ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Oh, relax and enjoy it, Kate

One of the things I find remarkable is the readiness of outspoken feminist women to crucify themselves with their own words. It's as if they have absolutely no conception of the logical consequences of their ideas, and despite their confrontational tone, they appear to have no expectation that their position can or will be criticized.

Consider the following excerpts from the linked cartoon, which features a retarded form of Socratic dialogue between a cartoon figure and an even more cartoonish version of anti-feminist arguments.
It's not fair that I have to be terrified when I go jogging after 6 PM or when I'm on the bus or going to get milk.

Then don't go out alone at night. That's common sense.

That's rape culture! When you tell me it's my responsibility not to get hurt, you take away the responsibility of a human being not to rape!

Why are we even talking about this? I'm not a rapist.

Because it gets really fucking exhausting trying to believe in a future where I'm not treated like a crazy person for believing in equality!
First of all, Kate being terrified of rape when she goes to get milk is her problem. Some women are terrified of bats, others are afraid of heights, and those fears are no more your problem or my problem than Kate's terror of rape on the milk run. It is very, very easy for Kate to significantly reduce her chances of being raped, as getting a concealed carry permit and avoiding the company of black and Hispanic men will virtually eliminate the possibility that she will be forcibly raped. Even without taking any such defensive measures, the national rate of forcible rape is only 24.7 per 100,000 population, one-third lower than it was in 1990. This means that in a population of 308 million, Kate's chances of being raped in any given year are less than one in 12,000 and declining. This cannot be reasonably described as a "rape culture".

If Kate genuinely lives in constant terror of a one in 12,000 risk, she is delusional and may be clinically paranoid. And this doesn't even begin to take into account that unless a woman is raped at home by someone breaking into her residence, it is very difficult for a woman to get raped without her not only contributing to the situation, but contributing significantly to it. And yes, in such situations, that does make the victim at least partially culpable from a legal perspective. If you don't understand that, try looking at it this way. If insurance companies sold rape insurance, are there any behaviors that would conceivably increase or decrease the premium?

Furthermore, Kate is quite obviously crazy. If she had said "it gets really fucking exhausting trying to believe in a future where I'm not treated like a crazy person for believing in rainbow-tailed unicorns", everyone would quite correctly conclude that she is a lunatic. But there is no more evidence for equality than there is for rainbow-tailed unicorns. Human equality simply doesn't exist and it has never existed. As I have pointed out before, both logic and genetic science demonstrate that human beings are not even all equally human. Her lunacy is further evidenced by her bizarre attempt to justify her broaching the topic with the non-rapist by an appeal to her own exhaustion. That does not follow. Moreover, it is apparent that Kate, by her own admission, doesn't actually believe in equality anyway. Consider her final rant:

So fuck ANYONE who thinks they have the right to tell me not to care! FUCK THEM! I do care. I will always care.

Here Kate is expressly denying that others have the right to free speech, which is not only encoded into various legal systems but also happens to observably exist in a material manner, while simultaneously asserting the legitimacy of her attempt to believe in a future that is not only nonexistent, but improbable to the point of near impossibility. From which we are forced to conclude that she's not only crazy, she's outrageously stupid to boot.

The fundamentally nonsensical thing about her position is that she wants others to do what she will not. If she can't be bothered to put any effort into defending herself against rape, why should anyone else? If it's not her responsibility to act on something about which she professes to care so deeply, how could it possibly be mine, or anyone else's, when we do not care in the slightest about her feelings or her fate.

Kate declares her opinion that angry posturing on behalf of nonexistent female rights is "hot as hell". Which is fine, I suppose, so long as she is hoping to attract angry, rancid feminist women. But it certainly isn't going to be attractive to men who have access to better options, such as Internet porn or voluntary chastity.

For further amusement, I highly recommend the emotional posturing in which various Pharyngulans are engaging as they attempt to demonstrate which one of them is the anti-rapiest of all. Apparently the winner will be awarded a tiara carved from the horn of a pink unicorn by PZ Myers himself. This was one of the finer examples of the intellectual fireworks on display:
I can’t think of one, even one, precaution that a woman (or man) can take that actually has a good chance of preventing rape that would also be considered “reasonable” by any rational or honest individual.... And if you want to talk about “reasonable” precautions, I think, the first burden on you is to describe your proposed precaution and demonstrate that it actually works to prevent rape.
This total inability of humanity to prevent any rape no doubt explains why rape rates never change over time and do not vary from one nation to another. It is a very strange belief system indeed where human action can modify the global climate, but rape is random, inevitable, and completely immune to human action. Of course, it would be deplorably raciss to notice that a 31 percent increase in the number of incarcerated black men, mostly for harmless drug charges, has corresponded with the 33 percent decline in forcible rapes per 100,000, from 41.2 in 1990 to 27.5 in 2010.

Labels: ,

190 Comments:

Anonymous Wendy June 16, 2012 9:08 AM  

Funny, contrast her presentation style and thought process with the anti-women's suffrage book/pamphlet from the late 1800s posted a while back.

Anonymous FP June 16, 2012 9:10 AM  

Thanks Vox for the link to seizure inducing web design reminicent of geocities so early in the morning.

Regarding rape culture, somehow I doubt Kate cares about male prison rape as much as female fear about milk run rape. But yay, go team equality.

Blogger Aurini June 16, 2012 9:12 AM  

When one's argument only makes sense against an off-panel cartoon strawman, that says something. I can already hear her blubbering that you 'defending' a rate of 1/12,000 is itself 'rape culture'.

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo June 16, 2012 9:36 AM  

The problem with her "argument" is that social norms, as well as the law, already discourage violent crimes in general, including rape. However, there are people who do not care what the laws or the social norms are, whether those norms are dictated by patriarchal pigs or enlightened feminists.

You avoid situations where you are likely to be attacked by such people, since the police can't be everywhere at once. Also, learn some means of self-defense -- something that will deter an assailant long enough for you to escape.

Anonymous horsewithnonick June 16, 2012 9:48 AM  

Sometimes
I have the time and patience to wade through someone else's crudely-drawn, self-absorbed trollish cartoon.

Sometimes not so much.

Anonymous LES June 16, 2012 10:05 AM  

Kate believes that even one rape is one too many. What she really wants is a government big enough and powerful enough to prevent all rapes. Yet she wants the freedom to do whatever she wants free of consequences.

Blogger SarahsDaughter June 16, 2012 10:07 AM  

Inequality has worked out nicely for me. My truck was in the shop so I used my husband's truck to get groceries the other day. On the way home the tread blew off my tire, thankfully the tire wasn't punctured and still had all the air in it. As I was calling road side assistance a cop pulled up behind me. I handed him my license which he handed right back to me without looking at it and asked what happened. He took a look at the tire, located the spare, and asked if I had a jack. He said, "well, I can change it but it won't be easy to jack since the frame is so high, you have plenty of air in the tire, how about this, drive slowly and I'll follow you, there's a tire shop right up the road." It hadn't occurred to me but when I told my husband the story he shook his head, laughed, and said, "sounds like you definitely got the 'blond with boobs' treatment." With a grin I asked, "why?"..."oh please, he was going to change the tire for you?"

These stupid feminists haven't ruined it for all of us yet, thankfully. It didn't escape me that I was very blessed to not have a complete blow out and that a cop happened to show up behind me within a minute of the incident for which I include in prayers of thanksgiving.

Anonymous Pablo June 16, 2012 10:13 AM  

Excellent vivisection of her logical flaws, Vox.
Some days I'm just so damn proud to be a small part of the Ilk.

Anonymous Tabasco June 16, 2012 10:39 AM  

...and avoiding the company of black and hispanic men... You left out 'Redneckus Americanus'.( Although that may not be true everywhere.)

Blogger Bob June 16, 2012 10:50 AM  

Of course, it would be deplorably raciss to notice that a 31 percent increase in the number of incarcerated black men, mostly for harmless drug charges, has corresponded with the 33 percent decline in forcible rapes per 100,000, from 41.2 in 1990 to 27.5 in 2010".

LOL...

If the shoe fits, wear it.

OpenID Stingray June 16, 2012 10:57 AM  

1 in 4 women are raped because now men are capable of raping with their eyes . . .

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 16, 2012 10:58 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 16, 2012 11:03 AM  

Perhaps in time Kate will learn or experience reality.

I learned a new found appreciation for men as my dad, uncle and their friends as they help us move. While its cute that I like to help on fixer uppers and clean, its the men accomplishing loads of work.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 16, 2012 11:04 AM  

The anti-rape argument can be recast in the following way:

"It is tiring believing in a future where I am not scared of losing my livelihood because someone in China/India/Vietnam can do it cheaper and shipping it here is cheap too."

I am sure there are other ways of recasting the agument.

Blogger El Borak June 16, 2012 11:10 AM  

1 in 4 women are raped...

One of the most significant results of the feminists' disrespect for the integrity of numbers is that they make young, middle-class feminists feel even *more* terrified than they need to be. Part of that is doubtless useful for keeping young women on the plantation politically. Part of it seeks to take advantage of the imputed moral superiority of victimhood. But I can't help thinking that some of it is pursued for the adrenaline high that comes from being scared. Women have to pay to go see "Saw III," but they can imagine the same terror getting milk so long as they refuse to CCW. It's just feminist win all around.

Blogger IM2L844 June 16, 2012 11:23 AM  

What the hell, exactly, is this "culture of rape"? What are it's contributing factors and who is perpetuating them?

Looking at a list of the top 20 felonies (by conviction) committed in the U.S., forcible rape comes in in 8th place and only then because it is lumped in with other violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault.

(1) Drug abuse violations 1,841,182
(2) Driving while Intoxicated 1,427,494 (aka Felony DUI)
(3) Property crime 1,610,088 (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.)
(4) Larceny-theft 1,172,762
(5) Assault 1,305,693
(6) Disorderly conduct 709,105
(7) Liquor laws 633,654
(8) Violent crime 597,447 (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault.

Arson comes in at number three, but nobody claims we live in a culture of arson. How about a culture of disorderly conduct or a culture of burglary or a culture of larceny? These are not victimless crimes and they all come in ahead of forcible rape.

Blogger Huggums June 16, 2012 11:23 AM  

"As I have pointed out before, both logic and genetic science demonstrate that human beings are not even all equally human." - I don't understand what this means. Agree with everything else.

