Unintended consequence of ***some*** modesty teachings is distrust of men and other insights

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

 

All black men are potential rapists."

Please provide the "context" which converts this from a prejudicial statement to a non-prejudicial one.

 

"All men are potential rapists. All men? Yes, all men. All black men are potential rapists. All white men are potential rapists. All brown men are potential rapists. All religious men. All secular men. All men. 

Prejudice: "[A]n unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

"All men are potential rapists" and "All black men are potential rapists" are prejudicial statements.

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s not complicated.

I haven't said the statement is complicated.  I have said it is prejudiced.

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I feel like when you are calling every single woman in this thread unreasonable, irrational, and indecent that would give most people pause.

A person who holds "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason" is demonstrating prejudice.

Prejudice is, by its very nature, unreasonable and irrational.

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Your tenacity in holding onto your naive beliefs is remarkable. 

Your strenuous defense of patent prejudice is likewise remarkable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Would you make the same claim about all men being potential sexual molesters if the statistics indicated 1 our of 20? 50?

For my wife, it’s not about the stats, it’s her life experience. As a small business owner, she attends mult conferences each year. At every single conference she is creeped on (in some fashion) by multiple men. Every single time. At her last conference in Barcelona, she was in the hot tub with a dozen other women and was still groped by a man. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

without knowledge, thought, or reason

Have you not read the thread!?!? Are you even a real person?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

No, you’re not.

People have told you their stories. You tell them they are irrational for reacting to experiences in a way you disapprove of.

Nope.  I have said that harboring prejudicial sentiments is irrational.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You imply that it would be an exhausting way to live (which they will tell you it is).

The way I am "tell{ing} it" is to merely quote it: "All men are potential rapists."

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The triggering experience you admit you have never had.

I've never had an abortion, either, but I can have an opinion about that topic, too.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

You are upset about someone’s mental state in reaction to trauma or other people’s trauma might make them wary around you.

I dislike prejudice.  I'm not sure I'm "upset" about this particular manifestation of it.  It bothers me a bit, yes.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Instead of asking how we could make it so that this doesn’t happen and women don’t have to think this way you are blaming the victims and suggesting they aren’t reacting to their trauma correctly because *checks notes* it hurts your feelings that someone might think things about you. Do you realize how irrational and messed up and EMOTIONAL your mindset is?

I think it is not controversial to be critical of patent and overt prejudice.  

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Let’s take another approach then. Let’s say a U.S. soldier is engaged in a counterinsurgency operation in the fictional nation of Nehoria. The enemy is hiding amongst the civilians. The opposition forces are 99% women. Also many of the civilian women are sympathetic to these forces. Publicly they will denounce them but if they can minimize the chance of one of the opposition being exposed or caught they will and they will explain away opposition attacks as accidents or that the attackers were misunderstood. You would expect soldiers on patrol to be wary and evaluate every woman they encounter as a potential threat. You would probably consider this wise. What are the odds of those soldiers being wounded or killed? Relatively low but still worth considering.

Okay, now women have around a 50% chance of being sexual assaulted some time in their life and somewhere around the 15-25% range chance of being raped. They are more likely to be hurt than the soldiers.

What is the difference between the two scenarios that makes the women’s wariness prejudicial?

A multiplicity of factors can plainly justify situational awareness.  But my comments here pertain to prejudice based solely on men being labeled "potential rapists" not because of anything they have done or said, but purely because they are men.  

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

That is rape culture. A group of men who hide amongst us who will assault women if they can get away with it and a bunch of other men who will condemn the criminals but will attempt to explain away or minimize attacks suggesting the victims are overreacting or seeing threats that aren’t there.

I haven't done any of that.

I condemn any and all forms of assault on women.  I can affirm that and still condemn prejudicial statements designating "all men" as "potential rapists."

Prejudice is bad.  As someone said recently, "it's not complicated." 

