What grinds my gears...

[Daggers]

Holy fvck this thread has suddenly become a shitfest of cesspool opinion.

 

It's her fault for dressing the way she does?

 

Fvck the fvck off. 

[grobyfox1990]

31 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Holy fvck this thread has suddenly become a shitfest of cesspool opinion.

 

It's her fault for dressing the way she does?

 

Fvck the fvck off. 

One cesspool comment from one poster in paragraphs of tapered debate and you come to that conclusion. People like you are a problem.

[marbles]

8 hours ago, Captain... said:

And this is how Andrew Tate and incels start.

Really ?  LOL

That’s a pretty amazing leap.

Also an idiotic one

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh agreed about micro-aggressions, I have to walk with my wife/pick her up so she's not alone after dark, mental thing to be doing in 2023. But that's not the point here, they do not warrant your life being ripped apart, which is what her online activity suggests she is trying to do, and they do not care about the collateral damage caused in the process. Whether or not you are suggesting that is irrelevant, the inflamed language and effort to go viral on her post shows that's exactly what she is trying to do.

 

Your post suggests an entirely rational response - It's just an opportunity for us all to stop and think about how we can avoid putting ourselves and others in uncomfortable situations. - that's not real life. She has initiated a campaign to make herself money, and is not bothered about who gets taken down in the process, she knows full well what will happen to this bloke if everyone believed her, and it's not a friendly chance to step back and consider your actions. The online campaign to out her for who she really is, is far less intrusive than the potential consequences for the bloke. She will be forgotten as another selfish social media con-artist by tomorrow, he could've lost all his relationships if everyone blinded believed her and her 'feelings.'

Like I said I'm I've not seen anything other than the stuff posted in here. I'm also guessing most other people have not. I'm guessing though that if this has blown up and she's getting people like Matt Walsh feeding her to his followers then she probably feels attacked and is fighting back. Maybe she did ham it up a bit for her content, maybe she was just having a shitty day.

 

Do you have any evidence that all of this was a calculated campaign about getting money?

 

Any sort of online campaign against her is massively damaging, she's probably a very minor personality online with a few hundred maybe thousand followers and ironically all those people making this blow up jumping to the defence of the guy have just made sure thousands and thousands more people see this.

[Captain...]

26 minutes ago, marbles said:

Really ?  LOL

That’s a pretty amazing leap.

Also an idiotic one

Not really, it's these sort of videos that people like Andrew Tate use as evidence of how women are manipulative and can't be trusted and so we should manipulate them back. There's enough in there to be able to defend the guy's actions, without enough context to really say one way or another.

[marbles]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Not really, it's these sort of videos that people like Andrew Tate use as evidence of how women are manipulative and can't be trusted and so we should manipulate them back. There's enough in there to be able to defend the guy's actions, without enough context to really say one way or another.

What’s idiotic is that YOU take my response of “this video does not show conclusive evidence of what she is claiming” as being an Andrew Tate starter kit.

You sir are being a simp, and an idiot,

Edited 24 January 2023 by marbles

[LiberalFox]

Why are so many people allowing themselves to be so wound up by a right wing culture warrior? I know some of you don't or didn't know who Matt Walsh is but now that you do can't you see he just looks for things to generate outrage and as a cover for misogynistic viewpoints?

 

Would the man who is supposedly being victimised even care?   

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

Why are so many people allowing themselves to be so wound up by a right wing culture warrior? I know some of you don't or didn't know who Matt Walsh is but now that you do can't you see he just looks for things to generate outrage and as a cover for misogynistic viewpoints?

 

Would the man who is supposedly being victimised even care?   

Possibly, possibly not. Maybe he didn't want his name tarnished as some kind of creep or predator when none of his behaviour on the video shows him to be such. You'd think if there was anything worse, it wouldn't have been edited out. 

 

Man is in gym. 

Man looks around in gym. 

Man sees woman struggling with equipment. 

Man walks over to help. 

Woman says no help needed, thanks. 

Man walks away. 

 

That's pretty much the crux of the video. There's no sexist comments or misogynistic behaviour. 

