Ok, I give up. I don’t understand what you’re saying.
This exchange between us inspired me to write this. Thank you.
So now you’re not content with just spaming the forum with right wing talking points (alarmingly, several of them now down playing rape), you also respond to opposing views with cheap insults against both the opposition and Ayn Rand.
This is not the first disparaging comment about Miss Rand or Objectivism. In “The Liberty Movement Isn’t” (subject of his first post, no longer directly linked) he states: Objectivists denouncing everyone - especially themselves – over who is the purist heir to kingdom of Ayn Rand.
To me, it comes across as rude.
I owe you an apology, Nicky.
I launched a new liberty-oriented blog today. It is viewable at the following address:
www.thenewversailles.wordpress.com
The site will focus on what can be done in light of declining liberty in America and identifying the forces causing the decline. My hope is that it will complement other sites such as OO, and that I can direct traffic here as appropriate. Please feel free to visit and leave comments.
I’m thinking that Robert is simply hoping to direct as much traffic, to his blog by using the popularity of Objectivism Online as a springboard, to his blog rather than vice versa.
Dream Weaver - If something is objectively true, is it disparaging to point it out? Are you not aware that the history of the Objectivist philosophy is dominated by warring factions, schisms, endless arguments over purity, and denunciations by strong personalities of other strong personalities? Amd that all of this continues to this day? Rand, the Brandens, Peikoff, Brook, Kelly, the ARI, TAS, the warring blogs RoR, OL, SOLO-P, and many others, etc. etc. It’s a history of intra-movement hatred, resentment, and conflict. Does it make me a disparager of Rand to point out that maybe everyone should just… you know… stop?
I’m wondering why you are focusing on attacking me, in light of the many OO discussions I have generated, and not attacking the other Objectivist writers and podcasters who post conspicuously Reblogged articles and essays on OO without even participating in the discussions as I do.
I’m very heavily leaning towards Nicky’s point of view in this so far. I’ve been to women’s houses late into the evening, past 12 AM, to hang out, have tea, and talk and have fun. Never did I assume that sex was involved - and in most cases it wasn’t involved.
I think a relevant question here is this: if a guy invited you up to his house at 12 AM, you being a guy as well, for coffee or a drink, would you assume he wanted sex? If no, then why not? Why is it different for a woman? In all honesty, I treat my male friends no different from my female friends. Perhaps this is an astounding attitude or something, but it has always seemed fairly reasonable to me. If a male friend asked me into his house late into the night, he’d be pretty freaked out if I started coming onto him sexually - even given that I’m bisexual and he knows it.
Where I come from, being invited into someone’s house late in the evening for coffee, or any other kind of beverage, does not consistute an invitation for sex. All it means is the person likes hanging out and would like to continue doing so. The fact that there’s a lot of question here as to whether or not what she did could be interpreted as an invitation means that there should have been an explicit question from the guy for consent before beginning, and that he should have listened when she said no.
Edit: Also, are you fucking serious with this? “(there are two sides to every story and we only have one here, but we’ll assume she reported accurately for our purposes).”
You didn’t contribute a single damn thing to your post by including that. You’re saying that we should assume she’s not lying. But why would you include that in parentheses if that’s what you were assuming? The ONLY reason that that parenthetical is necessary is to imply to the reader that the woman in this case is lying, which is a really shitty thing to do. It contributes nothing else to your article whatsoever.
Ludicious - Like Nicky, you are ignoring the important context in which the invitation occurred. Of course if you have a longstanding nonsexual friendship with someone then that context will control reasonable expectations. If the invitation occurs at the end of a date bar hopping, however, then it’s likely the man is trying to initiate a sexual encounter and the woman should understand that subtext.
I included the parenthetical for exactly the reason I stated. We can assume the woman’s account is true for our discussion purposes, but at the same time, it’s important to keep in mind that this is only one side of the story. That doesn’t mean the woman is a liar. People interpret and recall events differently; they emphasize different things. If we only looked at the plaintiff’s case, every trial would come out against the defendant. I doubt the man involved would have written the article the same way as the woman did, so we should refrain from condemning him until we hear his side of the events - that’s all I was saying.
If the invitation occurs at the end of a date bar hopping, however, then it’s likely the man is trying to initiate a sexual encounter and the woman should understand that subtext.