I'd want to know what places and actions I should avoid to reduce my chances of getting robbed. I do not understand why it's so difficult for women to apply that same thinking to rape.

Anonymous LES June 16, 2012 11:31 AM  

I wonder if Kate has fantasies of being so ravishing that men cannot control themselves
when they are near her.

Anonymous Skunk River Slim June 16, 2012 11:51 AM  

White knight shmuck stepping up to defend would-be rape victim;

"Unhand thou fair virgin, lest I strike thou down."

No-Limit-Nigga; his attention diverted;

"You got a big problem now, Bitch". No-Limit sucker punches our brave hero, dropping him to the sidewalk. Proceeds to jump on top of him, grab him by the ears and hammer his head into the concrete. No-Limit Posse rushes in to help Nigga.

Would-be rape victim having safely slipped away during ruckus later tells media "That white guy just came out of nowhere and began threatening this young African-American gentleman. He had to defend himself from that racist SOB".

White Knight gets charged with assault. Justice served.

Anonymous cheddarman June 16, 2012 11:58 AM  

Why doesn't Kate just empower her bitchy self and buy a pistol and get a license for concealed carry?

Anonymous cheddarman June 16, 2012 12:23 PM  

Sorry about the above post, pistols are just another phallic symbol that empowers the patriarchy and furthers the repression of womyn

Anonymous Clay (yuk) June 16, 2012 12:30 PM  

Umm. I didn' click on her link. Is Kay fat and ugly, weighs about 300 lbs., and rocks in a a chair, swatting flies, all the while swatting the niglets, calling them "Mo Fo'.... so she let's her, um, kidlets run around the yard nekkid, so she can spend the money on crack, instead of Pampers? Because they didn't wer any. They just shat or peed where the happned to be a to time. I ANYTHING will make you appreciate a cat, that will.

I'll leave it at that. I used to read gas meters for about a a year, fighting dogs, hearing & seeing all kinds of stuff, you would nevever, evver want to. Not to mentionn, the sh!T I I hade to walk & wade through, in "downton" Jackson, MS, so she lets her, um, kidlets run around the yard nekkid, so she can spend the money on crack, instead of Pampers?

I Never see blacks buying diapers Maybe Rassmussen should do a survey/poll.

Blogger JACIII June 16, 2012 12:31 PM  

Fear not cheddarman. The firearm offers the closest thing to equality mankind will ever know.

"God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal,"

Anonymous Clay June 16, 2012 12:34 PM  

Sorry abot the grammar & spelling.......I was in a hurry.

Blogger Ghost June 16, 2012 12:36 PM  

Or a culture of drugs? No, seriously, why can't we live in a culture of drugs? Please?

Anonymous Michael June 16, 2012 12:37 PM  

Is there any statistics on people being paid big money to do rape? Those are the ones Kate should be worried about.

Anonymous Kel June 16, 2012 12:44 PM  

Notice how her second statement in that cartoon is "I'm not interested in feminism." And yet then she immediately starts talking about misogyny and "rape culture" and bogus rape stats and other crap that only a feminist could be remotely interested in.

The fact that she has to deny her core exterior belief shows that she knows it's a losing argument. This is all just self-delusion.

Besides, rational thinking and feminism never mix.

Blogger IM2L844 June 16, 2012 12:56 PM  

Huggums June 16, 2012 11:23 AM:
"As I have pointed out before, both logic and genetic science demonstrate that human beings are not even all equally human." - I don't understand what this means. Agree with everything else.

It seems obvious that the defining physical attributes that make us human are not evenly meted out between races or genders. The same holds true for the defining mental attributes that make us human. We are simply not all equal. Not even potentially equal.

Currently a full professor at The University of Western Ontario, Dr. J. Philippe Rushton has done extensive research on this subject. Read the results of his research with an open mind.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 12:57 PM  

As I have pointed out before, both logic and genetic science demonstrate that human beings are not even all equally human.

In my view humanity is a binary thing, either you have it or you don't. All members of the species Homo Sapien Sapien have it, all other creatures don't.

I have no idea what definition of humanity you were using, but it looks arbitrary.

As for the comic, it is completely, thoroughly uninteresting. It's another insignificant young woman incoherently angry about things she doesn't understand and can't articulate. Who cares?

Anonymous The other skeptic June 16, 2012 1:08 PM  

Shild said:

In my view humanity is a binary thing, either you have it or you don't. All members of the species Homo Sapien Sapien have it, all other creatures don't.


I think reality begs to differ. At least by current US standards of humanity, as agreed to even by the Dark Messiah, although, perhaps reluctantly, some folks in South Africa seem lacking in humanity

Anonymous Clay June 16, 2012 1:16 PM  

Yeah, it's all fun & games till the brown-eye gets nailed on the feministers.

Blogger Vox June 16, 2012 1:25 PM  

All members of the species Homo Sapien Sapien have it, all other creatures don't. I have no idea what definition of humanity you were using, but it looks arbitrary.

You're wrong. We are simply not even all members of homo sapiens sapiens to the same degree. This is straightforward genetic science. And that's without even considering the various mutations that occur naturally in all of us and in different population groups.

Anonymous Holla June 16, 2012 1:26 PM  

"I can’t think of one, even one, precaution that a woman (or man) can take that actually has a good chance of preventing rape that would also be considered “reasonable” by any rational or honest individual.... And if you want to talk about “reasonable” precautions, I think, the first burden on you is to describe your proposed precaution and demonstrate that it actually works to prevent rape."

Rapex:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Rapex-A-Female-Condom-Like-Anti-Rape-Device-49887.shtml

Anonymous mandatum June 16, 2012 1:27 PM  

"...and avoiding the company of black and hispanic men... You left out 'Redneckus Americanus'.( Although that may not be true everywhere."

Yeah, do you have some stats? I guessing rape stats in rural America (home of "redneckus Americanus")are next to zero.

Blogger IM2L844 June 16, 2012 1:28 PM  

All members of the species Homo Sapien Sapien have it, all other creatures don't.

Statistically speaking, however, not all categories of specimens within the species, are equally sapient.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 1:32 PM  

We are simply not even all members of homo sapiens sapiens to the same degree. This is straightforward genetic science.

How is the ability to produce fertile offspring a matter of degree?

And if that isn't the standard to determine humanity, then what is?

Anonymous DonReynolds June 16, 2012 1:40 PM  

By my observation, Vox, the women who would appear to have the least to fear from possible rape are often the women who fret the most. No doubt this feminist is yet another example of this observation. Of course, what goes unmentioned in this rant is the fact that lesbians love to attend feminist functions and a good many of the so-called "feminists" are not femme at all but simply man-hating diesel dykes. They come to the feminist get togethers hoping to snare an unsuspecting bisexual or hetero slut. No mention is made of lesbian rape. It is only the men who do that. But I do appreciate you pointing out that girls who hang at the club and tease the Blacks and Hispanics are likely to get what they want most. The alcohol helps, but they lied....you still remember the indiscretion later....so there is that annoying regret and the dark realization that abortion is not actually free.

Blogger Vox June 16, 2012 1:56 PM  

And if that isn't the standard to determine humanity, then what is?

DNA.

Anonymous kh123 June 16, 2012 2:11 PM  

"...straightforward genetic science."

Depending on how fast and loose the definition for being human is* (besides interfertility), it may be akin to arguing how much closer to the image of God any one group of people are. Every ancient culture thought themselves special little snowflakes when making their idols out as mirror images.

*Given the arbitrary nature of Linnaean classification already - is a duck a duck when its markings or wing structure change? - and (take your pick) the equally arbitrary nature ascribed to either A). evolution and genetics or B). discerning the mind of God as to how close to Adam one must be in order to be human... how then does one determine what the target is when trying to deduce maximum parsimony in a Homo sapiens sapiens phylogeny. Without being arbitrary.

This applies both to the evolutionary and "created in the image of God" scenarios.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 2:13 PM  

DNA.

That can't possibly work, because of DNA variations.

What you're basically suggesting is that there exists a particular "human" genetic code out there, and that the "humanity" of a given individual is a measure of his nearness to that standard.

This can't work because of genetic diversity; in order to choose one genetic code from all that exist as the standard one must already have some idea of what constitutes "human", which puts us right back where we started.

You're making the same mistake as the science fetishists who try to answer philosophical questions with empirical testing and observation.

Anonymous an19 June 16, 2012 2:21 PM  

So fuck ANYONE who thinks they have the right to tell me not to care! FUCK THEM! I do care. I will always care.

Here Kate is expressly denying that others have the right to free speech

Are you sure? I thought she was advocating free love.

Anonymous Ain June 16, 2012 2:21 PM  

"I can’t think of one, even one, precaution that a woman (or man) can take that actually has a good chance of preventing rape that would also be considered “reasonable” by any rational or honest individual.... And if you want to talk about “reasonable” precautions, I think, the first burden on you is to describe your proposed precaution and demonstrate that it actually works to prevent rape."

Don't get too drunk at a party. There, that was easy. It took about half a second to come up with.

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 2:25 PM  

That can't possibly work, because of DNA variations.

That's precisely the point.

Anonymous SirBasil June 16, 2012 2:27 PM  

20 bucks says she's conspicuously fatter in real life than her doodled avatar.

I'm buying my sister a handgun for her 21st birthday. Quantify this, muthaf*****s!

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 2:28 PM  

That's precisely the point.

Do you understand that this renders the suggestion that some people are "less human" than others nonsensical?

Anonymous Botswana Clay June 16, 2012 2:37 PM  

I don't tinks so.

Anonymous the gray man June 16, 2012 2:41 PM  

Vox, I think that poor Shild believes you are making his case for him without realizing it.

Anonymous Anonymous June 16, 2012 2:48 PM  

Wow, you're a repulsive human being.

Anonymous Skunk River Slim June 16, 2012 3:04 PM  

Kate should drop by the Pharyngula site.

She'd find a sympathetic home among those portly neck-beards who are moved to distraction by her tale of torment and woe.

Anonymous Athor Pel June 16, 2012 3:04 PM  

"Stingray June 16, 2012 10:57 AM

1 in 4 women are raped because now men are capable of raping with their eyes . . .
"



It's the cybernetic future.

