Now to excerpt a little.
In any case, the part where he kind of agrees with anti-rapist educators is over (we’re about 30 seconds in) – next up, the “HOWEVER…”
However, there is part of this video – which is a very widely seen message online – which from my seat is just so bloody stupid. And this is the sentiment that just because something is against the law, that you should under no circumstances take steps to reduce your risks in such an environment.
Got that? The first argument that Thunderf00t is going to tackle is the one that states “that you should under no circumstances take steps to reduce your risks in such an environment.”
“Under no circumstances should you take steps to reduce risk”.
This is what Thunderf00t thinks is meant by campaigns that say things like “Don’t tell me how to dress, tell them not to rape.” Thunderf00t believes – or pretends to believe – that feminist campaigns to shift the focus of rape education from potential victim to potential rapist are emphatically telling people not to take basic precautions.
As if women aren’t already keenly aware of all the things they can and must do to minimise risk. As if women don’t already take all the precautions they can and still get raped.
Either deliberately, or out of mind-hosing intellectual incompetence, Thunderf00t misunderstands the reasoning behind the soundbite slogans he chooses to highlight. Women takes steps to minimise risks, get raped regardless, and then are told by authorities, friends, colleagues and wankers like Thunderf00t that if only they’d done just one more thing differently, it might not have happened.
The “Don’t Teach Me, Teach Them” slogans are a response to decades of victim blaming, not an attempt to make women think they’re rape-proof, and only an idiot or a fucking prick would be unable to grasp that. And Thunderf00t is a very clever man who does science and stuff, so I guess he can’t be an idiot.
That’s so satisfying. Phil Mason makes me too gibbery with rage to even attempt analysis; I’m so glad someone did it.
There has to be a reason why Thunderthud puts out so much time and effort into rape apologetics.
Al Dente
Absolutely. How can someone who thinks he’s so fucking smart not realize that he protests a little too much?
The reason is not difficult to determine: Those who attempt to deflect blame to the victim (or, in this thinly-disguised case, blame onto those who are not emphasizing defense enough), are defending themselves. They want to victimize people, actually victimize people, or are afraid that they want to actually victimize people. They are looking to cover themselves. People who do not want to sexually victimize others do not make apologies for those who do. Note well anyone who disagrees; they are most likely people to be feared.
@Al Dante and @jagwired:
In response to an argument using logic you don’t agree with, you smear your philosophical opponent with nauseating speculation.
That’s very grownup. What are you? Malicious three-year-olds? Have some dignity.
Says the guy who infantilises and speculates on the maliciousness of people who make a valid observation.
The question is: “If a guy is definitely not an idiot and makes idiotic rape apologetics his primary manifesto piece, what is his motivation?” and while the speculation is nauseating, it is not unreasonable.
We know that he fights for the right to chew women’s legs, and that he hates harassment policies because they decrease the chances of getting laid (less harrassment, means less sex? that’s some fucked up shit right there). He appears to tacitly argue against the value of consent, and as sex without consent is rape, how can you not come to the conclusion that he is arguing for less safeguards to prevent rape. I meant, its right there! What the hell do YOU think his motivation is?
I agree with Al Dente, jagwired and B-Lar. Mason does a lot of arguing in favor of the rape culture. One or two videos should be enough to get his point across, but he produces video after video all emphasizing his ideas that rape is no big deal and it’s the victim’s fault. This latest video argues that educating boys and men to not rape is worse than useless and even takes away womens’ agency. Why does Mason, an educated and intelligent man, spend so much time making such facile and pointless arguments?
Sorry, Jonny Vincent, but speculation about Mason’s motives are not uncalled for.
There is research indicating that holding sexist attitudes towards women, whether benevolent sexism (“I LOVE women, they are all so beautiful and nurturing!”) or hostile sexism (“Bitches be lying & crazy”) does indicate an increased likelihood that the holder of such attitudes is a domestic abuser, harasser, and/or rapist.
Thunderf00t is simply becoming more and more incoherent, and more and more entrenched in binary thinking and the elaborate defence of (nonsensical) dichotomization.
He believes he is able to emit a protective aura which can repel lions?
Perhaps there is something inherently repellent about Phil Mason which makes him invulnerable to (even incredibly negative) interactions with other sentient life? I’m guessing it isn’t just his Tarzan-like, Beastmaster body-language…
His video is nasty and toxic where it is comprehensible, and bizarre and offensive where it is not. At best, it is a good illustration of many of the worst arguments and misrepresentations offered time and again by unwitting (and indeed, witting) victim blamers and rape apologists.
A good opportunity for Mike Booth to dismantle those poor arguments.
Good question Ms. Benson about “how can people be so smart and yet so dumb?” I’m constantly wondering that.
Where did you get the idea that ad hominem attacks were valid? Speculation in this vein is Toddler sleaze and serves no purpose but to generate outrage.
Individuals are not important. None of us are important. Empowering women is important. Making women independent rather than dependent is important. The survival of the species rests on this issue.
Launching personal attacks is infantile. This tendency of Toddlers (both genders) to smear their opponents with speculated crimes is self-defeating and malicious. This species is way too combative.
Is that the important question? I thought the question was whether it is in the best interests of women to rely on men or rely on themselves. I know which one should be the feminist position. The aim is empowering women; inarguably the most important and urgent cause there is. You do not empower women by telling them to rely on men to treat them. You empower women by telling them to take power for themselves.
