Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

No need to get all cunty about it. I'm just discussing it with you.

When you look at these tweets and the general sentiment in many corners of the media about the cross examination being unfair, it's pretty obvious that there is a bit of an issue with due process. Perhaps these tweets alone wouldn't amount to that, but in the broader discussion they do. I'm not taking it all the way to lynch mob mentality, but it seems you're defending the tweets far short of that

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I honestly don't know how I could be more explicit about that. If you think I'm being "cunty" it's because people draw incorrect conclusions from my words instead of you know, actually reading my words.

Cad_sl said:

As we've pointed out, it is a mob mentality because is discourages dissent, discourages questioning accusations and facts around accusations, and encourages you to join the group and support someone regardless of their credibility. It's literally trying to silence criticism and encourage groupthink regarding sexual assault allegations.

Click to expand...

"Mob mentality" (AKA "group think") =/= "Lynch mob mentality". We see mob mentality here all the freakin' time. Every side of every remotely controversial issue has plenty of mob mentality. Doesn't mean you're about to allow people to be strung up and killed over it, and drawing that parallel is dishonest and polarizing for the sake of serving the always shitty "us vs them" narrative (which is, in itself, mob mentality).

Quaid_sl said:

Did black victims of mob justice receive due process when white women accused them of sexual assault, Tan? Or were the white women simply 'unconditionally believed' because of their inherent special status over a group of others conferred by their race? Why is this a 'different mentality' when women are advocating that their special status as a certain gender should limit the tools the accused can use against them?

Racism leading to diminished rights... Sexism leading to diminished rights. What's the difference?

Click to expand...

Black victims of mob justice didn't get lynched because #webelievewomen. They got lynched because of anger, hatred and bloodlust. Whatever they were being accused of (certainly including sexual assault) was merely an excuse to take out one's aggression's on one's perceived enemies. THAT'S lynch mob mentality.

Cad_sl said:

Except we're literally talking about rape prosecutions, where people are sent to prison for life. Encouraging "#believeallwomen" is exactly that.

Click to expand...

No, it's not, not any more than believing Cosby is innocent until proven guilty is an endorsement of rape, or believing Sarkeesian is a scam artist makes you pro-censorship. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
"We know it's difficult for victims to come forward. We believe you!" DOES NOT EQUAL "Fuck proof! Throw him in jail!" except for those looking to villainize those they disagree with.

Brikker_sl said:

pretty sure unconditional support/belief of claims absent evidence can indeed be considered lynch mob mentality.

Click to expand...

Nope, not unless it includes a pathological, near obsessive need to see one's "enemy" punished. You can believe whatever you want, but when you try to let your beliefs dictate law, particularly with the explicit goal of carrying out punishment (which is absent in this case), then it's not lynch mob mentality. You're putting a square peg in a round hole to suit your narrative.

Cad_sl said:

Cue (say something wrong about something not being mob mentality)

(Literally everyone disagrees because it's obviously mob mentality)

SEE GUYS YOU'RE USING MOB MENTALITY LOLZ

Wait for it

Click to expand...

Yes, sir, you nailed it. I would say a lot of the discussions I participate in are excellent examples of mob mentality. There is an active and intentional blocking out of any information that doesn't suit the mob's approved narrative. Points are not even acknowledged, let alone countered, and the one presenting them (me) is ostracized and ridiculed in order to pretend I have no credibility and I am simply "not worth" engaging. That's practically the definition of groupthink/mob mentality. And when it gets to "ban him!", "change his name!", "change his avatar", then we've crossed the line into the lynch mob mindset (where there is an obsessive need to see "justice" served and the "villain" punished for perceived offenses). Keep in mind we're not talking about end results here, and I'm not saying that changing my avatar = stringing up and killing somebody. But I am saying that, unlike Lith's quoted Tweets, that behavior actuallydoesdemonstrate the mindset that led to lynchings.

Of course, you don't believe you're participating in mob mentality. You think it's me that's being dishonest and unreasonable. You think the way people dogpile is a natural result of the way I behave...But that's what everybody who has ever been part of any mob has thought.The reassurance you get from the group means you don't have to think critically about what's being said. You can tack on an "It's a Tanoomba post" meme and call it a day. Heck, here's Furrydescribing textbook mob mentalityin reference to how people react to my posts.

You can tell me "when everyone you meet is an asshole, you're the asshole" all you want, but why would that only apply here? You take that "#webelievewomen = lynch mob mentality" shit to NeoGAF and all of a suddenyou'rethe asshole, right? Now, to be fair, minus a few unnecessary shitty comments ("Don't know why we're bothering. You know he's not going to respond honestly."), you've actually been doing a decent job treating this like an actual discussion. But don't fall into the trap of assuming I've been proven wrong (this happens with disturbing regularity) and jumping straight to the "Typical Tanoomba!" false narrative. I've never been anything but completely honest in these discussions, and taking the lazy way out by claiming otherwise is both dishonest and an example of mob mentality (since you already know everyone's got your back and you're trying to discredit the source as opposed to the argument).

Cad_sl said:

The people you're defending (yes, you're defending them) are literally saying fuck proof. So, you can say they're not saying it, but they are.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're saying "Fuck proof! We believe you!" not "Fuck proof! Throw him in jail!". There IS a difference.

Cad_sl said:

So... supporting women whose stories are pretty obviously fabricated or trumped up, simply because they are women and you should #believeallwomen, doesn't indicate a pathological, obsessive need to see men punished? I think it does. This is factually identical to Emma Sulkowicz, except this one actually got to a courtroom where the competent defense attorney makes a mockery of the trumped up accusations. But the blogosphere wants to support them anyway. Wonder why? Could it be a pathological, obsessive need to see men punished? Yes. Men are the enemy. #fuckthepatriarchy

As to the rest of it, you are dogpiled on because you are stupid, argue in circles, argue semantics rather than any point, and are generally insufferable. There are a wide range of ideologies on this board and most of us aren't rabid in our support of any of them. I myself promote logical pragmatism as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Why are you assuming to know the intents and goals of people who don't express the intents and goals you ascribe to them? Seems pretty presumptuous and self-serving to me. "Sure, they're not actuallysayingthey want to see men punished, butobviouslythat's what they mean!" No Cad, it's not "obvious" because you say it is. You can't present shit like that as self-evident and expect it to count for anything. You judge people by their actual words, not the presumed hidden meanings you'd like to believe are there.

Annnnnnnd you're back to attacking the messenger with your false narrative. Then you accuse ME of being dishonest. The hypocrisy is staggering. And don't pretend everyone here is super open-minded. The NeoGAF crew believe they are as much as you do. There are absolutely topics (usually involving "SJWism") for which there is no room for subtlety, no room for nuance, no room for logic or reason, just the old "black or white", "all or nothing", "with us or against us", "us vs them" false dichotomy.

Cad_sl said:

Fuck proof! While referring to a guy on trial for sexual assault! Doesn't mean put him in jail with no proof! Really! It doesn't!

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Their whole fucking narrative is about encouraging victims to come forward. Their whole schtick is supporting victims of sexual assault. If you're trying to say that a consequence of this support is putting innocent people in jail, you're still wrong about "lynch mob mentality". See, intent is of VITAL importance when you're talking about "mindset". Someone avoiding carbs isn't trying to destroy the bread industry, even if enough people avoiding carbs could destroy the bread industry. This is why unquestionably supporting sexual assault victims, even if it's misguided or ignorant of potential consequences, is not lynch mob mentality.

Cad_sl said:

So, lets just take a step back for a second Tanoomba.