Come over here, honey, so I can look at you with my new eyes.

Anonymous Noah B. June 16, 2012 3:05 PM  

As their ideas lack a foundation of reason, personal attacks are the last refuge of the left once their shallow emotional ploys fail to persuade.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 16, 2012 3:07 PM  


Wow, you're a repulsive human being.


I think they said that about Swift, too. You're a little late and a few neurons short.

Anonymous Baseball Savant June 16, 2012 3:09 PM  

And you know what? I have had it with people who trivialize how fucking scary it is to be a girl by telling us that fighting for our rights is unattractive. I think it is hot as hell.

MY FAVORITE PART OF THE ENTIRE COMIC! Kate is clearly a lesbian and furthermore, shouldn't Kate as an incredibly intelligent female fighting for her rights know that it doesn't matter how hot she thinks it is but rather how OTHER people think it is! I love it.

Anonymous Clay June 16, 2012 3:30 PM  

Name a Sub-Saharan Afican boat,

Canoes don't count, The Amerindians had that one first.

Africa is a HUGE continet. Hell, they couldn't even find the Canary Islands.

No concept of sails, (maybe inshore rivers)

But, that was prolly them ARABS, Yeah, There, a diff in DNA.

Most black folks cyour grease upon the water, A lot of black folks use tis a "bath an't even swim......but , they are closing down all the Water Parks, because the violence, repe, robbery, stabbings, & murder that's going on, Mebbe Nate can attest to this.

And no, you don't have to "swim" in 4ft of water. Just gleam

Your definition of DNA? Hell, I'm lucky I'm not in jail.

Anonymous Noah B. June 16, 2012 3:32 PM  

Kate sounds a lot like my wife's rants when she was fresh out of an undergrad women's studies curriculum. Most of college (including the sciences) seems to have devolved into indoctrination rather than education, yet people are paying handsomely for it.

I've had some success bringing her around with arguments much like Vox's but presented somewhat differently. First, I point out the inherent immorality of expecting others to protect her if she is unwilling to protect herself. If there is an effective counter-argument to this, I have yet to hear it.

The next point I've hammered is that the average woman can never expect to be a physical match for a man. This is simple to demonstrate.

Finally, I've emphasized that a man who would attack and rape a woman is an opportunistic predator who is leaving a wake of destruction behind him. There is no moral reason not to kill such a person, and in doing so, one is potentially preventing harm from coming to many others in the future, as well as to oneself in the present.

That argument seems to have finally broken down the last barrier she had to exercising her right to self defense, and a week from today, she is going to get her CHL for the first time.

Anonymous Pete June 16, 2012 3:33 PM  

I love how these feminists assume the way to stop rape is by blaming/shaming all men into Doing Something about it!

No one argues that the way to stop murder is by shaming men about murder from kindergarten onward, yet murder is a more serious crime than rape. Somehow laws, courts and cops are supposed to stop murder/theft, but in the case of rape, laws, courts and cops are Just Not Good Enough! No, all men everywhere need to Step Up and Man Up! This is how you know the rape hysteria is nothing but a political power play.

Another funny thing, they like to say the responsibility of ending rape must not fall on women's shoulders but men's and men's alone (telling women they are responsible for their own safety is of course Blaming the Victim! and a strict no-no in feminist land).

Interesting that these strong, liberated women are basically identifying the problem, then complaining to men to solve the problem for them.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 3:40 PM  

That argument seems to have finally broken down the last barrier she had to exercising her right to self defense, and a week from today, she is going to get her CHL for the first time.

Good for her, although I'm guessing your wife would have less need for a gun than a single woman.

Your post reminds me of my favorite scene from Death Proof (Language warning).

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 3:40 PM  

Do you understand that this renders the suggestion that some people are "less human" than others nonsensical?

It does nothing of the sort. I'll explain it the slow Socratic way. Do you agree it is possible to distinguish between the DNA of a starfish and a chimpanzee?

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 3:43 PM  

Wow, you're a repulsive human being.

Is'um tewwified by the scawy, scawy wogic? Don't worry, logic won't rape you. Also, choose a name if you don't want your comments deleted.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 3:47 PM  

Do you agree it is possible to distinguish between the DNA of a starfish and a chimpanzee?

Yes.

Do you think that one starfish can be "more starfish" than another?

Anonymous rapey rape June 16, 2012 3:53 PM  

Richard Dawkins elevator pickup award.

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 3:56 PM  

Yes. Do you think that one starfish can be "more starfish" than another?

That's not how this works, Shild. You're the one who doesn't understand, you're the one who has to answer the questions. So, you agree it is possible to distinguish between the DNA of a starfish and a chimpanzee. Do you agree that it is also possible to distinguish between the DNA of a dog and a wolf?

Anonymous Godfrey June 16, 2012 3:57 PM  

Generally feminists are not very bright. I think if given enough time (and control of the MSM and the universities), you could convince such people of anything.

Anonymous Rantor June 16, 2012 4:05 PM  

I just visited Pharyngula for the first time in an age. WHat a pathetically screwed up batch we find there. I must go wash my hands, or drink Scotch or something.

I did search for the recommendation that a woman might want a pistol, gun, or firearm. Not one mention, these libtards kill me.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 4:09 PM  

You're the one who doesn't understand, you're the one who has to answer the questions.
Fine, have it your way. I'd rather not get banned.

Do you agree that it is also possible to distinguish between the DNA of a dog and a wolf?

Yes.

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 4:16 PM  

Fine, have it your way. I'd rather not get banned.

Relax, it's not about that, it's about my inability to explain it to you when you are asking the questions. Okay, so you agree it is possible to distinguish between the DNA of a dog and a wolf. Do you agree that a wolf-dog hybrid with mixed DNA is less a wolf than a pure-bred wolf with pure wolf DNA?

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 4:25 PM  

Do you agree that a wolf-dog hybrid with mixed DNA is less a wolf than a pure-bred wolf with pure wolf DNA?

Hmmm... that's a tough one.

I could say no, because dogs descended from wolves, meaning that a dog-wolf hybrid still has "pure wolf DNA", albeit in a different combination than a wolf born to non-domesticated parents.

Or I could say yes, because even though dogs descended from wolves they still are genetically distinct, meaning that a hybrid is significantly distinct from the norm for each group.

Difficult. I'm going to go with "no".

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 4:45 PM  

Difficult. I'm going to go with "no".

Your position is anti-logical, as your answer amounts to a claim that two different species, with different DNA combinations, are nevertheless the same. In logical terms, you're claiming that X is Not X.

This means you can only be convinced by rhetoric, not dialectic, so I won't be able to explain this to you.

Anonymous duckman June 16, 2012 4:53 PM  

This total inability of humanity to prevent any rape no doubt explains why rape rates never change over time and do not vary from one nation to another.... Of course, it would be deplorably raciss to notice that a 31 percent increase in the number of incarcerated black men, mostly for harmless drug charges, has corresponded with the 33 percent decline in forcible rapes per 100,000, from 41.2 in 1990 to 27.5 in 2010.

Er...

Anonymous Noah B. June 16, 2012 4:56 PM  

I understand the dilemma with the wolf-dog problem. When we don't understand what the definition of "is" is, it does call everything else into question.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 4:57 PM  

Your position is anti-logical, as your answer amounts to a claim that two different species, with different DNA combinations, are nevertheless the same.

They're not different species if they can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. That's what I was taught anyway.

Besides, I fully agree that a wolf-dog hybrid is not identical to a wolf born in the wild. This is not equivalent to saying that a wolf/dog hybrid is "less of a wolf" than a wolf born in the wild.

In logical terms, you're claiming that X is Not X.

That is exactly what you're claiming when you say that "human beings are not even all equally human" (or "not all X's are X's" in other words).

Blogger IM2L844 June 16, 2012 5:10 PM  

...a dog-wolf hybrid still has "pure wolf DNA"
Really? Not if the mother is the dog. The pups would then have her mtDNA and the nDNA would, as always, be mixed half and half(not pure wolf or pure dog DNA). Note that that mitochondrial DNA is regulatory and is NOT coding for physical or mental attributes in either case. It is the half and half mixed nuclear DNA that contains the chromosomes that compete for the expression of those attributes. That's what I heard anyway.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 5:12 PM  

Suppose I change my answer and say "yes, I agree that a wolf-dog hybrid is less of a wolf than a pure wolf." What then?

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 5:12 PM  

That is exactly what you're claiming when you say that "human beings are not even all equally human" (or "not all X's are X's" in other words).

No, it is not. As I already pointed out, you do not understand because you think Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus are the same species. In the same way, not all "humans" are equally homo sapiens sapiens.

OpenID Stingray June 16, 2012 5:13 PM  

Vox,

Is this what you are trying to explain?

H/T Chateau Heartiste Twitter Updates

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 5:16 PM  

Suppose I change my answer and say "yes, I agree that a wolf-dog hybrid is less of a wolf than a pure wolf." What then?

Then I would ask if you agree that modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 5:17 PM  

Then I would ask if you agree that modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens.

Yes

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 5:21 PM  

And would you agree that a hybrid who is only part homo sapiens sapiens is less human than a pure homo sapiens sapiens?

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 5:23 PM  

And would you agree that a hybrid who is only part homo sapiens sapiens is less human than a pure homo sapiens sapiens?

Yes.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 5:27 PM  

Well? Do any such creatures exist?

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 5:28 PM  

Then it should be apparent that not all humans are equally human. Africans are pure homo sapiens sapiens. Europeans and Asians are homo sapiens sapiens-homo neanderthalis hybrids. Depending on your perspective, Europeans and Asians are either sub-human or supra-human. But either way, they're not fully human, therefore precluding even the possibility of "human" equality.

Anonymous Shild June 16, 2012 5:42 PM  

Well, I maintain that the phrase "human beings are not... all equally human" is nonsense as written. It has to be made clear that the former "human" refers to all genetic groups while the latter "human" refers only to homo sapiens sapiens.

In any case my quibble over the use of the word "less" does not apply to the original post, so I withdraw my criticism.

Anonymous Anonymous June 16, 2012 5:44 PM  

THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN

Anonymous Rantor June 16, 2012 5:48 PM  

@VD, I think that was well said.

