It's Confirmed, Men Are Pigs!

[Psychic Missile]

All you did was avoid the topic altogether by trying to drag it down a rabbit hole.

I think I've made it pretty clear where I stand on this topic.

[fm93]

ah. So basically like all tolerant liberals, only your opinion actually counts. Got it. Basically if everyone agrees an action is harassment, then it is harassment. and if everyone doesn't agree it is harassment, as long as it is the liberal opinion that it is harassment, then it is still harassment.

Thanks for confirming that.

That is nothing like what I said.

If a woman friggin' straight-up tells you that some particular behavior makes her feel harassed and bothered, and it's easy to see why it made her feel that way, then you don't engage in that behavior. It's as simple as that. If you still can't understand this and keep trying to misrepresent it, I give up trying to explain it any further.

[Sparko]

That is nothing like what I said.

If a woman friggin' straight-up tells you that some particular behavior makes her feel harassed and bothered, and it's easy to see why it made her feel that way, then you don't engage in that behavior. It's as simple as that. If you still can't understand this and keep trying to misrepresent it, I give up trying to explain it any further.

I expected this would be your response. You make statements that clearly show what you really mean, but when someone points them out in a clear and concise manner, you deny that is what you meant. It is the way you have always operated SP. You always want to have your cake and eat it too. Everyone sees it and you are not fooling anyone.


If a woman says that I was harassing her by nodding at her and saying "You look lovely this evening, ma'am" as she passed by, then I was not harassing her, no matter what she thinks or how offended she is at my greeting. She can feel as offended as she wants, but that is her personal issue not mine.

[fm93]

I expected this would be your response. You make statements that clearly show what you really mean, but when someone points them out in a clear and concise manner, you deny that is what you meant. It is the way you have always operated SP. You always want to have your cake and eat it too. Everyone sees it and you are not fooling anyone.

No, your interpretation of it was "everyone agreeing that it is harassment," when what I've clearly said is that it's ultimately on whether the woman in question perceives it as harassment. It's not "harassment" that remains the case even if she doesn't agree that it is, but rather crude objectification--which is explicitly written in my post.

So yet again, it ultimately turns out that it's you who fails to accurately represent what I said, and upon being corrected you go further into denial. Everyone sees it and you aren't fooling anyone.

If a woman says that I was harassing her by nodding at her and saying "You look lovely this evening, ma'am" as she passed by, then I was not harassing her, no matter what she thinks or how offended she is at my greeting. She can feel as offended as she wants, but that is her personal issue not mine.

Yet again I repeat myself and point out that most of the interactions in the video were CLEARLY less innocuous on the surface than this example, which renders it mostly irrelevant due to implausibility--the chances that a woman would actually perceive that in a negative manner are almost nil. Additionally, harassment is generally characterized by repetition, so if this turned out to be an extreme case in which the woman actually was offended, it wouldn't count as harassment if you just said it once and didn't do anything else.

But for a more realistic instance, like certain statements or behavior that go into the gray area, if the woman legitimately feels repeatedly bothered or intimidated, then she is being harassed. If the man didn't intend anything, that just means that his intent wasn't to harass. Doesn't change the fact that he did.

[myth]

But for a more realistic instance, like certain statements or behavior that go into the gray area, if the woman legitimately feels repeatedly bothered or intimidated, then she is being harassed. If the man didn't intend anything, that just means that his intent wasn't to harass. Doesn't change the fact that he did.

I'm not sure that you can divorce the intent from the action and still arrive at something resembling harassment (in the legal sense). I agree that if the man did not intend to offend the woman then he may have still offended her, but that doesn't mean it's classified solely based on intent or perception. I'm glad that you acknowledge harassment generally requires repetition, but it sounds like you're making the argument that with those bounds, harassment is defined solely based on how the woman perceives the comment. Sounds like subjective truth to me. I think it's more complicated than that.