The Law MeToo Movement

[Father Jack]

I've explained my point. It doesn't require further definition of "woke".

You want a tangent and I'm not obliging. You want to discuss a definition, which is unrelated to the point in dispute.

If you want to ask me elsewhere how I characterise "wokeness", I'll be happy to answer, but it's not required here to make my argument.

I didn't think it meant anything and was just a cheap and empty way of attacking a poster and not their argument, so thanks for confirming.

 

[Chief]

Stop being so woke Sweet Jesus

 

[Malifice]

The argument has been dismantled and Malifice is now hiding.

Im not hiding, it's just you're either an idiot or being deliberately obtuse.

No matter how many times it's explained to you what #metoo is on about (replete with literally dozens of links to sites to prove it) you just sit there like a monkey with its fingers in its ears.

It's not a 'sex abuse from female perpetrator' support group. Its a broad movement from survivors of male perpetrated sexual abuse, often systemic, and enabled by the patriarchy.

You know this though, which is why you posted your s**t stirring post that kicked this whole scarecrow derailing off though.

In any event, there is no point discussing this with you. I dont see any point in discussing something with either an idiot, or someone who is being deliberately obtuse simply to prove a point.

I'd rather do other things than maintain the conversation.

 

[Father Jack]

Stop clutching at straws. It's so obvious.

The argument has been dismantled and Malifice is now hiding. He was simply wrong about the defining features of the #metoo movement. That's been explained to you more than once now. But you want to pretend that me using a word you don't like negates all that? Like I said, you want a tangent. A last-ditch distraction.

Stop kidding yourself. Learn to recognise when you're overmatched.

That said, his argument is also, for the record, absolutely woke bullshit. That contributed to the misguided premise.

I only wanted you to tell me what you meant by the word. How hard can that be? I guess the problem you face is that once you explain your code word it no longer works as something to hide behind.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Im not hiding, it's just you're either an idiot or being deliberately obtuse.

No matter how many times it's explained to you what #metoo is on about (replete with literally dozens of links to sites to prove it) you just sit there like a monkey with its fingers in its ears.

It's not a 'sex abuse from female perpetrator' support group. Its a broad movement from survivors of male perpetrated sexual abuse, often systemic, and enabled by the patriarchy.

So how come there is no mention of this in this more official website?

If that is the defining feature of the movement, why is it so conspicuously absent?

Why doesn't Tarana Burke, the founder, say anything about it? In that mission statement, about the inception and evolution of the movement, why doesn't she mention "the patriarchy"?

You know this though, which is why you posted your sh*t stirring post that kicked this whole scarecrow derailing off though.

In any event, there is no point discussing this with you. I dont see any point in discussing something with either an idiot, or someone who is being deliberately obtuse simply to prove a point.

I'd rather do other things than maintain the conversation.

Look at all this hot air designed to conceal the fact you've been caught short.

You need to learn that some people have you covered. Occasionally, that means you have to suck it up. You can't just bluff your way through.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I only wanted you to tell me what you meant by the word. How hard can that be? I guess the problem you face is that once you explain your code word it no longer works as something to hide behind.

This is a desperate tangent. Grasping at straws, as usual.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The thing about the metoo movement is that it is akin to barking at the wrong cloud.

Advocates have a penchant for tearing down the patriarchy, when patriarchy is not the problem. Yeah sure it does 'allow' the perpetrators, so does having the right to a car licence allows you to speed or drink drive. Having that licence 'allows' one to do the wrong thing, that is not the purpose or the fault of the licence though. Same the purpose of patriarchy is not to allow or is the fault of abuse against women or girls or anyone for that matter.

Point is pulling down a hierarchy that effects the whole of society will just cause more harm than good, society would capitulate into anarchy.

I'd like to hear from any advocates what they think society would look like if society does not have law and order just to rid the patriarchy that 'allows' abhorrent behaviour.

That'd be interesting.

 

[Blue1980]

The thing about the metoo movement is that it is akin to barking at the wrong cloud.

Advocates have a penchant for tearing down the patriarchy, when patriarchy is not the problem. Yeah sure it does 'allow' the perpetrators, so does having the right to a car licence allows you to speed or drink drive. Having that licence 'allows' one to do the wrong thing, that is not the purpose or the fault of the licence though. Same the purpose of patriarchy is not to allow or is the fault of abuse against women or girls or anyone for that matter.

Point is pulling down a hierarchy that effects the whole of society will just cause more harm than good, society would capitulate into anarchy.