My hss-hn hybrid wife just made a delicious carrot cake, with rum, raisins and walnuts. Apricot-ginger cream cheese frosting.

sorry to be OT. It is fabulous, sorry I can't share with the rest of the Ilk.

Tom

Anonymous The other skeptic June 16, 2012 5:50 PM  


Then it should be apparent that not all humans are equally human. Africans are pure homo sapiens sapiens. Europeans and Asians are homo sapiens sapiens-homo neanderthalis hybrids.


Well, there is evidence that modern sub-Saharan Africans have also hybridized with (archaic) species of Homo that seemingly did not make it out of Africa. So, in that sense, sub-Saharan Africans are not pure either.

In addition, there seems to have been some level of hybridization between one group coming out of Africa and the Denisovans ... although, of course, there still seems to be some dispute about all of it.

Anonymous Rantor June 16, 2012 5:52 PM  

I think Anonymous has a screw loose. He also missed the picture of the Chinese woman forced into an abortion of her 7 month old fetus/baby, or pictures from the Nazi death camps, or the atrocities in Cambodia to start

Anonymous James Dixon June 16, 2012 5:53 PM  

> Europeans and Asians are homo sapiens sapiens-homo neanderthalis hybrids.

Actually, and this is entirely my own opinion and not backed by any current scientific theory, I suspect that Asians also have yet a third homo-sapiens-currently_unknown in the mix.

Anonymous VD June 16, 2012 6:01 PM  

THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN

You've lived a fortunate life, then. And in the future, please select a name if you don't wish your comments to be deleted.

Anonymous Noah B. June 16, 2012 6:37 PM  

Run for your lives! It's FREE SPEECH!!

Anonymous kh123 June 16, 2012 6:43 PM  

"your answer amounts to a claim that two different species, with different DNA combinations, are nevertheless the same."

Depends on how far up or down one wants to climb the Linnaean ladder*. Or of how one is selecting a "pure" target for comparison.

*Are a wolf and domesticated dog still Canidae, for instance. How does one determine if the Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily, Genus, Subgenus, or Species/Subspecies classification is a valid or arbitrary yardstick to determine taxonomy.

Anonymous kh123 June 16, 2012 6:45 PM  

"Europeans and Asians are homo sapiens sapiens-homo neanderthalis hybrids. Depending on your perspective, Europeans and Asians are either sub-human or supra-human."

Well that threw me for a loop.

Blogger Matthew June 16, 2012 6:49 PM  

Actually, and this is entirely my own opinion and not backed by any current scientific theory, I suspect that Asians also have yet a third homo-sapiens-currently_unknown in the mix.

Anthropologists made more sense when the categories were Hamitic, Semitic, and Japhetic.

Anonymous MendoScot June 16, 2012 7:25 PM  

kh123 June 16, 2012 6:43 PM

Are a wolf and domesticated dog still Canidae, for instance. How does one determine if the Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily, Genus, Subgenus, or Species/Subspecies classification is a valid or arbitrary yardstick to determine taxonomy.

By definition, ergo arbitrary and valid.

Anonymous Koanic June 16, 2012 7:32 PM  

"How is the ability to produce fertile offspring a matter of degree?"

Your argument fails on its own metric, since Basque (Neanderthal DNA) are partially incapable of interbreeding with the homo sapiens population.

Anonymous R_Mc_Rson June 16, 2012 7:41 PM  

A rapey post and not one R Scott Bakker comment?
For shame Ilk...

Anonymous saying June 16, 2012 7:59 PM  

free speech, which is not only encoded into various legal systems but also happens to observably exist in a material manner, while simultaneously asserting the legitimacy

i agree w/you about women's studies types, but rofl @ your writing. seriously.

Anonymous gabrielle June 16, 2012 8:00 PM  

"And yes, in such situations, that does make the victim at least partially culpable from a legal perspective."

Wow. You clearly know nothing about culpability from a legal perspective.

Anonymous MendoScot June 16, 2012 8:27 PM  

gabrielle June 16, 2012 8:00 PM

"And yes, in such situations, that does make the victim at least partially culpable from a legal perspective."

Wow. You clearly know nothing about culpability from a legal perspective.


This is a very international blog. Enlighten us as to your particular legal perspective. I, for instance, live under a colonial variant of the Napoleonic Code.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 16, 2012 8:50 PM  

THIS IS THE WORST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER SEEN

One would think explaining yourself over petty shouting would be helpful to express your position.

I stand by the men, they deserve the praise, respect and the end of all these paranoid suspicions about rape. Rape...I'm just a skeptic about it. Never mind me.

Is Kate aware of the near reality she has no future? So fearing men and playing into these irrational fear fantasies is just counter-productive hamster spinning.

Semi OT rant: We have Julian Assange being harassed by the Law for the non-crime of relations with a couple of groupie chicks, that wasn't rape...Women, the courts, whomever are lying on him.

Anonymous CJ June 16, 2012 8:50 PM  

Vox,

"As I already pointed out, you do not understand because you think Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus are the same species."

But they are the same species. Canis lupus is a species. Canis lupus lupus and Canis lupus familiaris are subspecies. The sine qua non of "species" is ability to interbreed and create fertile offspring. By definition, the fact that you can have a fertile dog/wolf hybrid means they're the same species. In the same way, homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals had to have been the same species or they couldn't have created the fertile hybrids that became Asians and Europeans.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 16, 2012 9:14 PM  


But they are the same species. Canis lupus is a species. Canis lupus lupus and Canis lupus familiaris are subspecies. The sine qua non of "species" is ability to interbreed and create fertile offspring. By definition, the fact that you can have a fertile dog/wolf hybrid means they're the same species. In the same way, homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals had to have been the same species or they couldn't have created the fertile hybrids that became Asians and Europeans.


I take it you are familiar with ring species?

In any event, just as hybrids of wolves and domestic dogs are feral to some extent, perhaps so are hybrids of ...

Anonymous MendoScot June 16, 2012 9:42 PM  

CJ June 16, 2012 8:50 PM

Vox,

"As I already pointed out, you do not understand because you think Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus are the same species."

But they are the same species. Canis lupus is a species. Canis lupus lupus and Canis lupus familiaris are subspecies. The sine qua non of "species" is ability to interbreed and create fertile offspring.


By the latest count, there are 26 different definitions of species, and interbreeding is by no means generally accepted. And that doesn't count those who deny that species exist at all.

Anonymous kh123 June 16, 2012 10:00 PM  

"By definition, ergo arbitrary and valid."

I feel my English=angelos hypothesis bearing fruit. What with etymological evidence and the white skin; we're that much closer to tracing the descendents of the nephilim, folks.

Although the Saxon part is a little trickier sell. Knife wielding barbarians with a tendency to be Freudian - most folks outside the Midnight Express Club don't jibe that being in their family tree.

Anonymous Hildebrandt June 16, 2012 10:41 PM  

"Anthropologists made more sense when the categories were Hamitic, Semitic, and Japhetic." - Matthew

:). The fact is you have a huge diversity in the Human specie lato sensu that every attempt to shorten the list of races or subspecies is unscientific.

"homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals had to have been the same species or they couldn't have created the fertile hybrids that became Asians and Europeans." - CJ

What do you mean by Europeans? I mean people are forgetting that in Europe exists Indo-European DNA and also Neolithic DNA. For example celts are Indo-European whereas some iberians have neolithic DNA.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml
european haplogroups, genetic distribution etc.

And could someone provide evidence on neardenthal and homo sapiens (sapiens) mixing? I always learned they did not mix.

Anonymous feral1404 June 16, 2012 10:49 PM  

Can we get a re-run of your "When rape becomes comedy gold" post. That really rocked.

Fuck western women.

They deserve what they get.

Anonymous The other skeptic June 16, 2012 10:51 PM  

Romney has possibly thrown the election by failing to respond to Obama's Damnesty

The pressure on whites keeps ratcheting up, although Romney is little different ...

Anonymous LesbianDoritioNight June 16, 2012 11:00 PM  

Oh the Ilk is acting dumb today. Google is your friend: TL;DR summary: Kate Leth, queer, self-destructive ("reformed" cutter), feminist, had teacher that "payed too much attention"... Not exactly rational about all things Penis, or life.

Anonymous PC Geek June 17, 2012 12:17 AM  

"Fuck western women. "

I thought the whole point was not to do that...

Anonymous Koanic June 17, 2012 12:39 AM  

"I always learned they did not mix."

That was the overturned Paabo-Stoneking consensus. See Texas Arcane.

Anonymous oregon mouse June 17, 2012 1:24 AM  

I can’t think of one, even one, precaution that a woman (or man) can take that actually has a good chance of preventing rape that would also be considered “reasonable” by any rational or honest individual.... And if you want to talk about “reasonable” precautions, I think, the first burden on you is to describe your proposed precaution and demonstrate that it actually works to prevent rape.

Yet I'm sure this person could come up with all kinds of common sense suggestions to prevent child kidnappings, burglaries, identity theft, etc. How sad her identity is completely wrapped around feminist predatory male mythology.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 17, 2012 1:50 AM  

"Of course, it would be deplorably raciss to notice that a 31 percent increase in the number of incarcerated black men, mostly for harmless drug charges, has corresponded with the 33 percent decline in forcible rapes per 100,000, from 41.2 in 1990 to 27.5 in 2010."

That's not racist. It's just citing a statistic, which may or may not mean what you think it means. Citing a stat that even explicitly casts a certain group in a bad light isn't racist or bigoted by itself. For example, rape is in epidemic proportion in South Africa, and it's no mystery that black men are doing it. Some of the causes are known, others are not. It is known that there is an ignorant folk cure for AIDS that recommends having sex with a virgin. That's one cause.

However,

"It is very, very easy for Kate to significantly reduce her chances of being raped, as getting a concealed carry permit and avoiding the company of black and Hispanic men will virtually eliminate the possibility that she will be forcibly raped."

This is racist, since it tars all blacks and Hispanics as rapists. Reasons and statistics don't make it less racist. I could, for instance, recommend the avoidance of men in general, which would be even more effective preemption of rape, but knowing that doesn't make it less misandrist.