 

The woman appears to have taken the event out of context. No one denies she may have felt uncomfortable. It's sad that she did. I don't believe it's as a result of what she's wearing. Women should be allowed to wear what they want without being targeted or eye-balled or harassed by men. That's standard. But does the guy do that in the video? Nope. Not from what I can see. That's not to deny her uncomfortability, it's just refuting her reasons for doing so and almost alienating the guy based on no clear evidence. 

 

I'm hoping this doesn't make me some kind of Tate-sympathiser (!). Reason I posted the video wasn't anything to do with Walsh or his feelings on anything/everything else. In fact, whoever would have posted the response to her video doesn't matter. 

 

It's not good she gets targeted in the aftermath. But I think it is right to call out behaviour which isn't there, as much as it is to call out bad behaviour by men towards women (like normal people would/should do). 

 

[marbles]

6 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Why are so many people allowing themselves to be so wound up by a right wing culture warrior? I know some of you don't or didn't know who Matt Walsh is but now that you do can't you see he just looks for things to generate outrage and as a cover for misogynistic viewpoints?

 

Would the man who is supposedly being victimised even care?   

Don’t blame the messenger

 

He may care.  If he lost a job or was shunned over this.  Of course he would then have legal recourse - but it wouldn’t restore his reputation 

[LiberalFox]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Possibly, possibly not. Maybe he didn't want his name tarnished as some kind of creep or predator when none of his behaviour on the video shows him to be such. You'd think if there was anything worse, it wouldn't have been edited out. 

 

Man is in gym. 

Man looks around in gym. 

Man sees woman struggling with equipment. 

Man walks over to help. 

Woman says no help needed, thanks. 

Man walks away. 

 

That's pretty much the crux of the video. There's no sexist comments or misogynistic behaviour. 

 

The woman appears to have taken the event out of context. No one denies she may have felt uncomfortable. It's sad that she did. I don't believe it's as a result of what she's wearing. Women should be allowed to wear what they want without being targeted or eye-balled or harassed by men. That's standard. But does the guy do that in the video? Nope. Not from what I can see. That's not to deny her uncomfortability, it's just refuting her reasons for doing so and almost alienating the guy based on no clear evidence. 

 

I'm hoping this doesn't make me some kind of Tate-sympathiser (!). Reason I posted the video wasn't anything to do with Walsh or his feelings on anything/everything else. In fact, whoever would have posted the response to her video doesn't matter. 

 

It's not good she gets targeted in the aftermath. But I think it is right to call out behaviour which isn't there, as much as it is to call out bad behaviour by men towards women (like normal people would/should do). 

 

Did she actually name him? I'm not suggesting you are somehow a problem and I understand why you feel the way you do about it. I do wonder if this gets any attention if it's not picked up by the culture warriors. If I'd come across her randomly (on the internet) I'd have paid her no attention. It's pretty dangerous to establish a precedent that men can police what women are claiming online. I don't think we should 'call people out' unless we're directly involved in some way.  

[grobyfox1990]

26 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Like I said I'm I've not seen anything other than the stuff posted in here. I'm also guessing most other people have not. I'm guessing though that if this has blown up and she's getting people like Matt Walsh feeding her to his followers then she probably feels attacked and is fighting back. Maybe she did ham it up a bit for her content, maybe she was just having a shitty day.

 

Do you have any evidence that all of this was a calculated campaign about getting money?

 

Any sort of online campaign against her is massively damaging, she's probably a very minor personality online with a few hundred maybe thousand followers and ironically all those people making this blow up jumping to the defence of the guy have just made sure thousands and thousands more people see this.

No idea who Matt Walsh is but he sounds like an idiot. I have no proof this is a calculated campaign but I also have no proof my office will still be standing tomorrow morning, all evidence suggests it will be so I will get up on time and come to work. Likewise social media ploys like this work in a defined pattern, use explosive and targeted language to shame the target and make it impossible to argue against the post. Anyone defending the target will be pegged as a misogynist freak show, not true in this context.