I suspect he is motivated by an awareness of women’s motivation. He understands that women are conditioned by Society to imagine they deserve what isn’t rational nor selfish nor remotely sane. Men are not supposed to take care of women; women are supposed to take care of themselves.
He is aware that women create illusions to induce desire and they are conditioned to believe this is harmless. All lies are malicious. No lie is ever nice. Illusions have no value.
“I just wish men would be more sincere.”
*adjusts padded bra*
The power of makeup to misrepresent reality
Jonny Vincent cuts through the discussion of rape culture, and of thunderf00t’s sleazy dismissal of victims, in order to shine a light on the pressing issue of cleavage-enhancing underwear…
@Jonny Vincent:
Where did you get your definition of “ad hominem”? (Justly) characterizing your approach as “infantilizing” and “speculating about maliciousness” wasn’t an ad hominem. Saying “You’re a terrible person, therefore your argument is wrong” would have been an ad hominem.
Women shouldn’t *have to* “rely on themselves” to not be raped. (What do you think they’ve been doing in vain for millenia, because so many men have believed they have a *right* to rape women?) They should not have to swath themselves in black cloth or body armor every time they go out of doors in order not to fear being assaulted, just like I shouldn’t have to carry around a padlocked strongbox chained to my wrist instead of a wallet in order not to fear being pickpocketed.
What, the position that calls for women to be treated with as much respect as men? The position that women should have the freedom *not* to be treated as property or as sexual objects, and the freedom *not* to be touched without their consent, *regardless* of how “provocative” some men might condsider their dress or behavior?
If women’s motivation is an encyclopedia, his awareness of it would seem to fill half a sentence in a small leaflet.
And your awareness is apparently no more comprehensive than his. Good grief, you mansplainers make me ill.
Jonny Vincent @10
You need to learn what ad hominem means. It is not insulting someone nor is it speculation about someone’s motives.
I have no problem with the first two sentences in this quote but the last sentence is bullshit. Pure, unmitigated, straight from the bull’s rectum, fetid bullshit. Or to put it in more polite form, citation seriously needed.
I didn’t launch a personal attack. I wondered why ThunderfOOt spent so much time and energy being a rape apologist. As SallyStrange @7 noted, many rape apologists are “domestic abuser, harasser, and/or rapist.” Especially considering that your hero went out of his way to denigrate a successful anti-rape education scheme, pretending it was ineffective, I really, truly wonder how anti-rape Phil Mason is. From where I sit, he isn’t. I don’t even think he’s neutral about rape. I think he’s a rape enabler.
Your buddy ThunderfOOt is working hard to stop this empowering women nonsense. And he does think it’s nonsense. Have you read Mike Booth’s masterful rebuttal of ThunderfOOt’s last video? I sincerely doubt it, because otherwise you wouldn’t be trying to protect a sexist dudebro. Or possibly you did read it but you reject Mike’s arguments in favor of ThunderfOOt’s misogyny.
You may have that suspicion. I suspect ThunderfOOt is a fullblown rape apologist. He’s excusing rape, blaming it on everything and everyone except the actual culprits, the rapists. The only person responsible for a rape is the rapist.
Does the phrase “non sequitur” mean anything to you?
“He is aware that women create illusions to induce desire and they are conditioned to believe this is harmless.”
In other words, they are provoking rape with their make-up and padded bras and they don’t know it. TF is just helping women realize the danger they are creating.
“I thought the question was whether it is in the best interests of women to rely on men or rely on themselves. I know which one should be the feminist position. The aim is empowering women; inarguably the most important and urgent cause there is. You do not empower women by telling them to rely on men to treat them. ”
Oh god, just please shut up.
@Jonny Vincent:
Why don’t you and ThunderFoot just join the Taliban already? You have identical philosophies with regards to women’s behavior and clothing.
The pressing issue is that deception and illusions are malicious and have no value. But girls are being made to value them. This does not empower them.
That’s correct. Equality. Not selling themselves to men. Equality.
The Taliban are not advocating a return to biological truths.
It’s like arguing with little Toddlers who want to be malicious. Combat is death. Wake up.
So, according to Jonny Vincent and Phil Mason, it’s disempowering for women to rely on men to act like people rather than slavering mindless beasts.
It’s a good thing you and Phil Mason are wrong about everything, Jonny. If you were right, you’d be making a powerful argument for preemptively imprisoning all men, for the betterment of society. Like Golda Meir’s curfew writ large.
Down with art. Down with movies.
And yes, Virginia, it would be wrong to lie to the Nazis asking whether anyone is hiding in your attic.
It’s funny, but every time Schrödinger’s Rapist is brought up, women are told that even considering the idea that a man you don’t (or do) know, might be a rapist, is both sexist an ableist (because he might have autism and thus is unaware that his behavior might be off-putting).
So, we are responsible for preventing our own rapes but we are not to treat any man in a way that might make him feel disrespected or unappreciated, but we also shouldn’t lead him on and if we aren’t interested, we should be clear about it, but don’t be a bitch because it was just a compliment. It is impossible to win.
“The Taliban are not advocating a return to biological truths.”
Which “biological truths” are you referring to?
Face it, you are the Western Taliban.
@Marnie, #19:
Speaking as the autistic “shield” in that “rebuttal” of Schrodinger’s Rapist, I’d much prefer people treat me as a potential rapist than be used as ammunition to pelt at potential rape victims. I’m pretty pissed at being so used, actually.