Statistical arguments that are actually cover for racism is what brings down a couple pundits both on the left and right every year. "But I'm correct!" seems to be the governing sentiment, right up to the point where they set themselves ablaze, and beyond, actually. John Derbyshire is a perfect example. What they don't get until it's too late is that statistics won't save you once you start making recommendations for how to act around people based on race, or other group trait.

Anonymous kh123 June 17, 2012 2:15 AM  

"I always learned they did not mix."

Also, reference the Skhul/Qafzeh remains, as well as to a lesser extent the Krapina cave remains. If I remember correctly, there are several sites in SW Australia that yielded up recent remains that are said to show some admixture of what is called robust and gracile features.

Anonymous Roundtine June 17, 2012 2:32 AM  

Reasons and statistics don't make it less racist.

That's anti-white hate speech. Racism is a word anti-white bigots use to put down white people. There's no data or statistics behind the use of the term racism, it's just a term used to offend white people.

Blogger Spacebunny June 17, 2012 3:00 AM  

The sine qua non of "species" is ability to interbreed and create fertile offspring. By definition, the fact that you can have a fertile dog/wolf hybrid means they're the same species.

So lions and tigers are the same species? Interesting. And not generally known.

Anonymous TheExpat June 17, 2012 3:01 AM  

@ The Great Martini:

lol, you're funny.

Anonymous CJ June 17, 2012 3:10 AM  

SB,

Male ligers and tigons are generally sterile. I'm not aware of any exceptions but willing to be corrected.

Blogger Spacebunny June 17, 2012 3:14 AM  

There are exceptions. And as has been stated, that particular definition of species is not universally accepted.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 17, 2012 4:32 AM  


@ The Great Martini:

lol, you're funny.


At least I took the time to explain my problems with it and didn't just write "THIS IS THE WORST..."

Anonymous VD June 17, 2012 5:14 AM  

This is racist, since it tars all blacks and Hispanics as rapists. Reasons and statistics don't make it less racist. I could, for instance, recommend the avoidance of men in general, which would be even more effective preemption of rape, but knowing that doesn't make it less misandrist.

It does nothing of the sort. Your claim that it is racist simply shows that you don't understand the basic concept of probability. Most black men are not rapists. Most Hispanic men are not rapists. However, an individual black man is 3x more likely to commit rape than the individual white/Hispanic man. I would conservatively estimate about 6x more likely than the individual white man but it's hard to say precisely because Hispanic offenders are listed as white by the FBI. It could be closer to 10x, depending upon the Hispanic/white offender ratio.

So, simply avoiding the company of black men significantly reduces a woman's chance of being raped by more than half an order of magnitude. That's not debatable. If you support seat belt and helmet laws, there is no way you can reasonably refuse to fail to endorse the practice of white women concerned about rape avoiding the company of black men based on the probabilities. Anecdotally speaking, of the three women that I have known who were raped, all white, two were raped by black men and the other was kidnapped and raped by a man who was Hmong.

Nor is it misandrist to suggest that avoiding the company of men would significantly reduce a woman's chance of being raped. That is a simple and undeniable fact. It is, however, considerably more difficult to avoid 50 percent of the population than less than 5 percent of it.

Statistical arguments that are actually cover for racism is what brings down a couple pundits both on the left and right every year. "But I'm correct!" seems to be the governing sentiment, right up to the point where they set themselves ablaze, and beyond, actually. John Derbyshire is a perfect example.

So what? Enoch Powell was right. John Derbyshire was right. I'd much rather have the idiots refuse to listen to me and be ultimately judged correct by history than maintain my audience by telling lies.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 17, 2012 6:09 AM  

You seem to have a huge blind spot here. You're actually admitting to racism, but you don't seem to know it. What you're advocating is racism, plain and simple. The level of confusion here is exactly why people like Derbyshire fall on their sword each year.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 17, 2012 6:23 AM  


John Derbyshire was right.


But Deryshire wasn't right, that's the whole thing. He was recommending a course of action toward individuals and groups based on stereotypes, which is racist simplification and generalization. Stereotypes themselves can be either accurate or inaccurate, or actually change status rather rapidly over the course of time. Stereotypes are not reliable. Even practically speaking, Derb's advice was horrible. For instance, avoiding a black gathering of your boss's family could well result in career suicide.

Blogger Vox June 17, 2012 6:25 AM  

You seem to have a huge blind spot here. You're actually admitting to racism, but you don't seem to know it. What you're advocating is racism, plain and simple. The level of confusion here is exactly why people like Derbyshire fall on their sword each year.

I don't have a blind spot at all. You're simply being stubbornly ignorant. Cry "raciss" all you like. It doesn't change the probabilities. It doesn't change the human action. It doesn't change the expected consequences of one's decisions. Adjusting one's behavior in accordance with statistical probability, much less recommending that another adjust one's behavior in accordance with statistical probability, does not fit any definition of racism. Which of these the definitions of racism do you claim corresponds with my observations?

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


You are confusing action for motivation and cognizance of population differences with an emotional reaction to different populations. By your reckoning, simply acknowledging that blacks suffer from sickle cell anemia and attempting to treat patients accordingly is racist. Of course, by your implied definition, reality itself is racist.

Do you not realize you are advocating for women to pay absolutely no attention to their demographic surroundings? I can more justly accuse you of being an advocate of rape than you can accuse me of being an advocate of racism.

Blogger Vox June 17, 2012 6:34 AM  

But Deryshire wasn't right, that's the whole thing. He was recommending a course of action toward individuals and groups based on stereotypes, which is racist simplification and generalization.

Of course he was. How stupid can you possibly be? All courses of actions towards groups are based on stereotypes.

Why do you hate women and want them raped?

Anonymous The Great Martini June 17, 2012 6:44 AM  

You seem to be a little of both 1 and 3, but mostly, it's the willingness to pronounce individual judgement based on group stereotype, which is what got Derbyshire into trouble. Derbyshire actually went beyond that and recommended courses of action based only on racial contact, quite similar to your advice for women to avoid black and Hispanic men, as blanket general advice. It is general, stereotype-based advice that is then exercised at an individual level.

For example, closer to home, in recent years the right has been far more responsible than the left for domestic terrorism attacks, murder of abortion doctors, etc. So how would you feel if I assumed you to be a domestic terrorist without actually knowing anything more about you? If I worked at your place of business, what would you think if I avoided you, actually avoided your entire locale and schedule, based solely on that?

Anonymous The Great Martini June 17, 2012 6:49 AM  


Why do you hate women and want them raped?


I don't want women raped. I also think I want to give them better advice than avoid black or Hispanic men no matter how long you've known them or how trusted. That is horrible advice. But then, racist advice is horrible advice. You've got to be able to do better than that.

Anonymous TheExpat June 17, 2012 7:10 AM  

At least I took the time to explain my problems with it and didn't just write "THIS IS THE WORST..."

That was just sad. You're funny.

Hint: Most if not all stereotypes are just statistical truths. i.e., odds.
Hint 2: Playing the odds, that is to say making choices and basing behavior on statistically provable probabilities, is not raciss.
Hint 3: Not even if you keep insisting it is. And no, your 'feelings' and 'sensibilities' regarding the matter... don't matter. The truth is what it is.

Anonymous TheExpat June 17, 2012 7:13 AM  

what would you think if I avoided you, actually avoided your entire locale and schedule, based solely on that?

Um... thanks?

Blogger Spacebunny June 17, 2012 7:24 AM  

I also think I want to give them better advice than avoid black or Hispanic men no matter how long you've known them or how trusted.

Can we start playing "Name that Logical Fallacy" now?

Blogger Vox June 17, 2012 7:33 AM  

You seem to be a little of both 1 and 3, but mostly, it's the willingness to pronounce individual judgement based on group stereotype, which is what got Derbyshire into trouble. Derbyshire actually went beyond that and recommended courses of action based only on racial contact, quite similar to your advice for women to avoid black and Hispanic men, as blanket general advice. It is general, stereotype-based advice that is then exercised at an individual level.

I'm nothing of the sort, which is why you're reduced to using weasel words like "seem to be". None of the definitions fit in the slightest. The fact that a single editor at NRO used Derbyshire's simple and effective advice as an excuse to get rid of him is totally irrelevant here.

For example, closer to home, in recent years the right has been far more responsible than the left for domestic terrorism attacks, murder of abortion doctors, etc. So how would you feel if I assumed you to be a domestic terrorist without actually knowing anything more about you? If I worked at your place of business, what would you think if I avoided you, actually avoided your entire locale and schedule, based solely on that?

You're again demonstrating that you are an ignoramus. The Left has committed far more domestic terrorist attacks and killed more people than the Right. If you assumed I was a domestic terrorist based on 17 attempted murders in 35 years, I would conclude that you are also an idiot and would be very grateful indeed if you would do me the courtesy of avoiding me, so that I wouldn't have to deal with your idiocy.

I don't want women raped. I also think I want to give them better advice than avoid black or Hispanic men no matter how long you've known them or how trusted. That is horrible advice. But then, racist advice is horrible advice. You've got to be able to do better than that.

But quite clearly you do. You would prefer that thousands of women experience rape every year instead of seeing them behave in a manner you erroneously regard as racist. You oppose advice being provided to women even though following it would undeniably reduce a woman's chance of rape between 33 and 80 percent. Your position is conclusively pro-rape and therefore misogynous. How can you possibly argue that reducing a woman's risk of rape by 80 percent is "horrible advice"?

Clearly it can only be horrible if you're coming from the perspective where you want to see her raped.

Anonymous p-dawg June 17, 2012 7:43 AM  

"So how would you feel if I assumed you to be a domestic terrorist without actually knowing anything more about you? If I worked at your place of business, what would you think if I avoided you, actually avoided your entire locale and schedule, based solely on that?"

I know you didn't ask me but pretending you had, would I know why you were avoiding me?

Anonymous Fool of a Took June 17, 2012 8:26 AM  

living in an area with a lot of MS13 activity, including kidnapping, white slavery, murder, and drug trafficking, there are areas where groups of tatooed hispanic males can be observed. I avoid them. You may want to pronounce this as racist, I think it is an appropriate response to the probability that such a group, in my area, may be violent gang bangers. Yes it is a stereotype, so be it.

As clearly demonstrated by Neustadt and May, Thinking in Time the development of accurate stereotypes can be helpful to good and quick decision making.