 

Exactly, you say any sort of online campaign against her is damaging, so surely you have recognition of what the victim could be put through, at the express will of this woman who is deliberately targeting him for her own gain. I knew someone who in 2015 fell asleep in a disabled passenger seat on a train. A disabled user got on the train and shamed him online (could've just woken him up and asked him to move..) and he went on to lose his job at a major accountancy firm, he and his family were humiliated around the world, his travel pass was revoked and he became a social outcast hooked on anti-depressants. We know what kind of damage these posts do, if they go unchecked.

[LiberalFox]

12 minutes ago, marbles said:

Don’t blame the messenger

 

He may care.  If he lost a job or was shunned over this.  Of course he would then have legal recourse - but it wouldn’t restore his reputation 

It wouldn't happen. 

[StanSP]

4 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Did she actually name him? I'm not suggesting you are somehow a problem and I understand why you feel the way you do about it. I do wonder if this gets any attention if it's not picked up by the culture warriors. If I'd come across her randomly (on the internet) I'd have paid her no attention. It's pretty dangerous to establish a precedent that men can police what women are claiming online. I don't think we should 'call people out' unless we're directly involved in some way.  

No but I'm sure he may be recognised? 

 

Considering her online presence elsewhere (Only Fans), perhaps she gets recognised too. I actually don't think it's anything to do with Matt Walsh. Not defending him or his beliefs by any means, but that's missing the point by targeting him in this particular issue. 

 

No one is saying men can/should police what women are claiming online. But it's a discussion point regardless who raises it - Walsh, me, you, anyone else. I guess people want to discuss it because it's relatable in some way, as in people who go to the gym may have experienced both sides. 

 

I think it's dangerous to call out misogynistic behaviour that isn't there, in my opinion. It devalues actual, evidential claims of misogyny, and is unfair on those who are accused of it. 

[Samilktray]

7 hours ago, The Bear said:

That guy glancing in her direction was doing nothing wrong. He offered to help her and then walked away when she said no thanks. 

 

She was wrong, no matter how she "feels". She complains about being objectified and sexualised yet she wore that particular outfit to the gym showing off lots of skin. Oh and she also has an OnlyFans account, so I guess she doesn't mind it if she's getting paid. 

Bloody hell back to Birmingham you go, you’ve overstayed your welcome 

[LiberalFox]

51 minutes ago, StanSP said:

No but I'm sure he may be recognised? 

 

Considering her online presence elsewhere (Only Fans), perhaps she gets recognised too. I actually don't think it's anything to do with Matt Walsh. Not defending him or his beliefs by any means, but that's missing the point by targeting him in this particular issue. 

 

No one is saying men can/should police what women are claiming online. But it's a discussion point regardless who raises it - Walsh, me, you, anyone else. I guess people want to discuss it because it's relatable in some way, as in people who go to the gym may have experienced both sides. 

 

I think it's dangerous to call out misogynistic behaviour that isn't there, in my opinion. It devalues actual, evidential claims of misogyny, and is unfair on those who are accused of it. 

I think the thing that concerns me is that we can get a really distorted impression of the frequency and seriousness of certain behaviours because right wing culture warrior accounts are like the online equivalent of tabloids like the Mail and Sun. So we're not discussing things in proportion to how much they impact us or even what our own perceptions are. That makes me feel uncomfortable. Whenever a 'feminist' issue comes up, there's a tendency for men to believe that 'false claims' are a greater problem than they are. But this isn't to say that 'false claims' aren't a valid concern or that it's no big deal for a woman or anyone else to throw out accusations with no evidence. 

 

At the end of the day I really don't feel any fear around approaching women. I think if you are a man who respects women and respects boundaries then you aren't going to get into any trouble. Of course some asshole or nutter could make a false accusation, they could do that without ever having met you. It's very unlikely to actually happen and really not something I'd think about. 

[marbles]

15 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I think the thing that concerns me is that we can get a really distorted impression of the frequency and seriousness of certain behaviours because right wing culture warrior accounts are like the online equivalent of tabloids like the Mail and Sun. So we're not discussing things in proportion to how much they impact us or even what our own perceptions are. That makes me feel uncomfortable. Whenever a 'feminist' issue comes up, there's a tendency for men to believe that 'false claims' are a greater problem than they are. But this isn't to say that 'false claims' aren't a valid concern or that it's no big deal for a woman or anyone else to throw out accusations with no evidence. 

 

At the end of the day I really don't feel any fear around approaching women. I think if you are a man who respects women and respects boundaries then you aren't going to get into any trouble. Of course some asshole or nutter could make a false accusation, they could do that without ever having met you. It's very unlikely to actually happen and really not something I'd think about. 

Look, I get it.  Matt Walsh is on the Right, and you hate the Right so you feel an obligation to ignore anything he says. Even if there is some truth to it.  

No matter how you feel about him, a valid issue was brought up and is being discussed.  An issue mind you, that the Left would never bring up for fear that it would take away from their agenda (if Im wrong, and they did - show me where)

 

Fact is, it is an issue.  Is it as big a one as men treating women badly or as objects?  NO.  I never implied that.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

 

Yes, a nutter making a false claim is not likely to happen - but it absolutely does, and it ruins lives because a certain group of people will believe any lies by any nutter that falls within a certain group.  Just see this discussion for examples  

   

Edited 24 January 2023 by marbles

[The Bear]

1 hour ago, Samilktray said:

Bloody hell back to Birmingham you go, you’ve overstayed your welcome 

If I walked down the shops with just a tight t-shirt and a pair of boxer shorts on, and people started staring, I can't then go "oh why is everyone staring, I should be able to wear what I want?". 

 

The reality is men are attracted to women, we're genetically wired to want to look. Especially if they are showing some skin. 

[Samilktray]

Just now, The Bear said:

If I walked down the shops with just a tight t-shirt and a pair of boxer shorts on, and people started staring, I can't then go "oh why is everyone staring, I should be able to wear what I want?". 

 

The reality is men are attracted to women, we're genetically wired to want to look. Especially if they are showing some skin. 

As a 32 year old man I can control myself around women and don’t feel the need to stare at them  bloody weird bloke 

[Parafox]

There are so many times when I hate the internet. 

 

[LiberalFox]

8 minutes ago, marbles said:

Look, I get it.  Matt Walsh is on the Right, and you hate the Right so you feel an obligation to ignore anything he says. Even if there is some truth to it.  

No matter how you feel about him, a valid issue was brought up and is being discussed.  An issue mind you, that the Left would never bring up for fear that it would take away from their agenda (if Im wrong, and they did - show me where)

 

Fact is, it is an issue.  Is it as big a one as men treating women badly or as objects?  NO.  I never implied that.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

 

Yes, a nutter making a false claim is not likely to happen - but it absolutely does, and it ruins lives because a certain group of people will believe any lies by any nutter that falls within a certain group.  Just see this discussion for examples  

   

Honestly I think you're just reading things that aren't there. I don't take anything written by culture warriors seriously. Nobodies life has been ruined. 

[marbles]

1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

Honestly I think you're just reading things that aren't there. I don't take anything written by culture warriors seriously. Nobodies life has been ruined. 

Maybe on the first part

 

The last part has me curious - no harm, no foul? 
Just this instance, or as a general rule?

[LiberalFox]

If anyone is interested in a more authentic account of harassment faced by a woman: 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64333002

[marbles]

4 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

If anyone is interested in a more authentic account of harassment faced by a woman: 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64333002

Come on man.  Not one person in this discussion has said women don’t face harassment.  
 

But I am happy you used the term “more authentic”, thus validating exactly what we (and Matt Walsh) were trying to say. 
 

Edited 24 January 2023 by marbles

[LiberalFox]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

Maybe on the first part

 

The last part has me curious - no harm, no foul? 
Just this instance, or as a general rule?

I think as a general rule. If you disagree what would you do about it? 

[marbles]

Just now, LiberalFox said:

I think as a general rule. If you disagree what would you do about it? 

I don’t disagree at all

No harm, no foul is a great rule and one I would love to see more people live by.