blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: The NSA: An Inside View
It is not necessarily illegal means, but simply means that the government do not want to expose in open court. Perhaps this is because they are illegal, or perhaps revealing the source of intelligence could compromise an active intelligence operation. The NSA does not want its methods exposed in open court. You will probably say that this is because they are illegal. But an equally plausible explanation is that revealing details of their capabilities is of benefit to their adversaries.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: Smell Ya Later, Nerds
You are literally calling most people in the world 'plebs'. What is wrong with you?
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
Is that supposed to be an insult? It's not very good.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
I wouldn't know, I'm a male computer scientist.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
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.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
Just because little girls like it, doesn't mean it isn't problematic.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
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.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
>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 recipe for sexual assault.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
No you are misreading it. The author is saying do not think that she does not want to have sex. As in, get rid of any doubt in your mind.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
This is a direct quote from a guide written by the author of the guide under discussion:
Never, ever, ever, wait for a SIGN before you escalate! You will miss out on the vast majority of chances if you sit around waiting for SIGNS. Men are notoriously bad at reading women's minds and body language. Don't think that you're any different. From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished. It's a difference in mindset that makes champs champs and chumps chumps…
Decide that you're going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances
The author advises his readers to assume that their partner consents to sexual activity. This is a recipe for sexual assault. At some point one of his readers will misread the signs put out by a partner and they will sexually assault them.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
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.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
Many HN commenters do not understand, nor want to understand, the reality of the experiences of marginalised groups.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
The whole premise of The Little Mermaid is paternalistic and problematic.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
Yes of course I have. I have also read the guides on reddit where he tells the reader to sexually assault their partner.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
Are you actually arguing that if a woman has touched a penis in her life before, she is consenting to touching all future penises?
Either you mean that or your writing is appalling.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
brilliant analogy apart from the bit where this guide actually does advocate sexual assault.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
Sorry, but if you're using a Disney film as an example of a good portrayal of women, you've already lost.
blocking_io
|
12 years ago
|
on: We were wrong
Yes, because there is something intrinsically wrong with these guides.