Is it not possible that to most people, it really isn’t a sign of wanting sex? As much as you insist that this is just normal, there hasn’t been reasonable evidence that it is a widespread norm. Urban dictionary is only evidence of its existence somewhere, not everywhere.
Like Nicky, you are ignoring the important context in which the invitation occurred. Of course if you have a longstanding nonsexual friendship with someone then that context will control reasonable expectations. If the invitation occurs at the end of a date bar hopping, however, then it’s likely the man is trying to initiate a sexual encounter and the woman should understand that subtext.
Except that you’re only assuming that that subtext exists. I’ve been in similar situations on several occasions - women have invited me to their house late in the evening without me knowing them incredibly well, us having recently met. It usually means that they want to hang out and spend more time together together. It MIGHT be interpreted as being interested in something more, but without any explicit evidence of that, it’s not a good assumption to make.
In any case, this seems to be a subtext that obviously exists… to you. And didn’t obviously exist to the woman involved, or to me, or perhaps to Eiuol or Nicky.
Eiuol - As already explained, I’m not sure what you would accept as proof of a widespread social norm. You don’t accept references in popular entertainment. You don’t accept online memes. You don’t accept Wikipedia or a cultural dictionary maintained by thousands of users. Lacking the ability to conduct a society-wide poll, I’m pretty sure nothing I could reasonably present would convince you. Please feel free to correct me on that point.
Perhaps it’s best to begin with Socrates: “No one intentionally missed the mark (adika)”.
No one, therefore, blames the victim, as this statement is merely a rhetorical gesture, a poisioning of the well, as it were.
Rather, there are various degrees and ways of understanding victimhood. To this end, I would agree with Ludi’s story that sexual language, by its nature, is ambiguous. This is because in many real circumstances the sentiment itself of desiring sex is… ambiguous. Messages, then, are apt to be misunderstood.
To this end, many college campuses have adopted a “If not definately yes, then no” policy in which the burden of proof (illegally?) falls upon the male. For example, if he admits that he was taking advantage of her ‘maybe-language’ , then it’s rape.
The definition of rape is therefore stretched beyond ‘involuntary’ to desigate ‘not explicitally permissive’; it’s moreover done under the proviso that colleges act ‘in loco parentis’. Now speaking as someone with two college-grad daughters who now both teach and give female counseling on campuses, that’s fine with me.
In passing, none of this has anything to do with the sexist subtext that says, “She was really asking for it” This is nothing but the toxic rhetorical obverse to "victim blaming’. I contend that taken together, these statements form a polemical cloud that obscures the possibility of seeing reality.
That’s why, lastly, the issue frequently comes doown to forensics: is there evidence of trauma? This is ostensibly why college clinics run late hours. In counseling the incoming freshmen with their ‘standard’ boy/girl speech. , my two offer printed directions as to where this is located…
I realize Objectivists aren’t known for being the most socially perceptive people (it appears the Sheldon character on Big Bang Theory isn’t such a caricature after all)
That’s actually valid.
Ambiguity serves an important function here as a safe means of testing waters, affording each party the opportunity to save face through plausible deniability in the event of being rejected. But with ambiguity also comes the risk of unpleasant misunderstandings; it’s a double-edged sword to wield to be sure.
That isn’t. If I understand correctly, the issue here is one of implicit consent; even though she said ‘no’ she really seemed to mean ‘yes’ and you would hold her accountable for that. I wouldn’t.
The thing about implicit consent, or sanctions, is that they aren’t always intentional (even when you correctly deduce their existence).
Suppose, for example, that she did have some sense of that man’s intentions and reciprocated them on some level (which seems likely), but not a conscious level.
We all understand what that’s like; people make Freudian slips all the time. And if you accidentally referred to some woman as your “breast” friend then she would likely be correct to infer that you had been thinking about her breasts. . . But would you consider it fair if she took that as an implicit proposition and decided to break into your house, several nights later, on that basis?
The thing about consent is that it must be given deliberately, which also means explicitly.
Do Not:
Ask a woman to go upstairs to have sex with you.
Reason:
This makes the woman feel like a prostitute and shows you lack critical social skills and awareness.
Unless, of course, you find a woman who doesn’t force you to play those stupid games. 
If the man in your story had simply said much earlier that night “I would like to make sweet love to you” then she may well have taken offense, but what if she didn’t? What if she replied with an explicit reciprocation?
And if she was offended by his advances then would she really be worth them, anyway?
1 Like
Women should protect themselves from rape by being clear about their intentions. Men should protect themselves from rape charges by doing exactly the same.
In today’s society that is the only alternative to such double-edged ambiguity. . . but it does not permit anyone to save face.
You cannot have it both ways.
Eiuol - As already explained, I’m not sure what you would accept as proof of a widespread social norm. You don’t accept references in popular entertainment. You don’t accept online memes. You don’t accept Wikipedia or a cultural dictionary maintained by thousands of users. Lacking the ability to conduct a society-wide poll, I’m pretty sure nothing I could reasonably present would convince you. Please feel free to correct me on that point.
Entertainment is never evidence of how the real world works, especially comedy. Online memes are the same. Wikipedia you didn’t give as evidence, or I missed it. Urban dictionary only tells you the existence of a euphemism especially for comedy, but not that it’s a near-universal signal of American culture. Short of a poll, you might as well be making it up, as in there’s no way to judge if you’re right or wrong. Evidence at least worth something is anecdotal evidence. If you make a claim that is questioned, back it up by some source, especially since you’re making a specific claim about norms. Even some event you know of to illustrate that it’s more than some personal fantasy that you wish more people would follow.
Dream Weaver - If something is objectively true, is it disparaging to point it out?
No, Robert, if something is objectively true, it would not be disparaging to point it out.
Are you not aware that the history of the Objectivist philosophy is dominated by warring factions, schisms, endless arguments over purity, and denunciations by strong personalities of other strong personalities?
I am aware that the history of what is called the Objectivist movement has had several factions and schisms. There may be ongoing arguments over purity – although I am not really aware of any that take place on OO. Ones that come to mind are when Brandon and Kelly broke off back in the 90’s. The latest being the dismissal of McCaskey from ARI. I would hardly qualify McCaskey as a schism, although a few individuals may have used the incident to justify their own leanings.
Most of this view comes from the vantage point that there is an Official Doctrine of Objectivism. A dogma, if you will, headed up by a charismatic leader that sways people by using a bow to play their emotional heartstrings.
Part of it comes from the same source you are ineffectually trying to use to ground your the meaning of coffee. Objectivists denouncing everyone - especially themselves – over who is the purist heir to kingdom of Ayn Rand. This may be a popular view in the world, but being a popular view is hardly adhering to the process of that leads to de facto discovery of being objectively true. It is by the merits of their sound presentations that Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger and many others that have made themselves into the “strong personalities” that the court of public opinion would like to relate their success and pin their hopes of failure to.
Amd that all of this continues to this day? Rand, the Brandens, Peikoff, Brook, Kelly, the ARI, TAS, the warring blogs RoR, OL, SOLO-P, and many others, etc. etc. It’s a history of intra-movement hatred, resentment, and conflict. Does it make me a disparager of Rand to point out that maybe everyone should just… you know… stop?
A quick check of the forum rules indicates the expectation of respect for Ayn Rand and Objectivism, specifically mentioning Ayn Rand, the philosophy of Objectivism and the Ayn Rand Institute, making it as crystal clear as possible to anyone familiar with the others you mention of the stance aligned with here.
I’m wondering why you are focusing on attacking me, in light of the many OO discussions I have generated, and not attacking the other Objectivist writers and podcasters who post conspicuously Reblogged articles and essays on OO without even participating in the discussions as I do.
A few of the other writers do participate. Jason Stotts has responded to many posts. Lately, I’ve not seen too many responses from OO members to know if he still persists in that capacity or not. Yes, you have provided plenty of fuel - igniting a few firestorms of discussion here. A forum without posts wouldn’t be much of a forum. Thank-you.
Take a moment to distinguish between the person writing, and the writing itself. Once you’ve posted the article, it is the article that is seen and responded to. A disagreement with a point in an article is an opportunity to learn and or teach. If the point is objectively incorrect, and you wrote it, and you introspect and find yourself holding that idea – if you are willing to change it, you’ve learned. If the point is objectively correct, and you wrote it, - take the opportunity to review what you wrote relative to the disagreement. When you address the question, if you arrive at an agreement, you’ve taught. What did you say to arrange the agreement? Was that missing from the original writing? Could the original writing have been reworded in such a way as to advert the disagreement?
In general, it is disagreement that generates the discussions. A well-written piece may solicit a comment to that effect. It is what you do with the disagreement that matters. Do you become defensive about it, or do you use it as an opportunity to learn or to teach when the opportunities present themselves? Viewing a disagreeable response as an attack is a rather defensive posture.
