230
fucking brainrot
(iusearchlinux.fyi)
For context this is an Andrew tate meatrider on twitter
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
230 points (92.9% liked)
Facepalm
2325 readers
4 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You keep dancing around it and even said you deliberately kept it vague, so what situation are you talking about? All anyone else can do is guess at what you mean, and you just keep saying "you're putting words in my mouth."
What you really mean is "I didn't say anything meaningful, so any meaning you attach to it is you putting words in my mouth."
No, not really.
I tried to argue that there is inherent hypocrisy in the structure of the rhetoric. The result were a bunch of very specific scenarios. And then it was argued that I said, that I found the victims in these specific circumstances at fault. Which I never said or implied.
You guys are obviously unwilling to even engage on a more abstract level.
What you are doing is victim-blaming, and the reason nobody is willing to engage with you on the level you want is because it is an old, tired idea that has been used by rapists and rape-apologists to silence rape victims pretty much forever. To concede any amount of what you're saying isn't a defensive measure, though, it's because we've been over this so many times, and it is so clearly wrong.
And before you claim I'm putting words in your mouth concerning victim blaming, your entire argument in your first comment is that rape victims potentially share some responsibility for their rape because of the situation they allowed themselves to get into. Assigning responsibility for a fault or wrong is the literal definition of "blame."
This exactly what I was complaining about in the first place. You're arguing in bad faith. You're using double standards to claim that this specific crime is different from any other crime, purely to keep your argument intact. And then you accuse me of excusing the crime.
You don't engage with the argument, because you can't refute it. Simple as that. You can't accept that two things can be true at the same time, because you're afraid this might be used against your standpoint as a whole. That is understandable, but still deeply wrong.
You're argument boils down to 'women should not be alone with rapists'. Great idea, but how do we manage that in practice? How do women take precautions without avoiding all men, including their family members? It's not as simple as 'don't go into dark alleys at night'. Locking your car is a simple, reasonable precaution. Noone expects your car to have a bodyguard, but women are told by everyone to never go out alone. We are expected to have bodyguards. Why is this necessary?