I'd like to hear from any advocates what they think society would look like if society does not have law and order just to rid the patriarchy that 'allows' abhorrent behaviour.

That'd be interesting.

Removing patriarchy is basically about removing the power base from white males which is where it has been traditionally.

People look at this the wrong way though, doesn’t mean white males become oppressed suddenly, idea is to raise everyone up.

Now execution and method of this, can be messy.

No one would advocate for removal of laws unless a total moron.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No one would advocate for removal of laws unless a total moron.

Malifice tell everyone how hierarchies are bad and we should have a collective where everyone is equal.

 

[CM86]

From what I understand, the main issue recently is "Football Australia to investigate abuse allegations by Matildas players".

All other issues are tangential.

It would seem that very few people care about the issue, they just want to virtue signal.

There has been almost no conversation about the actual allegations.
In fact, active proponents of it have been ignored in this very thread.


For some people, the idea that women can be abusers is so unusual, that they demand that all opposition take the stance that all abuse is equal. And any advocacy group that doesn't overextend to oppose all possible scenarios is invalid.

This isn't the fault of the 'some people', it's the fault of the people who take advantage of them, and make them think that all advocacy groups should be totally bipartisan and perfect, while ignoring the partisan and imperfect groups they're opposing.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Removing patriarchy is basically about removing the power base from white males which is where it has been traditionally.

People look at this the wrong way though, doesn’t mean white males become oppressed suddenly, idea is to raise everyone up.

Now execution and method of this, can be messy.

No one would advocate for removal of laws unless a total moron.

Well that's obvious, the 'equality of rights' line, no one is arguing against that.

Who's arguing that white males will suddenly be oppressed? Haven't seen that argument posted on here, only psycho disenfranchised mouth breathing bra burners would be in favour of oppressing anyone let alone the apparently evil 'patriarchy' white male.

So do tell us about this messy execution of method. In order to have order in society, do we go the anarchy path? Coz believe it or not there are morons who cannot see anarchy coming if they get their favoured patriarchal take down.

Do we go the matriarchy path? Well probably not because in order to have an immediate shift of hierarchy in human society that would take a meteoric shift in mammalian nature and would take the majority of the planet to agree to going against the grain of that nature.

Just won't happen coz of all those pesky males getting in the way of it. Not by wanton deliberance but by that pesky human nature again.

Or do we go the path of a 'nonbinaryarchy'? Well probably not because it represents a minuscule minority of human kind.

In short whichever way you boil it down and dissect it, society does and will continue to need a hierarchy and at the moment and since humans could be more than a non emotive organism it's largely been a patriarchy.

#metoo would be better served concentrating on incentivizing jurisdictions to apply appropriate deterrents to would be perpetrators.

Barking at patriarchy and mislabeling what it actually is, is futile.

 

[Carringbush2010]

From what I understand, the main issue recently is "Football Australia to investigate abuse allegations by Matildas players".

All other issues are tangential.

It would seem that very few people care about the issue, they just want to virtue signal.

There has been almost no conversation about the actual allegations.
In fact, active proponents of it have been ignored in this very thread.


For some people, the idea that women can be abusers is so unusual, that they demand that all opposition take the stance that all abuse is equal. And any advocacy group that doesn't overextend to oppose all possible scenarios is invalid.

This isn't the fault of the 'some people', it's the fault of the people who take advantage of them, and make them think that all advocacy groups should be totally bipartisan and perfect, while ignoring the partisan and imperfect groups they're opposing.

'The main issue recently' ? Methinks #metoo would disagree with you and your want to make the issue around female soccer players being wronged by other females to prove your point?

#metoo has noble sentiment, and would be concerned about those abused soccer players (or should be).

Also who is arguing that advocacy groups need to be totally bipartisan and 'perfect'?

What is being debated is the focus of #metoo, mislabeling and targeting hierarchy will achieve zero for the sentiment no one has an issue with (apart from the actual problem - the perps).

Wouldn't it be better to target the actual problem? Y'know the actual offenders? And wouldn't it also be good pr for #metoo to actually condone all violence instead of 'all males are evil and are the problem?

Surely you can see the logic.

 

[CM86]

'The main issue recently' ? Methinks #metoo would disagree with you

I don't care. You oppose movements for the reason the movements exist.
You don't defend positions you pretend to hold.

 

[Father Jack]

This is a desperate tangent. Grasping at straws, as usual.

And yet you are the one refusing to answer a simple question and going off on tangents. So again, what did you mean by 'woke'?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And yet you are the one refusing to answer a simple question and going off on tangents.

Because it's irrelevant. Why would I encourage your attempt to divert the conversation?

So again, what did you mean by 'woke'?

In this instance, I was referring to his obsession with "the patriarchy".

If you want to discuss the meaning of "woke" more broadly, I'd be happy to share my thoughts. But it's not relevant here.

I suggest this thread instead.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

From what I understand, the main issue recently is "Football Australia to investigate abuse allegations by Matildas players".

All other issues are tangential.

It would seem that very few people care about the issue, they just want to virtue signal.

There has been almost no conversation about the actual allegations.
In fact, active proponents of it have been ignored in this very thread.


For some people, the idea that women can be abusers is so unusual, that they demand that all opposition take the stance that all abuse is equal. And any advocacy group that doesn't overextend to oppose all possible scenarios is invalid.

This isn't the fault of the 'some people', it's the fault of the people who take advantage of them, and make them think that all advocacy groups should be totally bipartisan and perfect, while ignoring the partisan and imperfect groups they're opposing.

You're a waffler.

 

[CM86]

You're a waffler.

Take it to the right thread.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Take it to the right thread.

Too late.

 

[CM86]

Too late.

Your fault.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your fault.

Devastating.

 

[CM86]

Devastating.

I think you're intelligent. I'd really like to engage you on actual substance.

I don't know why you hide.


You don't give a s**t about thread topic, or substance etc etc.
Anything you feel you can defend, you do.
Anything you feel you can attack, you do.

Having said all of that. Maybe you're too smart for me, and I can't see the 4d chess you play.

 

[Father Jack]

Because it's irrelevant. Why would I encourage your attempt to divert the conversation?

In this instance, I was referring to his obsession with "the patriarchy".

If you want to discuss the meaning of "woke" more broadly, I'd be happy to share my thoughts. But it's not relevant here.

I suggest this thread instead.

Firstly of course it's relevant because you used the word to attack someone's argument so unless you agree that your whole argument is irrelevant then the word is relevant.

Also, that thread looks like a whinge about the name of a toy (of all things), I can't be bothered wading through it so if you could please point me to the post in that thread where it defines the word 'woke' that would be good. Cheers.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Firstly of course it's relevant because you used the word to attack someone's argument so unless you agree that your whole argument is irrelevant then the word is relevant.

It's not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about the nature of the #metoo movement. And no, my argument doesn't rely on the use of the word "woke". It relies on the point that Malifice has misunderstood the defining features of the #metoo movement. I'd suggest his general embrace of woke bullshit about "the patriarchy" contributed to that misunderstanding but that is not the primary argument. Read that again slowly if you must.

Also, that thread looks like a whinge about the name of a toy (of all things), I can't be bothered wading through it so if you could please point me to the post in that thread where it defines the word 'woke' that would be good. Cheers.

You have my response.

I know you want to divert this thread away from me dunking on Malifice but I won't be humouring that further.

If you want to debate further the meaning of "woke", there's a thread where that would be relevant but it's not this one.

 

[CM86]

Firstly of course it's relevant because you used the word to attack someone's argument so unless you agree that your whole argument is irrelevant then the word is relevant.

Also, that thread looks like a whinge about the name of a toy (of all things), I can't be bothered wading through it so if you could please point me to the post in that thread where it defines the word 'woke' that would be good. Cheers.

Matildas abuse allegations: details of investigation set to be revealed

The women’s national team have been at the centre of heavy media scrutiny over the fortnight since former teammate Lisa De Vanna made historical allegations of sexual harassment, indecent assault, grooming and bullying throughout her 20-year career, at both amateur and professional levels.​

​

Another player, Rhali Dobson, also claims she has been a target of predatory behaviour over her career.​

​

The claims, published in an interview with News Corp, prompted an immediate response from Football Australia, which announced a joint initiative with SIA to “receive, assess, and manage” all complaints independently of the federation.​

​

The scope of that investigation is expected to encompass four areas – harassment, bullying, intimidation and discrimination – as part of an expanded remit that also includes men’s football.​

​

Mon 18 Oct 2021 14.43 AEDT

No visible dunking, sorry.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think you're intelligent. I'd really like to engage you on actual substance.

I don't know why you hide.

You're a waffler who needs everything over-explained.

That's your basket for now.

You don't give a sh*t about thread topic, or substance etc etc.
Anything you feel you can defend, you do.
Anything you feel you can attack, you do.

In other words, I respond how I please. No kidding. If I think something is irrelevant, why would I lean into it?