Anonymous LesbianDoritioNight June 17, 2012 8:34 AM  

how would you feel if I assumed you to be a domestic terrorist without actually knowing anything more about you? If I worked at your place of business, what would you think if I avoided you, actually avoided your entire locale and schedule, based solely on that?


I'd feel you couldn't defend your position without making errors.

Anonymous Jdub June 17, 2012 9:07 AM  

Recommending a course of action based on the race of an individual would fall into the first part of definition 1. The second part of the definition is inflammatory, not necessary and, based on the use of "usually", of questionable veracity. If the belief is rational, what's the problem? Vox pointed out the Sickle Cell example, there are others as well, black men develop and die from prostate cancer at higher rates than white men. Is using this information to develop preventive actions racist? If we are going to define Vox's Rape avoidance recommendation to Kate as racist, than yes this is as well. Is that "bad"? Is it only acceptable to utilize objective facts concerning groups when it benefits individuals in that group, but no one else?

Anonymous RedJack June 17, 2012 9:24 AM  

To paraphase Jim Butcher.

If you don't want to be eaten, don't look like food.

Also, if you don't want to be eaten, don't play with the bears.

Simple really. If you are worried about rape, advoid those situations where it becomes likly you will be raped. Don't go jogging at night in the bad part of town wearing next to nothing.

Men figure out quick that there are places and actions you don't do if you wish to avoid a fight. Some women wish to poke the bear in his den and not get eaten.

Blogger Bob June 17, 2012 9:32 AM  

Common sense sort of self-defence:

I heard a story about a pretty young thing waiting for the bus on a dark moonless night - sitting on the bench - who was approached by two men with rape on their mind.

While looking at them, she slowly pulled a booger out of her nose and proceeded to eat it.

It is said the action disgusted to two men so much they lost their desire to rape, turned around and left. leaving litlle miss all alone, all alone.

True or not, such a thing would most likely turn me off.

Blogger Vox June 17, 2012 9:32 AM  

Recommending a course of action based on the race of an individual would fall into the first part of definition 1.

Only if you consider rape to be "achievement". Since this isn't the Grand Theft Auto MMO, that's not correct. Furthermore, recommending a course of action based on statistical probabilities has no intrinsic connection to any beliefs about the connection between differences and actions. You're confusing the observable 'what' with the hypothetical 'why'.

Blogger Vox June 17, 2012 9:34 AM  

True or not, such a thing would most likely turn me off.

Cool story, brah. Admit it, you were one of the two guys, weren't you.

Blogger JACIII June 17, 2012 9:43 AM  

Bob thought balloon:
If she'll put that in her mouth she won't have any trouble with me putting this.....

Anonymous bob k. mando June 17, 2012 10:45 AM  

IF
women are equal or superior to men in every way

WHY
do women require the active participation and agreement of *men* in order to alleviate 'rape culture'.

doesn't the Equalitarian Viewpoint logically demand that 'Equalitarian Woman' be fully capable of her own self-defense and the actualization of her own desires?

Anonymous Hildebrandt June 17, 2012 10:47 AM  

In some European countries statistics by race is already forbidden because of charges of racism and racialization of society.

Soon it will probably happen in the US too.

....so be sure you save the statistics.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 17, 2012 11:12 AM  

Kel June 16, 2012 12:44 PM Notice how her second statement in that cartoon is "I'm not interested in feminism."


WRONG.

you misread that speech balloon. this is the text:
"No, I'm just interested in feminism and saddened by rape culture and misogyny."

therefore, the rest of your statement fails.



Shild June 16, 2012 5:27 PM Well? Do any such creatures exist?

errr, perhaps you missed that bit where the geneticists have claimed that SOME human racial lineages carry evidence of interbreeding with Neanderthals?

Blogger Huggums June 17, 2012 11:33 AM  

"We are simply not all equal. Not even potentially equal." - IM2L844

I think you're missing the point of my question. For instance, a chimp and an orangutan are both apes, but they're nothing alike. No one would say a chimp is less an ape than an orangutan. What set of attributes defines "human" and why would an uneven distribution of these certain traits mean that one group is less human or more human? I'm not arguing about group differences. I'm trying to make sense of what you mean by more or less human. Is the designation "human" or "ape" something that can be graded or is it more like a gate or something where anything above the threshhold voltage is "on" and anything below it is off? I've always thought of such designations as being discrete. Probably splitting hairs here though.

Blogger Huggums June 17, 2012 12:04 PM  

Nevermind. Saw the exchange with Shild.

Anonymous Hildebrandt June 17, 2012 12:33 PM  

I just recall that yes different species can breed. Maybe the reason you guys were forgetting it is because you never lived in the countryside. So here is the ultimate and clear proof different species breed:

- Mule:

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.[1] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two F1 hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny (the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey). While there is no known instance of a male mule siring offspring, female mules have on very rare occasion given birth to viable offspring.


Tarara! Give me the 1 million prize now.

Anonymous kawaika June 17, 2012 1:05 PM  

A rapey post and not one R Scott Bakker comment?

Bakker's creative raping seminar is most informative. I can't recommend it enough.

Anonymous Sweet Lassie June 17, 2012 1:31 PM  

I have done such things when a date or two got handys and I was way overmatched physically. Farting works best. No way to prevent rape my sweet Irish ass!

Blogger Vox June 17, 2012 2:08 PM  

No one would say a chimp is less an ape than an orangutan. What set of attributes defines "human" and why would an uneven distribution of these certain traits mean that one group is less human or more human?

True, but if "human" is utilized as a term as broad as "ape", then that also blows the basic concept of "human equality" away. You might as well declare "primate equality" and permit chimpanzees to vote. I tend to define human as "homo sapiens sapiens", as has long been the custom right up until it was learned everyone isn't pure homo sapiens sapiens.

Rob Zombie was a prophet. More human than human....

Anonymous The Great Martini June 17, 2012 4:37 PM  


But quite clearly you do. You would prefer that thousands of women experience rape every year instead of seeing them behave in a manner you erroneously regard as racist. You oppose advice being provided to women even though following it would undeniably reduce a woman's chance of rape between 33 and 80 percent. Your position is conclusively pro-rape and therefore misogynous. How can you possibly argue that reducing a woman's risk of rape by 80 percent is "horrible advice"?


Your advice is racist by definition, and getting you to realize just that would be a mini triumph. The widespread confusion on this matter is exactly why Derbyshire made his fateful misstep. But here are some specific things wrong with it:

It has the potential to alienate both friends and family, sources of people who can protect women in their daily lives.

Because it's a racist profile, it suffers all the drawbacks of other types of profiling. Focusing only on a rule instead of the entire range of information available to a woman has the potential to leave her open to rapists who don't fit the profile.

Anonymous kh123 June 17, 2012 5:04 PM  

How then does one determine the Homo sapiens sapiens target, absent Adam/Eve or a litany of living evolutionary Australopithecus-to-Neanderthal ancestors to test. How much difference quantifies species classification.

Found this quote:

"[T]here isn’t a yardstick for genetic difference upon which you can define a species."
-Kahn, P. and Gibbons, A., 1997. DNA From an extinct human. Science, 277

Given the above was over a decade ago, is this simply outdated research; their PC sensibilities shining through; their desire for the Out-Of-Africa hypothesis to be true; or is it a valid statement based on genetic and anthropological research? It is, after all, cut from the same cloth as any of the other bits of science that apparently support the "not all humans are human" assertion.

Anonymous VD June 17, 2012 6:51 PM  

Your advice is racist by definition, and getting you to realize just that would be a mini triumph.

What is this definition of racism you are using, since it clearly doesn't fit the dictionary definitions? Do share with us your definition of racism. You can't seem to get through your head that acknowledging racial differences is not intrinsically racist.

Blogger Ken June 17, 2012 7:01 PM  

The Great Martini,

Your argument amounts to something like this:

Vox notes that for a woman to get pregnant she has to have sex with a man.

Vox recommends that for a woman to dramatically reduce her chances of getting pregnant that woman not have sex with men.

You call Vox sexist for suggesting that men should be avoided in sexual situation in order to reduce the chances of getting pregnant.

Vox rightly points out this idiocy, then you claim that his advice is by definition racist. Since you have so far failed to provide a definition of racist and have failed to show how what Vox has said fits at all into any of the three definitions of racist that he gave at 6:25am, then you have provided a classic fallacy of proof by assertion. What has Vox said that fits your definition (which you must supply) or the definition Vox gave?

Anonymous physphilmusic June 17, 2012 8:00 PM  

Great job with the Great Martini, Vox. This has been an exemplary demonstration of the absurdity of having the conjunction of beliefs commonly trumpeted by the Left-liberals. It is simply impossible (practically, and perhaps even logically) to simultaneously believe that misogyny, racism, and "intolerance" are all forbidden without exception, while "equality" and science-reason must be extolled at all costs. And the Great Martini isn't even a caricature or an extreme liberal; some liberals would start vomiting their scare words once you cite any other statistic than "1 in 4 women are raped".

Anonymous physphilmusic June 17, 2012 8:07 PM  

That being said, I think our attitude towards blacks/Hispanics/any other group of people revealed negatively by statistics should be to give a chance to the individual person in question rather than acting purely based on inferences drawn from statistical probability. While it is true that avoiding all blacks will lower your chances of getting robbed/murdered/raped, I give a fair chance to those individual blacks who seem perfectly fine. Of course there is always still an undeniable element of fear and doubt underneath, but I feel it unfair if you absolutely refuse to meet or talk to any black people because of self-interest based on statistics.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 18, 2012 12:22 AM  

A good definition is the fist line of the Wikipedia page on Racism: "Racism is behavior motivated by racial stereotypes, often disciminatory or hurtful in nature." This is exactly what you're doing, or at least suggesting as a course of action. It doesn't even matter how accurate or not the stereotype happens to be, which is one of the things that throws a lot of people burned by racism. Many of the stereotypes actually are accurate, but that's irrelevant to the charge of racism. Those like you and Derbyshire, so eager to broadcast your precious statistical insights never realize that the floor is about to drop out from under you. The statistics don't matter. You've already made the error of racist generalization.

Maybe you need to talk to someone you respect who isn't crazy, if you know anyone. I'm obviously not making any headway.

