Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6883132" data-attributes="member: 16814">Dude, those words are synonyms.  They're interchangable in most places.  Now, I'll stipulate that here are a bunch of management structures that break them into separate categories, but those are artificial.  I guarantee you that if I'm responsible for doing something and I don't do it, I don't get to skate by saying 'yes, but I'm not accountable.'It's really not, as I don't accept that I have anything to be at fault for to begin with.  I get that you want to make those the same thing, because that way encourages the narrative that I do have something to be guilty of and I'm just refusing to accept my culpability.  I reject the entire framework.The main problem with this structure, aside from it also explicitly stating that group member bear group culpability, exactly as I said was intended, is the it now requires that all humans and animals also bear culpability.  This means that you're at fault, and so it the persons terrorized, as their part of the group that you say just have some shared guilt.  It's on of the core failures of the group guilt issues.  I'm not into blaming victims.No.  I do not have a duty.  I should feel the need, and I do.  I have taken action already, and will stand up again in the future.  There is a problem, and it needs more light and people willing to stand up.  I agree that there should be anti-harassment policies, but care should be taken to make them general enough to be broadly useful, and not written to fit the immediately clamor.  What I also reject is that, as a white male, I bear any responsibility, accountability, guilt, or fault for the actions of other individuals, be they also white and male or otherwise.No, no they are not.  They have no duty or responsibility for the bad actions of others.  The easy flaw here is to do what Grandine did above -- move the definition of the group.  Right now, it's white males that have a terrorism problem, but move the goalposts a bit to just white people having a terrorism problem, and now you're saying that women are culpable to.  Group guilt is entirely malleable by the ease with which one defines the group.  Take your Nawlins example.  That's a real issue of people not reporting crime and allowing it to fester.  But is it everyone in the neighborhoods?  What if only some didn't report it and others did.  Your blanket now says that the ones doing what their supposed to still have the same level of group guilt as the ones that do nothing or even that commit the crimes, only because they happened to be defined into the group.  It's a bad argument.Rather, it should be acknowledged that harassment and assault are individual crimes that can be stopped by others taking note and taking action.  Instead of insisting people have guilt that they need to expunge, offer empowerment through clear reporting lines at your events and clear adjudication processes.  A harassment policy should leave absolutely no doubt as to who to report an incident to, what's expected of a report (if anything), and who will have the action and what process they will follow.  A few words that say 'harassment will not be tolerated' is pretty useless.  Unfortunately, that's the extent to which most anti-harassment policies go, and some of the ones hailed here are about that bad.  They're more about assuaging that guilt you insist everyone has and not actually effective at dealing with the problem.And that's really my main point here -- if you're so focused on making sure that people accept and acknowledge their group guilt, then that is what will drive your efforts -- ways to reduce that guilt.  And those efforts may work to make you feel better (the calls for people disagreeing with what some posters believe this thread should be about to be silenced is a great example) but don't address the problem anymore.  You're adding in a middleman - guilt - that actively works to undermine your goals.But, I know why it's done.  It's nice to feel the rage at people that don't accept their flawed.  It's great signalling to claim how much you accept your guilt, to make great shows of how you're acting against your own guilty group and advocating for the downtrodden.  Thing is, the downtrodden don't give a rat's bum about your guilt -- they don't want to be harassed anymore.  So, instead of guilt, make that your goal, and leave off insisting that every white male needs to have some moral and ethical culpability because there are real jerkwads out there that happen to be white and male.Uh, no.  Just no, man.  If you threaten to rape someone, and it's a true threat, you're guilty of making a true threat.  If you harass someone, you're guilty of that.  But to achieve terroristic threats, you have to make true threats against a group of people, not an individual.  There are zero cases of someone being successfully tried for terroristic threats aimed at an individual.I don't suppose the irony of your statements above is remotely apparent to you?  If not, well, you demanded clear and unambiguous sources at a specific level of occurrence and impact, and then you advocated for a clear policy of being moderated if you complain about sources of information.  I get that you meant 'sources of information I don't think should be questioned,' which does change the tone here from ironic to totalitarian, but still, funny stuff.</blockquote>

Verification