Are you really saying that unless someone explicitly says something, we can't deduce what they mean by it? It sounds like thats what you're saying, I'm just making sure.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying YOU absolutely suck at judging people's intentions. You're seeing what you want to see to suit the narrative you want to push. You're ignoring context, nuance and reason in favor of absolutes. That's a foolish way to argue.

Lithose_sl said:

Not when the entire context of conversation and topic is a trial where someone will be thrown in jail. You can't be this stupid. Is this the kind of logic you use to feel okay about another man fucking your wife? Do you actively say you're not okay with the man satisfying himself from fucking your wife, but rather you're okay with supporting your wife's empowerment through her control of her sexuality! See, it's completely different! You semantic arguingidiot.

Click to expand...

SKIP!

Cad_sl said:

So, if their whole narrative is about encouraging victims to come forward, why don't they support the actual victims? Why do they latch on to these obvious liars? I encourage all victims of sexual assault to come forward too. Just try not to be quite so blatant when you're completely fabricating your story.

Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant to my point, but it's because what they're rallying against is people jumping to conclusions about them "lying" based on subjective, narrative-pushing interpretation. Sulkowicz is a great example. It's still entirely possible she actually was raped, but people who like to believe there is an epidemic of false rape accusations flying around fell for their own confirmation bias and saw what they wanted to see. Can you understand why, seeing that, a sexual assault victim might be hesitant to come forward? Your assessment that these are "obvious liars" is subjective. It's not self-evident. You seem to be under the impression that if a victim is telling the truth, YOU'RE going to know it, but it's very often not that simple. Feminists Canada is saying "People are going to look for reasons to doubt you, they're going to accuse you of lying. It's going to suck, but we believe you." No lynch mob mentality there.

Cad_sl said:

You've got to admit his trolling has matured though. Instead of doing Rescorla or pharmakos-esque argument resetting every now and then after disappearing when he gets backed into a corner like he used to, he's instead graduated to: (i) projecting anything we're saying about one group back on us, whether the facts fit or not; (ii) whatever names, words, or pejoratives we use against a group we're criticizing he applies back to us, whether the facts fit or not; and (iii) claiming that since a group didn't outright say they want all men castrated for #womenssafety, thats not what they mean.

He argues semantics and projects a lot in order to accomplish i and ii, and then falls back on iii when i and ii start to get too outlandish. It kinda makes you wonder how bored he must be to really take up this mantle when it requires such intellectual dishonesty in order to keep it up.

Click to expand...

All of this is bullshit "discredit the messenger and not the message" rhetoric. All of it. I mean, you're right that I use your labels against you, but it fits every fucking time and I dare you to show otherwise. I just showed how YOU come closer to lynch mob mentality than any of the Tweets Lith linked, and I didn't do it to thumb my nose at you, I did it because the facts support it.

I'm sorry if you think judging people by their actual words and not your projected meaning is a radical idea for you. It's the most logical and reasonable thing in the world to me, but then I don't have a narrative to push.

And this "semantics" narrative is tired as hell and also bullshit. I don't argue semantics any more or less than anybody else here, including you. Grow the fuck up and make a point if you have one. Enough with the lazy copouts.

Jive Turkey_sl said:

The problem is that Tanoomba is pretending these comments were made in a vacuum

Click to expand...

Bullshit. I'm not pretending anything.

Here, watch this: The problem is that Cad doesn't understand that he's not the arbiter of what people mean. The problem is that Lithose is too cocky for his own good and has no intention of ever looking at his own stance critically. The problem is that Jive Turkey oversimplifies in order to avoid addressing what's actually being said. The problem is thatall of youhave drunk the "us vs them" Kool Aid. We can play this game all day, it's not going to get us anywhere.

There was no "mindset that led to lynchings" in any of the Tweets Lithose linked. They were missing essential elements (anger, hatred, malice, need to see one's "enemies" punished) required for such a mindset. You want to say they're ignorant? You want to say they're doing harm? Fine. But to say they share the mindset of people who strung up and killed people is wrong. the facts just don't support that.