The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Lotje1000
User Name: Lotje1000
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Joined: Monday, November 03, 2014
Last Visit: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:43:19 PM
Number of Posts: 889
[0.10% of all post / 0.80 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: I am NOT a bastard
Posted: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:04:19 AM
Well, I guess that answers Tunaafi's question quite neatly.
Topic: I am NOT a bastard
Posted: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:24:32 AM
will wrote:

Trying to reason with him will only reinforce his delusions… and this coming from me, a man who has spent too many hours trying to explain reality to peterhewett in his many guises. d'oh!

I agree. But I also think no one in this thread genuinely still believes that what they say is going to help TheParser change his ways. It is more about providing a response for the benefit of other people than TheParser.

will wrote:
On which point, I think it’s safe to assume there is no Admin on this site; considering keeppy is 22 pages into their nonsensical spamming, and Calcifer Y is 23 pages into their uninterrupted postings with barely any interest from the wider membership, and TheParser’s ‘Tidbits of the day’ and ‘Political opinions of the day’ amount to little more than trolling yet still dominate the atmosphere of the entire site.

I believe part of the reason Tunaafi acted the way he did (which elicited this response from TheParser) was to point out exactly this. No admin on this site is doing anything to stop the trolling and toxicity that dominate the site. You named keeppy and Calcifer Y, but regardless what you think of them, they contain what they do to one thread. TheParser is known to spread his toxicity across the subforums and no collective response from any of us has ever changed a thing. As such, I think it's fair by Tunaafi to point out that they are actively letting this behaviour happen and, as such, show they have no issue providing "a platform for racism, sexism, chauvinism, bigotry and lies. "

This is worth pointing out, even if it means feeding the beast.
Topic: I am NOT a bastard
Posted: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 5:05:02 AM
I fail to see how this is in any way relevant in a politics subforum.

If you think someone has insulted you, talk to the admins. There is no need for you to start a thread about it.
Topic: My political opinion of the day
Posted: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:34:03 AM
tunaafi wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
In TheParser's defence, he never said he wanted equality between gay and straight people. He was just explaining his ideal society where he can live in blissful ignorance.

But his ideal society is one in which gay people do not have the same rights as straight people
.This is discrimination against gay people. It is anti-gay.

Topic: My political opinion of the day
Posted: Monday, November 13, 2017 2:47:26 AM
In TheParser's defence, he never said he wanted equality between gay and straight people. He was just explaining his ideal society where he can live in blissful ignorance.
Topic: "Moral Rot and Hypocrisy Exposed"
Posted: Thursday, November 09, 2017 4:22:52 AM
thar wrote:
A corrupt system only works if everyone colludes in the corruption. These actresses were not powerless. They were not trafficked women. They were not street hookers with no choice but to put up with what was done to them. They kept quiet because the system worked for them just as much as the abusers. There were choices - tell the casting couch gropers to fuck off. Say they will go work in a shop rather than suffer abuse for a part or a place at the table. If enough people had done that, Weinstein and his ilk would never have been in a position to get anything done. For a single episode of abuse, I can believe shock and shame keep you silent. But for institutional abuse, it requires other people to make the decision that it is worth it for their own purposes.

Now of course I am not letting the abusers off the hook or blaming the victims for the abuse - but I do think that it is a bit much for people to come forward now and say 'this happened to me'. Where were you when it was happening to other people? Not telling everyone about it - no, happily taking the part and trying to put it behind you.

I've been mulling over what you said here for a while, trying to find out why it bothers me so much. I think it is because it's easy to view this in hindsight, and difficult to view it from the position of the assaulted women in question.

For instance, you say "for institutional abuse, it requires other people to make the decision" and later "I do think that it is a bit much for people to come forward now". You assume the victims knew this was institutional. They come forward now because there is strength in numbers, because they feel supported and because, possibly, they realise it wasn't just them. In a situation where you're looking back on it and finding out how many people are involved, it's easy to piece things together. You've got the support of society and its moral outrage. That is not the case for the women when they were in these situations. There was no society backing them up with moral outrage. There was a guy with power and even, at times, an assistant who backed him up.

When you are alone in a room with a man who makes an unsavoury suggestion, your first reaction is shock. (Why would he do that? Maybe I didn't hear him right because this sounds completely absurd.) We try to reason our way through a scenario like this, to place it so we can let go. Maybe we yell back and storm out, maybe not.