Anonymous bw June 18, 2012 1:22 AM  

never realize that the floor is about to drop out from under you

This is fascinating.
Question: what, SPECIFICALLY, is about to happen, as it relates to "race realizations" and "dropping floors"??

As for "Kate", Predators know their prey.
That the Prey have freely chosen to be such - and then bitch about it like pscyhologically damaged perpetual children who deem themselves more "moral" than those who choose otherwise - is, well, their own choice.
And far less moral, on the Justice scale.

Of course, it definitely IS justice according to their own metric.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 18, 2012 1:22 AM  

Great Martini. We think you are crazy.

You know why?

Because you will never consider anything that will help women effectively reduce the chances of getting raped because you are afraid of being labeled a racist.

You are an emotionally driven leftist who simply would not comprehend the logical ramifications of your fear.

Anonymous Luke June 18, 2012 1:40 AM  

The not-so-great-martini (drinker) said:

"A good definition is the fist line of the Wikipedia page on Racism: "Racism is behavior motivated by racial stereotypes, often disciminatory or hurtful in nature.""

Oh, like affirmative action laws and policies? Like "hate crime" laws that only whites can be penalized under, when most interracial crime is against whites? Like those, libtard?

Anonymous VD June 18, 2012 2:51 AM  

"Racism is behavior motivated by racial stereotypes, often disciminatory or hurtful in nature."

So, by your definition, studying sickle cell anemia in blacks is racist, correct? And modifying the firefighter tests because insufficient blacks passed the old one is racist? And the Rooney Rule is also racist? To say nothing of the Israeli law deporting Africans....

Those like you and Derbyshire, so eager to broadcast your precious statistical insights never realize that the floor is about to drop out from under you.

Ah, the floor is going to drop out... is Rich Lowry going to fire me too? Or are you suggesting that I'm going to fire myself from the blog? As it happens, I can't even seem to get you to go away no matter how often I point out that you're both an ignoramus and an idiot.

Anonymous VD June 18, 2012 3:59 AM  

This sounds familiar: "At first, like I said, my job was “meme-patrol.” This was pretty simple and repetitive; it involved countering memes and introducing new memes, and didn’t demand much in-depth knowledge of the subject. Mostly just repetitive posting based on the dialogue pairs in the “Strat” section of the first binder. A lot of my job was de-railing and spamming threads that didn’t go our way, or making accusations of racism and anti-Semitism."

Doing a little meme-patrol, are you, The Great Martini? Out of curiosity, how much are you paid for this sort of thing?

Anonymous The Great Martini June 18, 2012 5:39 AM  


So, by your definition, studying sickle cell anemia in blacks is racist, correct? And modifying the firefighter tests because insufficient blacks passed the old one is racist? And the Rooney Rule is also racist? To say nothing of the Israeli law deporting Africans....


Sickle cell anemia is a racial stereotype? News to me. I guess you could consider affirmative action based on a racial stereotype, that is, blacks as historically underprivileged. I don't know much about the Israeli deportation law, but it could definitely be racist.


Or are you suggesting that I'm going to fire myself from the blog?


No, more than likely you're quite safe, as WND tolerates a certain amount of implied racism, as does Taki, of course. It wasn't Taki that fired Derbyshire (or discontinued him, according to Derbyshire's face saving version). Even for WND though, it's possible there's a line you could step across.


Doing a little meme-patrol, are you, The Great Martini? Out of curiosity, how much are you paid for this sort of thing?


I'm not being paid by anyone. You don't seem to be used to conversing about these thing with someone who disagrees with you, but since we don't seem to be able to resolve this thing together, how about pushing it to a third party? I'll let you suggest who that might be, but if we can agree on a relatively unbiased outside party, I'm willing to abide by the decision. The question being, whether your advice to avoid rape by avoiding blacks and Hispanics is or is not a racist suggestion.

One possibility: John Derbyshire himself! He seems to be free enough from self deceit to actually admit that some of his pronouncements are racist, or "racism light."

Anonymous LOLurker June 18, 2012 6:11 AM  

"You don't seem to be used to conversing about these thing with someone who disagrees with you.." - TGM

Now THAT is funny!

Anonymous they be rapin' everybody June 18, 2012 7:22 AM  

"Racism is behavior motivated by racial stereotypes, often disciminatory or hurtful in nature."

"It doesn't even matter how accurate or not the stereotype happens to be, which is one of the things that throws a lot of people burned by racism."

Like white slave-owners and black slaves?

"Those like you and Derbyshire, so eager to broadcast your precious statistical insights never realize that the floor is about to drop out from under you. "

Much better than their brains dropping out.

"This is racist, since it tars all blacks and Hispanics as rapists. Reasons and statistics don't make it less racist. I could, for instance, recommend the avoidance of men in general, which would be even more effective preemption of rape, but knowing that doesn't make it less misandrist."

First, it doesn't tar all blacks and Hispanis as rapists.
Secondly, your recommendation is sexist, and to carry out your logic further(that this recommendation is motivated by hatred of men), is misanthropic. (let's leave out animals here)
Feminists would slam such recommendation as misogynistic since it obviously puts the concerned woman out of many public areas and it's down the slippery slope of blaming the victim.

Thirdly, the possibility of self-rape is not statistically zero.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 18, 2012 7:43 AM  


First, it doesn't tar all blacks and Hispanis as rapists.
Secondly, your recommendation is sexist, and to carry out your logic further(that this recommendation is motivated by hatred of men), is misanthropic. (let's leave out animals here)
Feminists would slam such recommendation as misogynistic since it obviously puts the concerned woman out of many public areas and it's down the slippery slope of blaming the victim.


Yes, it does, since it's a general guideline based on race alone. That is what makes it racist.

I don't see you point re: misanthropy. Avoiding all men to avoid rape is misandrist in the same way as avoiding blacks and Hispanics to avoid rape is racist.

As for your point about misogyny: exactly! This is exactly why the racist and misandrist recommendations are entirely flawed. You are recommending women follow stupid platitudes to protect themselves instead of the full range of information and intelligence available to them. The funny thing is you guys appear to understand in principle why your argument is fatally flawed, but you don't seem able to make that final step to actually reject it.

Anonymous VD June 18, 2012 8:51 AM  

Yes, it does, since it's a general guideline based on race alone. That is what makes it racist.

That's not racist. By definition. It doesn't matter how many times you stupidly insist that it is. But your position is clearly pro-rape, since you clearly believe that 30 to 80 percent more rape is to be preferred to imaginary racism.

You appear to believe that is is better for women to be raped than for them to risk the appearance of racism. So tell us, which is worse, the use of a general guideline based on race or the experience of being raped?

Blogger Ken June 18, 2012 9:14 AM  

The Great Martini,

The statistics don't matter.

Excellent! Don't act on statistics if those statistics come crashing headlong against a PC outlook on life right? This is the very definition of politically correct. Ha!

Anonymous Gx1080 June 18, 2012 10:21 AM  

Women who have echo chambers on the Internet where white knights kiss their fat asses tend to be crazy.

Also, people who say "trigger warning" tend to be assholes.

Anonymous Stilicho June 18, 2012 10:53 AM  

Many of the stereotypes actually are accurate, but that's irrelevant to the charge of racism.

Isn't that just precious: whatever you do, do not take action based upon accurate information!

The stupid, it burns!

Anonymous they be rapin' everybody with martini June 18, 2012 3:49 PM  

"Yes, it does, since it's a general guideline based on race alone."

Again, it doesn't tar them all as rapists. Since you used that to make your racism charge instead of your now 'general guideline' weaseling, you fail.

"I don't see you point re: misanthropy."

Lesbian rape exists.

"As for your point about misogyny: exactly! This is exactly why the racist and misandrist recommendations are entirely flawed. "

If anything's flawed here it's your reasoning. You have not even shown how and what is racist, let aside how they lead to "entirely flawed arguments".

Secondly, you won't see feminists crying about misogyny because women's sports are based on an accurate stereotype.
It's 'exactly' why you have white slave-owners in history books, but 'youths' popping up every other day in media.

"The funny thing is you guys appear to understand in principle why your argument is fatally flawed, but you don't seem able to make that final step to actually reject it."

Again, even if the argument is racist, it's not flawed.
And it's your principle, not my guiding light, though you can't even follow it properly. Not surprising really, since neither do your teachers.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 18, 2012 6:09 PM  

Martini there seems to think he can refute an argument by calling names and threatening social censure.
I notice you don't actually try to prove Vox's facts to be incorrect - you just moralize at him.

Blogger Justthisguy June 18, 2012 7:05 PM  

The guy who blogs as "Phi" (the greek letter) at Delenda est Carthago had this to say, in a comment on one of his own posts:

"But there are features of reality that make the world an ugly place, especially for women, and that ugliness is kept at bay by two forces:

-- the moral precepts of the Christian religion, and

-- white men with guns."

Anonymous The Great Martini June 19, 2012 1:23 AM  


You appear to believe that is is better for women to be raped than for them to risk the appearance of racism. So tell us, which is worse, the use of a general guideline based on race or the experience of being raped?


What I believe is that women have the resources to keep themselves safe without becoming racists and also that you haven't provided a shred of evidence that your profiling-based method would even be effective. This is essentially the same as asserting that if we can just exclude Muslim terrorists from our airplanes, none of them will be blown up, without providing any method for using such a rule, possible circumvention of such a rule, how non-Muslim terrorists will exploit such a rule, etc.

You can start by explaining how this is going to help a black woman, whose friends and family are black, perhaps exclusively black. Would you recommended that these women severe all ties and associate only with whites?

I suspect what is really going on here is that you don't trust women to have enough intelligence to protect themselves, so you look at the numbers and decide you're going to craft a dumb (as in lacking intrinsic intelligence, as in "dumb computer terminal") rule. So you're creating a program for these odd things called women to follow, and supposedly it's going to keep them safe. It ain't. Because women are not automatons. They have brains, they think, they make judgments. Racist rules are inherently dumb rules.

So what's going to happen is Mary, first day of college is going to spurn Bob, an upstanding black man, because he's black, who might have protected her when Chuck, a white guy, rapes her. Had she actually used her good senses, before they were undermined by your bad rule, she would have navigated the situation without an assault. You really believe a rule is going to protect women? That's a little like having faith in dead reckoning for ten thousand miles.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 19, 2012 1:36 AM  


Martini there seems to think he can refute an argument by calling names and threatening social censure.
I notice you don't actually try to prove Vox's facts to be incorrect - you just moralize at him.