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Deleted

Edited February 13, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I get that you may equate "listen{ing}" with acquiescence.  I don't.  I am listening.  What I am not doing is agreeing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I equate listening with recognizing what I am saying and not ignoring the points I make. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Prejudice: "[A]n unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

Have you not read the thread!?!? Are you even a real person?

I don't think anyone can lay claim to have "an unfavorable opinion or feeling" about "all black men," as they do not have "knowledge, thought, or reason" about "all black men."  This is so even if a particular woman has had a past traumatic experience with a black man.  To extrapolate his depravities as a basis for forming and retaining "an unfavorable opinion" as to "all black men" everywhere, solely because they too are black men, is unreasonable and irrational.  It is prejudiced.

And this does not change by the removal of the word "black."

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think anyone can lay claim to have "an unfavorable opinion or feeling" about "all black men," as they do not have "knowledge, thought, or reason" about "all black men."  This is so even if a particular woman has had a past traumatic experience with a black man.  To extrapolate his depravities as a basis for forming and retaining "an unfavorable opinion" as to "all black men" everywhere, solely because they too are black men, is unreasonable and irrational.  It is prejudiced.

And this does not change by the removal of the word "black."

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you explain what it is about being black that you think adds to the risk to the woman in this scenario? Because every woman in this thread can explain what it is about being male that adds to the risk. 
 

So please explain to everyone here what it is about being black that adds to someone’s risk of being a rapist. We are all waiting.  

Edited February 13, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If a particular woman previously had a traumatic experience where a black man was the aggressor, is she justified in asserting that "All black men are potential rapists"?  Can she justify that statement by pointing to her past experience with one other black man she encountered, with his "behavior" and the "circumstances" in which the traumatic experience occurred?  Is a woman with such an experience thereafter forever justified in declaring that all black men are "potential rapists?"  Or would that remain a prejudicial statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think she could justify it with one traumatic experience.  But a hundred?  If it was added to the experiences of other women over a ten year period and it was thousands and hundreds of thousands of experiences that only ever applied to black men and not to men of any other race and she never had a traumatic experience with any man of another race, could she justify it? 

Absolutely.  That is a reasonable assertion for her to make that is based on reason and actual experience (which means it wouldn't be prejudicial according to you).

(Your introduction of race into this topic to attempt to prove that it's immoral to view all men as potentially dangerous is a red herring, but I can pretend it's valid if that helps you understand the topic better).  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you explain what it is about being black that you think adds to the risk to the woman in this scenario?

In what scenario?  We're not speaking of behavior or circumstances which might implicate heightened situational awareness or justification for suspicion or concern.  We are, instead, speaking of the patently prejudiced generalization that "all men are potential rapists."

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Because every woman in this thread can explain what it is about being male that adds to the risk.

So please explain to everyone here what it is about being black that adds to someone’s risk of being a rapist. We are all waiting.  

"All black men are potential rapists" is a prejudiced statement.  The prejudice remains if the word "black" is removed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, the point under discussion is a five-worst statement: "All men are potential rapists."

There's not a lot of ambiguity here.  It is a patently prejudicial statement.

 

Not if it's based on reason and experience.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If we are wrong though, then we get groped, raped, harassed, beaten, or killed

That’s a risk that @smac97is willing to graciously bear. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because it is prejudicial to view all men in this way solely because they are men.

 

What if you view all men that way because of your and thousands of other women's experiences with them?

You do get that it's our and other women's personal experiences with men that cause us to view them that way, right?  

[smac97]

Just now, bluebell said:

Quote

Again, the point under discussion is a five-worst statement: "All men are potential rapists."

There's not a lot of ambiguity here.  It is a patently prejudicial statement.

Not if it's based on reason and experience.

Nobody can credibly claim to have "reason and experience" as to "all men."

Prejudice: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

That's what "All men are potential rapists" is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In what scenario?  We're not speaking of behavior or circumstances which might implicate heightened situational awareness or justification for suspicion or concern.  We are, instead, speaking of the patently prejudiced generalization that "all men are potential rapists."