When you're standing in a room with who has a reputation (= social backing), lots of money and even an assistant with him who supports him(!) when he says the things he does, the instinct is strong to question yourself in the face of such bald-faced suggestions (why would they say it with such certainty if it wasn't true or normal in this industry? Could it be that I'm wrong to think this is morally wrong? Am I a prude? Is this just how it's done?).

Add to that that he rarely outright made the "you get the role if you sleep with me" offer. Instead, he kept talking to soothe people and taking baby steps. "Have dinner with me." then "Come upstairs to talk to me.", then "Do you mind if I go take a shower before we talk?". He slowly starts to push common boundaries until he starts pushing moral boundaries. That's how abusers get people in the first place. That is why people have as a first reaction "But you talked to him." or "But you were smiling at him." Because those small steps will be used against you. You can bet the first question is going to be "But why did you go upstairs to his room?". As if that one moment of consent implies the women gave consent to be approached with lecherous propositions?

There is more to being powerless than being a trafficked woman or a street hooker. It's about people pushing your boundaries until you can't say no or you'd be to blame. He doesn't have to resort to threats (though I just read in the news he had a small army of people investigating these women and trying to make sure they never spoke to the press). Abusers know that they can't watch their victims 24/7. It's about getting victims in such a mindset that they feel they can't do anything, because they question themselves or because they know society will question them. Now that Weinstein has been exposed, he's taken down a peg and he's not quite as powerful and untouchable as he seemed in that hotel room.

It's easy to say now "well, how 'bout you just said "fuck him", given up your job and livelihood". I'm sure some did. And I can bet you that some of those women would end up questioning whether they did the right thing and living with the knowledge that this guy believed he could use them as their personal plaything. And, by the way, that he'll remain untouchable because who's going to believe them now? They lost their job so they're obviously just trying to get back at him for it.

That is why so few people talk about this openly and most only start when someone else has stepped forward first. This is basic human nature. This is about creating bonds of trust. Knowing you can talk to people and expect them to behave by moral and societal rules, that they'll listen to you, that they'll take you seriously.

I agree with you, however, that for corruption to continue, everyone has to play along. But the people who can make a difference are the people in power, like Weinstein himself, like his assistants, like his friends. These victims alone couldn't have solved it until now when they banded together and forced people to look at them. And even when they do that, so many people still go "ah well you just want your name in the papers, don't you?". Just look at how TheParser responds to these women to see what they're battling on a daily basis until they've internalized this way of thinking and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Topic: My political opinion of the day
Posted: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:52:29 AM
almo 1 wrote:

I wonder what it would be like
if they remove laugh track from sitcom.

People have answered that question for you. Here is Friends without the laugh track. Same thing happened for the Big Bang Theory.
Topic: What we lost today
Posted: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 3:37:01 AM
Our news reports today that the US is the only country that hasn't signed the Paris climate agreement. Previously, Nicaragua hadn't signed because it wanted a stricter agreement and Syria was caught up in a civil war. Both have now signed.

Because the US can't actually withdraw itself until 2020, an American delegation is currently present at the talks in Bonn, but apparently they are not cooperating much.

However, there is still hope. Despite Trump's decisions, several groups in America (states, cities and companies) are working hard to reach the goals set by the Paris agreements.
Topic: My political opinion of the day
Posted: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 8:56:10 AM
Should it ever come to pass, I would love to see thousands of stony-faced onlookers, occasionally exasperatedly tutting at one another.
Topic: My political opinion of the day
Posted: Monday, November 06, 2017 2:53:54 AM
tunaafi wrote:
Andrew Schultz wrote:
The_Parser is very worried about the safety of people who, say, walk out at night in the big city. Why not of the women who have had to deal with powerful men who are not only physically bigger than them but can ruin their career?

If you look back at some of TheParser's posts not long after he joined the forum, you will see his explicitly stated belief that women should 'know their place'. Knowing their place seems to involve, speaking, dressing and behaving in a demure and lady-like fashion. Only by doing so can women gain the respect of their fathers, brothers and fair-minded people.

In more recent times, in his defence of pussy-gropers from POTUS down, and in his vilification of their victims, The Parser has made it clear that, in his opinion, men have a god-given right to satisfy their lusts; women must be prepared to spread their lips and legs, and not complain.

We already know that TheParser finds it perfectly justified to vilify "a certain ethnicity" of people in America because of personal experience. As such, he won't even go into an elevator with a black person. By that reasoning, he must fully support women no longer trust any man and must applaud any woman who no longer wants to get into an elevator with TheParser again.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.