Edited: Added
Harrison - You aren’t making a critical distinction, which is that consent isn’t necessary if there is a reasonable appearance of consent. This is true for contracts as well - if a reasonable seller could interpret a person’s actions as a request to purchase an order, the transaction is valid even if the person didn’t actually mean to buy. This is true because the buyer is legally responsible for the reasonable assumptions people make in response to his actions. I said it earlier - it is your responsibility to be aware of and control the signals you send.
Dream Weaver - What puzzles me is why you are piling on with Nicky to accuse me of exploiting OO for page views when you do not level this accusation against Gus Van Horn, Ed Hudgins, Jason Stotts, Diana Hsieh, or any of the other bloggers and podcasters who regularly repost their material on OO.
Just to be clear, every other blogger is “cross-posted” automatically to the forum – not manually by the bloggers themselves. They have done nothing but give a nod of permission for us to do this. They were chosen in the past by the moderating team on a rough basis of agreement with Objectivism, and for posting things of general interest to the forum.
A can woman withdraw her consent at any time prior to or during a sexual act. Imagine she explicitly and forcefully communicates the non-consent to the other individual. She, like every individual, is no one’s slave/prisoner to anyone else for any reason. Concurrently she attempts to remove the individual from the vicinity of her person.
Independent of what she “should have known”, the question I am interested in is what amount of force is she allowed to use in the face of a refusal to recognize her withdrawal of consent and the rights she has and never abdicated regarded the absolute sovereignty of the bodily integrity of her person.
Once the other individual has been clearly told of her lack of consent and she begins to struggle, in order to attain the personal space or a situation of non-contact, what is she allowed to do to the person who has moments ago become her rapist? By allowed I mean would be justified and held blameless for acts of retaliatory force.
She can use the force necessary to prevent herself from being raped. I don’t see how that’s morally or legally even a question.
Dream Weaver - What puzzles me is why you are piling on with Nicky to accuse me of exploiting OO for page views when you do not level this accusation against Gus Van Horn, Ed Hudgins, Jason Stotts, Diana Hsieh, or any of the other bloggers and podcasters who regularly repost their material on OO.
Since the other bloggers were requested, that leaves why Nicky and I view these presentations as explioting OO for page views. I can’t speak on behalf of Nicky, but I’ll offer the following:
Aside from the obvious lack of mentions OO in any of your posts, the lack of any links to OO on Versailles, the questionablity of the objectivity of the articles posted there - partially cited here, some questionable materials or sources that have been offered as evidence when evidence is requested, I can’t really think of anything at the moment.
Dream Weaver - Not all of the material to which I referred was requested or “automatically” reblogged to my knowledge. I have often seen article authors post linked material here and on other Objectivist blogs. However, I fully admit I wasn’t familiar with OO’s internal working procedures.
I have no idea what you mean by a lack of “objectivity” on my blog or “questionable sources.” I regularly link to news articles, think tanks, polling organizations, government publications, and mainstream Wikipedia articles for the benefit of the reader.
I said it earlier - it is your responsibility to be aware of and control the signals you send.
I will only point out that this principle is not foreign to the Objectivist tradition; you should read what Schwartz has written about sanctioning the evils of libertarianism. If I were to accept your point then I could not be seen conversing with you any longer.
Not that it would be immoral for me to talk to you, but for me to be seen talking to you.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=_EaqOVBr-1b8QM&tbnid=UX5r7HLLJyFueM:&ved=0CAgQjRw4pgE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fanpop.com%2Fclubs%2Fthe-big-bang-theory%2Fimages%2F33179430%2Ftitle%2Fsheldon-cooper-fanart&ei=uPmZU96DMIr_oQTar4HQDQ&psig=AFQjCNG2BpFfVWrGiao6EuIMcXAsKKH01g&ust=1402686264876761http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=_EaqOVBr-1b8QM&tbnid=UX5r7HLLJyFueM:&ved=0CAgQjRw4pgE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fanpop.com%2Fclubs%2Fthe-big-bang-theory%2Fimages%2F33179430%2Ftitle%2Fsheldon-cooper-fanart&ei=uPmZU96DMIr_oQTar4HQDQ&psig=AFQjCNG2BpFfVWrGiao6EuIMcXAsKKH01g&ust=1402686264876761