"All black men are potential rapists" is a prejudiced statement.  The prejudice remains if the word "black" is removed.

Thanks,

-Smac

So that’s a no. But you continue to say it. Interesting. 

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

If we are wrong though, then we get groped, raped, harassed, beaten, or killed

That’s a risk that @smac97is willing to graciously bear. 

When incapable of arguing based on reasoning and evidence, you can be relied upon to turn to character assassination.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why ignore it?  Why someone who is protesting so insistently that labeling all men as potential rapists is prejudicial and wrong feels perfectly at ease apparently to make a character analysis of any woman based solely on one position she holds without regard to how she applies it, allowing him to dismiss her as irrational and indecent without regard to why she might hold that position is something worth exploring imo. 

Only because I don't want to get sidetracked from the issue of women's rights to protect themselves.  But I agree it's worth exploring for someone who has the mental energy to go there with Smac.

I don't. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

on reasoning

Are you sure you know what that means?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So that’s a no. But you continue to say it. Interesting. 

"All black men are potential rapists" is a prejudiced statement.

I am presenting it here because I think most people would acknowledge it as prejudiced (or not, as I don't really know you very well).  I don't think the prejudice goes away if the word "black" is removed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  A statement is prejudicial if it states "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

"All men are potential rapists" fits the bill.

Thanks,

-Smac

Only if the bolded part isn't true.  But since women form the feeling based on the bolded part, you've essentially proven that it's not prejudicial at all according to the definition you want to use.

So thank you.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I get that you may equate "listen{ing}" with acquiescence.  I don't.  I am listening.  What I am not doing is agreeing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You're not listening to understand, you are listening to respond though.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"All black men are potential rapists" is a prejudiced statement.

Because there is nothing about the adjective “black” that does any work here.  The color of one’s skin has no bearing on one’s danger to women. 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am presenting it here because I think most people would acknowledge it as prejudiced (or not, as I don't really know you very well). 
 

But you have yet to respond in any meaningful way as to what work the word “black” is doing here. This is in stark contrast to every poster on this thread telling you from their lived experiences what work the word “men” is doing. 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I don't think

If you say so. I must admit this is a stark admission. One that in no way am I taking out of context. 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Good luck. I’m out. 

Edited February 13, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why ignore it?  Why someone who is protesting so insistently that labeling all men as potential rapists is prejudicial and wrong feels perfectly at ease apparently to make a character analysis of any woman based solely on one position she holds without regard to how she applies it, allowing him to dismiss her as irrational and indecent without regard to why she might hold that position is something worth exploring imo. 

If a person categorically states "I hate all Jews," I would be willing to have some discussion as to this "position," including with "regard to how {the person} applies it."  The person may well have had a variety of terrible experiences with Jewish people, but I would still find it to be a prejudiced statement (and, hence, unreasonable and irrational), regardless of how the person attempts to justify it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  I have said that harboring prejudicial sentiments is irrational.

The way I am "tell{ing} it" is to merely quote it: "All men are potential rapists."

I've never had an abortion, either, but I can have an opinion about that topic, too.

I dislike prejudice.  I'm not sure I'm "upset" about this particular manifestation of it.  It bothers me a bit, yes.

I think it is not controversial to be critical of patent and overt prejudice.  

A multiplicity of factors can plainly justify situational awareness.  But my comments here pertain to prejudice based solely on men being labeled "potential rapists" not because of anything they have done or said, but purely because they are men.  

I haven't done any of that.

I condemn any and all forms of assault on women.  I can affirm that and still condemn prejudicial statements designating "all men" as "potential rapists."

Prejudice is bad.  As someone said recently, "it's not complicated." 

Thanks,

-Smac

Congratulations on not engaging with what I actually said and sticking to belabored rote statements.

It is kind of sad.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"All black men are potential rapists" is a prejudiced statement.

Of course the part that you conveniently ignore is that it is a true statement. Of course that would ruin your rhetorical trick.