Part of this is a moral point, or a labeling point. It appears to be a moral point because Vox still doesn't like being called a racist, even when it's patently obvious that he's playing with racist ideas. As the old saying goes, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Vox's rule is racist! Just look at the damn thing. So he doesn't like being a called racist. Forcing him to think differently is well beyond my powers.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 19, 2012 2:11 AM  

You can start by explaining how this is going to help a black woman, whose friends and family are black, perhaps exclusively black. Would you recommended that these women severe all ties and associate only with whites?

I dunno. What would you suggest to a black woman in Congo to avoid getting raped by *gasp* black men in Congo?

Anonymous Bobo June 19, 2012 3:50 AM  

Martini,

These are only general guidelines. Your imaginary Mary need not spurn her black boyfriend, but she should be aware that certain situations - such as interacting with certain people and/or in certain situations can increase her risk of being raped, based on pure statistical analysis. She may have strong reason to trust her black boyfriend and those would for any sensible person override any general guidelines.

This is pretty much what most mothers have been telling their daughters for ages: don't mix with the wrong crowd. There's no racism there. It's looking at the stats and working from there, no matter where that leads, irrespective of how some people may perceive it.

I'm surprised you still don't see this.

It's sensible to avoid behaviours which may lead to increased risk of being attacked especially if those attacks are unprovoked. It's certainly not blaming the victim. Take driving for instance, you would surely agree it's sensible to avoid driving on Friday nights when the number of ILLEGAL drunken drivers increases if one can. It's not justifying the DUI drivers and putting the blame on the sober sensible driver, but it is a sensible thing to do to reduce the risk of death or serious injury.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 19, 2012 3:52 AM  

Why stop at Congo? Maybe women should avoid men in all countries with predominantly black people. I don't see any problem at all.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 19, 2012 3:53 AM  

I even have a good name for it. We could call it the "final solution." It has a nice ring to it.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 19, 2012 4:02 AM  

Maybe women should avoid men in all countries with predominantly black people.

Smartest thing you ever posted so far. Kudos!

Anonymous The Great Martini June 19, 2012 4:13 AM  


These are only general guidelines.


It's a general guideline that would prevent her from ever getting to know or trust a black man, which serves to preempt any other specific knowledge. That's one of the reasons it's a bad rule.


There's no racism there. It's looking at the stats and working from there, no matter where that leads, irrespective of how some people may perceive it.


The "working from there" part moves you further away from blatant racism. Racism always has application at the individual level, even though it's based in general stereotypes. Blacks are dirty, so every black person will be forced to drink at a separate fountain. Blacks are dangerous, so if there's a black man living across the hall, I will avoid him, etc.

I don't consider it racist to not drive through Oakland at 1:00 in the morning, knowing what I do about crime there, even though the neighborhoods are predominantly black. For one thing, I'm not actually designating a group. There may be an implied group, but that's an added piece of information that needn't affect my decision. Second, I'm not applying any stereotype at an individual level. Now let's make things more difficult. What if I had no knowledge of crime rate in Oakland, just that many blacks lived there, and I know crime is higher in black neighborhoods. Is my decision still not racist? In my opinion, it's more racist than if I based my knowledge on specific crime data, but less racist than the dorm example because it's not applied at an individual level.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 19, 2012 4:25 AM  

The Great Martini June 19, 2012 1:36 AM
Part of this is a moral point, or a labeling point. It appears to be a moral point because Vox still doesn't like being called a racist, even when it's patently obvious that he's playing with racist ideas. As the old saying goes, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Vox's rule is racist! Just look at the damn thing. So he doesn't like being a called racist. Forcing him to think differently is well beyond my powers.


But you wish you could.
Anyway, your approach boils down to telling him he's playing with forbidden ideas. And that's not going to work, because Vox rejects the premise that people like you get to tell him what he's allowed to think.
And so do I. :-)

Anonymous The Great Martini June 19, 2012 4:46 AM  


Anyway, your approach boils down to telling him he's playing with forbidden ideas. And that's not going to work, because Vox rejects the premise that people like you get to tell him what he's allowed to think.


He's said it and hasn't turned into a toad. Trust me, there's nothing new in what he says or thinks. It's all been said before, and it was as wrong then as it is now.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 19, 2012 5:35 AM  

The Great Martini June 19, 2012 4:46 AM
He's said it and hasn't turned into a toad. Trust me, there's nothing new in what he says or thinks. It's all been said before, and it was as wrong then as it is now.


Two direct questions for you, Mr Big Drink:

What do you mean by "wrong"?
Why do you consider what he says to be wrong?

Blogger Vox June 19, 2012 6:06 AM  

It appears to be a moral point because Vox still doesn't like being called a racist, even when it's patently obvious that he's playing with racist ideas.

You're completely wrong again. I don't mind being called racist at all. It is merely a term that is used in an attempt to shut down discourse by those who can't defend their ideas effectively. That's why I mock it so openly as "raciss".

Now stop avoiding the question I asked you. You're being evasive, which is not permitted here. Which is worse, the use of a general guideline based on race or the experience of being raped?

Answer it before you comment again.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 19, 2012 6:24 AM  

Being raped is definitely worse. It's also worse than eating shrimp with tobasco sauce, but that probably doesn't mean very much. No, in fact, I'm sure it doesn't mean very much. Now, what about offering your proposal to a third party for an independent opinion. Surely, you're not afraid of taking this off-campus. Or, now that you've embraced racism, are you willing to call it such?


What do you mean by "wrong"?
Why do you consider what he says to be wrong?


It is morally wrong because racism is morally wrong, although that is obviously contested.

It's the same answer. It is also wrong granted that it is a racist rule, or at least it is probable that it is wrong for the reasons I've cited (the drawbacks to profiling) He has also provided no evidence at all that his rule would work or ever has worked.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 19, 2012 9:29 AM  

For a 3rd-party opinion, how about we ask someone from Finland?

Blogger SarahsDaughter June 19, 2012 10:24 AM  

"He has also provided no evidence at all that his rule would work or ever has worked." - The Great Martini

Works for me. I have not been raped. I profile and discriminate every time I leave the house.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 19, 2012 10:25 AM  

Now, what about offering your proposal to a third party for an independent opinion.

How does a 3rd party independent OPINION changes the logic of the general rule?

Anonymous physphilmusic June 19, 2012 5:48 PM  

It's a general guideline that would prevent her from ever getting to know or trust a black man, which serves to preempt any other specific knowledge. That's one of the reasons it's a bad rule.

Now this is the part where YOUR projection concerning conservatives and "racist" people, specifically conservative women, begins. You accuse Vox of thinking of women as children unable to exercise individual discernment, and yet you also imagine women who accept Vox's recommendation(s) to be so child-like that they are unable to think for themselves outside of what Vox is telling them to do. It's utterly ridiculous to think that these women will immediately trust all non-black men as "safe" men to be around with. I don't even think that Vox's recommendation implies that women must literally run away from every single black man they encounter in real life without exception.

On the contrary, what Vox's recommendation effectively results in is that women should generally avoid black men in completely uncontrolled, public situations (such as in the streets), and still retain a measure of cautiousness when dealing with black men in other situations.
Perhaps that would mean "missing out" on acquaintance with some good black men, but would you prioritize that over significantly lowering the risk of being raped? Why would you?

It is morally wrong because racism is morally wrong, although that is obviously contested.

I have never seen liberals give an adequate and full explanation of why they consider certain isms to be morally wrong, especially since they consider such a wide swath of human behavior to be under the umbrella of those isms (and hence not permissible).

Anonymous kawaika June 19, 2012 7:16 PM  

Speaking of the Congo...

A friend from the Congo told me about how he knew a guy who would stay out late and when he walked home at night (pitch black, no street lights) he would alternately smoke 2 cigarettes so that he could trick people lying in wait for nefarious purposes into thinking that there were actually 2 people instead of just 1.

He also told me about how he liked to go watch soccer matches, but in some places the fans were quite unruly as they liked to physically help their team win. Sometimes the fans would try to use magic to help their teams. There was one match my friend really wanted to see, but he was warned that there was bad magic in that area so he stayed away. The match turned into a melee.

And so it seems that there are precautions one can take--even in the Congo. Who knew?

Blogger Matt June 25, 2012 2:37 AM  

A very interesting discussion.

I would add, concerning the racist discussion that branched off at least, that both sides tend to be ignoring other aspects.

Blacks and Hispanics tend to be poorer, less educated and come from less stable households. One could argue this is because of race, or because of past inequality legally still not yet overcome. Would not these other attributes play a part in why the percentage of rapes are more committed by them? I wonder, does someone have any data concerning rape and financial background of victim and commiter? Or educational background? How about family history?

If you want to try to set up rules based on statistics, why not look into it deeper then the shallowness of race. And why ignore the history of the race affecting these other aspects that could in turn affect rape? If there is a strong tie of financial background and rapists, and race and rapists, and there is a well know tie of race and financial background, would that not then suggest it was background and not race as the true underlying cause?

If looking into this, make sure to stick to correct comparisons. If one is about violent rape, make sure the other is too. This could be a very interesting result.


As for the different genetically between races based on interbreeding between subsets of homosapien precursors, well, there is an aspect of a genetic bucket chain effect that expresses the idea that, even if it was bound to regional areas to certain subsets of humans, there was still a spread of the genetic markers from them back to the origin point of the species and out again. Thus pointing to the regions people came from is not without it's pitfalls, as you can find some perceived region based genetic markers spread elsewhere. Humans are humans, can interbreed without worry of sterilization the way separate species such as tigers/lions or even to a lesser extent dogs/wolves can, and have a history of interbreeding. Isn't there something about how 5% of all people are related to Genghis Kahn or something? That isn't exactly limited to the region I believe.

Anonymous Brill September 02, 2012 9:28 AM  

"Here Kate is expressly denying that others have the right to free speech..."

I...what? That's not how free speech works. She is not "denying" your right to say whatever you want about it. She's just saying that she's going to ignore it. That's how free speech works--anybody can say whatever they want, and other people are free to listen, agree, debate, disagree, or whatever they see fit.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts