This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Admiral X wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:32 am
No, it is literally the law in many states that penetration by a penis is what is required for it to be legally defined as rape.
I don't claim to be a lawyer, or that I looked at the sex crimes laws of every state, but I looked at laws in six states and there are two problems with your argument:
1) Many states do not use the term "rape". They have terms like "Sexual Assault" or "Criminal Sexual Conduct" or what not. One state (Alabama) I looked at have a very narrow rape law, but it also had other felonies with equal penalties for equivalent acts.
2) More importantly, many of the states either don't say who the victim is, only identifying penetration to have happened for the crime to have happened. Other states explicitly (i.e. Minnesota) identify the complainant as the victim, making it clear that men can be the victim.
The moral seems to be that having a patchwork of 50 criminal jurisdictions is a bad idea.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
Admiral X wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:32 am
No, it is literally the law in many states that penetration by a penis is what is required for it to be legally defined as rape.
I don't claim to be a lawyer, or that I looked at the sex crimes laws of every state, but I looked at laws in six states and there are two problems with your argument:
1) Many states do not use the term "rape". They have terms like "Sexual Assault" or "Criminal Sexual Conduct" or what not. One state (Alabama) I looked at have a very narrow rape law, but it also had other felonies with equal penalties for equivalent acts.
2) More importantly, many of the states either don't say who the victim is, only identifying penetration to have happened for the crime to have happened. Other states explicitly (i.e. Minnesota) identify the complainant as the victim, making it clear that men can be the victim.
The moral seems to be that having a patchwork of 50 criminal jurisdictions is a bad idea.
Dude, it's not even worth arguing with him, he's living in a parallel universe where the alt-right are noble heroes and anyone to the left of Mitt Romney is a totalitarian Maoist whackjob.
I shouldn't have engaged with him for so long, but I guess I'm pretty stupid this week.
I find it hilarious that you think Admiral X is a white supremist or right wing. I guess that means all to the right of communist; I'd peg him as Native and classical liberal.
Admiral X wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:41 am
Modern day intersectional feminism in a nutshell. They live in a perpetual fantasy version of the 1950s, and get off on the idea that women are just constantly oppressed by the ever present and invisible patriarchy (kind of reminds me of conspiracy theorists and the Illuminati, actually) because it gives them an excuse to basically be in a perpetual state of righteous indignation. This plays in to the Marxist oppressor/oppressed basis of intersectionalism, which would fall apart if they had to acknowledge that the oppression didn't actually exist. They have to direct their hatred somewhere, after all, and never mind that they are simply being used as tools by someone else.
While I think some feminism is totally bonkers and looking for places to claim hate. There is a bit of patriarchy or at least misogyny. Small things that annoy people. Like no female action figures. Female costumes require a tutu. Cancelling shows because they attracted a female audience. (The horror)
The first two I shook my head at. The third made me confused.
My personal irritation are school dress codes that seem to claim men are weak, stop distracting them by showing collar bone, or an ankle. I love codes written so a girl is told she has to change clothes and she swaps outfits with her boyfriend and the outfit is fine on him. But on a girl it is too lewd. . . .
So while I think there are some . . . I need a strong word that includes misguided, fool hardy, and self serving at the same time. Any way poor activists out there trying to start fires where it is not needed and damaging things in the process. But there is still some work to be done here.
Robovski wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:04 am
I find it hilarious that you think Admiral X is a white supremist or right wing. I guess that means all to the right of communist; I'd peg him as Native and classical liberal.
I've never seen him express white supremacist views, but he's definitely speaking from a world very different from ours, where men instead of women are discriminated against and statistically underrepresented due to outdated boys' club attitudes.
Nealithi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:13 pm
While I think some feminism is totally bonkers and looking for places to claim hate. There is a bit of patriarchy or at least misogyny. Small things that annoy people. Like no female action figures. Female costumes require a tutu. Cancelling shows because they attracted a female audience. (The horror)
The first two I shook my head at. The third made me confused.
I wouldn't call that misogyny since it doesn't seem like a hatred of women so much as just plain, good old-fashioned sexism. The attitude is that women/girls won't like these shows, so they don't want to pay money into it. Don't really get it myself - they seem to be living in the past, where girls watched something like the old version of My Little Pony.
My personal irritation are school dress codes that seem to claim men are weak, stop distracting them by showing collar bone, or an ankle. I love codes written so a girl is told she has to change clothes and she swaps outfits with her boyfriend and the outfit is fine on him. But on a girl it is too lewd. . . .
So while I think there are some . . . I need a strong word that includes misguided, fool hardy, and self serving at the same time. Any way poor activists out there trying to start fires where it is not needed and damaging things in the process. But there is still some work to be done here.
Double standards are anathema to me, which is why I also frequently find myself in conflict with the whole "social justice" thing. If something like that were up to me, I'd have the same standard for both, or if all else fails, they'd all have the same uniform.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
Robovski wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:04 am
I find it hilarious that you think Admiral X is a white supremist or right wing. I guess that means all to the right of communist; I'd peg him as Native and classical liberal.
I've never seen him express white supremacist views, but he's definitely speaking from a world very different from ours, where men instead of women are discriminated against and statistically underrepresented due to outdated boys' club attitudes.
Men are discriminated against in many ways, and current year feminism would love to make it even worse. Only ideology would keep one blind to that. What is that those who champion social justice say? "Those who have privilege are the most blind to it." Incidentally, both current year feminism and the "boys club" have much the same attitude toward complaining about this discrimination, which is to tell the complainers to just suck it up, because male.
Huh, funny little curiousity there. Apparently I am Ghandi.
I've had people call me worse. Quote-mining. Heh. Because I choose to reply to something that I take umbrage with, without altering what was said on the whole. Oh well, whatever.
"If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?
- xoxSAUERKRAUTxox
What a strange fantasy land you live in. As a Native I can never quite get over being called a white nationalist. 
They live in a perpetual fantasy version of the 1950s, and get off on the idea that women are just constantly oppressed by the ever present and invisible patriarchy (kind of reminds me of conspiracy theorists and the Illuminati, actually) because it gives them an excuse to basically be in a perpetual state of righteous indignation. This plays in to the Marxist oppressor/oppressed basis of intersectionalism, which would fall apart if they had to acknowledge that the oppression didn't actually exist. They have to direct their hatred somewhere, after all, and never mind that they are simply being used as tools by someone else. 
