you will believe what each of you thinks is most likely.
[/quote]

You can stick to the image of the misunderstood rationalist trying to enlighten the emotion driven, idealistic, and naive forumites if you wish. In an effort to "question" the facts about the reporter and the alleged victim, you have revealed quite a bit about your own world view. To me, this espoused world view reeks of pathology hiding behind a thin veneer of pseudo logic.

 

[whitecoast]

I'll supply an example in good faith, but please be aware most people get mightily offended if you aren't progressive like them, so I'm going out on a stretch here. Let's talk suffrage, political franchise, the right to vote through a democratic process. {snip wall of text}

What you've written above really has nothing to do with anything, and is a good example of this Right Man program you have. Universal suffrage, in the context of Feminist pursuit for equality, is about allowing women in democratic nations to have the same level of say in determining the policy and future of the nation as the men. Whether democracy is viable or not is another matter entirely and has nothing whatever to do with Feminism. But instead of simply acknowledging this uncontroversial position (at least, uncontroversial to those who have empathy for women), you spun a colossal tome that contributed nothing to the conversation, except for perhaps to make your mental center feel smart and validated.

Now that we've gone off topic towards an analysis of the politics and ethics of this kind of situation, I should make something clear. I concern myself with how things are, not how they ought to be. While it's fun to make moral judgements about the universe, it is the way it is. I'll try my best to make the world a better place, but in the end I must subordinate my thoughts to nature. Nature knows the truth better than I. Onwards!

Except that you haven't been. You devote so much mental and emotional energy into political and ideological arguments, all of which are by definition filled with prescriptive content. Especially when you characterize (or mischaracterize) whole ideologies as being destructive or deceptive.

Contrast this with a very elementary emotional scenario in which a women gets raped. You then suggest we berate them for going to frat parties and drinking alcohol (not explicitly, but that's exactly the attitude your robber analogy conveys, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not). You are ignorant of the psychological and emotional content your off-hand words impart to others, especially those who are more damaged. This is something that requires empathy for women and survivors of assault to be able to perceive and appreciate. If you are sincere about working on yourself, you would take care not to say such callous, disrespectful, and disregardful things.

As for the backpedaling into the new-agey moral relativism that obyvatel highlighted:

And while it happens I do think rape is destructive, I don't think of it as WRONG, as some kind mighty attack against Nature itself, but rather a necessary fact of life like other unpleasant things.

You really do seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel here. You basically say "yes, in a moral perception rape is wrong, but in an amoral perception rape is not wrong." You say this to prove...... what, exactly? This is just another one of your mechanical responses from a mental center that will divorce from reality to any length necessary in order to appear right or logical. You might want to re-read the section of Ponerology that deals with schizoidal psychopathy, especially with regard to your fascination with political ideology and shallow understanding of psychological reality.

You have so much emotion invested in the imaginary, and so little invested in the real.

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

So external consideration?

True that. Failure on my part. I totally missed that avenue.

Seriously WWW, comparing a rape victim to some imaginary guy walking with gold plated boots through the ghetto? There is quite a bit wrong with that, and most of what you're posting.

I think I missed that too. My goal was only to demonstrate the general principle, not extend that example to the particular case and clearly others understood that differently. If an entity comes in and attacks but its beyond your awareness, there are no measures to take to secure oneself from the harm. No blame them, like in Break and Enter scenarios. I didn't think people would extend the example, because I wouldn't, which is to assume people think like me, which is not the case. I must take responsibility for my lapse in external considering there as well.

Think about it. It does not take any special knowledge to see what is wrong in the above statement. If you cannot see it, then there is a problem.

I think that's because we have different premises. To use Cass terminology, Rape is an STS act. It's not wrong for them, since that kind of environmentally destructive behavior is how they want to grow. For those seeking an STO alternative, they must necessarily be moral and such behaviors prove destructive to that end, and so for them it is wrong. In the grand scheme of things, it is not a crime against nature though. That is my line of thought. I understand why they do it, though I make every effort not to be caught by such people.

If you want to insist that's a pathological attitude, that's fine, but I'll have to know how its pathological. Pathological: Relating to a mental disease, which is to say an unhealthy mind divorced from its optimal functioning. If you don't explain it to me, I won't get it.

In an effort to "question" the facts about the reporter and the alleged victim, you have revealed quite a bit about your own world view. To me, this espoused world view reeks of pathology hiding behind a thin veneer of pseudo logic.

It does indeed reveal my worldview. Now if you think it's pathology, (a mental disease, disordered thinking), you'll have to explain it to me. I see that I'm in the extreme minority, which means there could be something to the views your espousing. I'm not seeing it, but that could be the result of entrenchment in my own perspective. Or I could be correct. The only way to find out either way is to start digging and finding out. Who knows, maybe I really am wrong and this will be an enlightening experience. But you'll have to use arguments if I'm to understand.

is a good example of this Right Man program you have.

Maybe, I'm still in my research. If you're right, thanks for pointing it out, though I'm not certain this is the case yet.

simply acknowledging this uncontroversial position

The position only makes sense if you're egalitarian.

You might want to re-read the section of Ponerology that deals with schizoidal psychopathy, especially with regard to your fascination with political ideology and shallow understanding of psychological reality.

You have so much emotion invested in the imaginary, and so little invested in the real.

I'll take you at your word, and make the effort.

I'll summarize my internal state, in honest words. I should have externally considered better. For that, I feel regret.
Am I wrong as to the pathology of the positions, etc? I don't think I'm wrong. I don't feel I'm wrong. My feelings and mind say together this is a case of mistaken conceptions, and so some of you are drawing conclusions that aren't warranted. They also tell me that it doesn't matter what I say, since what is necessary is testing either way. The only that matters here is the truth, and that means getting down in the dirt and performing experiments.

I need a way to test your criticisms. If there really is mental pathology, there should have a way to test it out, or at least test its in congruence with reality. Like testing for a disease. If it's non-falsifiable then I can't really take it seriously.