User Profile

Forum Activity by pluckylump

pluckylumpI can't imagine he will have any standing to file this lawsuit.

I doubt cross-examination of the embryos will prove fertile.

Agreed, but they shouldn't have gone after her nest egg.

I hope you two are having a blastocyst.
Dec 8, 2016 4:34 AM
crumbsroomWell, the reality is that my point was broader than what you think it is. I would have hoped that you'd at least give the benefit of the doubt that my end game when it comes to the problem with rape and sexual assault being talked about, prosecuted, eradicated, is the same as yours. And whether my opinion on this was ultimately right or wrong, which I'm always more than willing to consider with my opinions, it was clear there was going to be no proper discussion of it since any improper word that I used was going to get your 'rape apologist' police after me. And, just because you didn't outright call me that, doesn't mean you weren't wielding such an easy discussion ender as that pretty heavily.

There is obviously nothing to discuss here. I've tried thinking of a myriad of ways to make it clearer what my whole point is getting at, but I'm not going to give you anything else to misconstrue. Let's leave it all at you being 100% correct. Is that fair?

I say I'm having a hard time being diplomatic, not in the sense I don't care to, but in the sense that I am clearly struggling with it. I'm trying to be conciliatory while explaining why I said the thing I said, explaining how my intention was not to use it as an insult but as an example of how bad what you were saying seemed to be. Obviously I'm not doing that properly either. I'm not trying to keep a fight alive.
Dec 8, 2016 4:15 AM
I can't imagine he will have any standing to file this lawsuit.
Dec 8, 2016 3:49 AM
Janson JinnistanBless you.

Or be sarcastically defensive. That's just as good as being more sensitive to the big insults of rape discussion.
Dec 8, 2016 3:42 AM
crumbsroomOr maybe you could not keep drawing allusions to everyone who disagrees with you in this thread as being rape apologists for fuck's sake.

I'm sure you read Takoma's posts. She was able to articulate how myself and Janson and Yarn's approach to this thread was a problem to her, which was all fair, and at the same time was able to at least show some evidence that she understood what our ultimate point was, even if she wasn't at all on board with it. And the whole time she didn't have to make any of these garbage references to how those who might bring up a different point of view here aren't somehow in bed with rape culture.

In short, you are a smart poster who I like, but this is a shit thread, and everything in it is awful and it all really needs to stop. We're all better than this.

I didn't say you are a rape apologist. I said it's a tactic used by rape apologists, which makes it a big problem when people who aren't rape apologists also use it. It's not helpful. It makes many rape survivors feel awful. It should bother you that you did something that makes a lot of rape survivors feel terrible, however that discomfort doesn't mean it's unfair of me to point that out. It's an invitation to try to do better.

And yeah, Takoma did a better job at being diplomatic about it. I'm having a harder time making sure I don't upset people doing something deeply upsetting. Sorry I'm making you mad, but you did a shitty thing. I like your posts too, so you doing a shitty thing I usually only see really awful people do is a shock.

It's not that you had any different point of view. You had a very specific point of view that awful people exploit specifically because it is exploitable to hurt people. I don't think you are in the category of people who purposefully do it to hurt others. That doesn't change that it is hurtful.
Dec 8, 2016 3:24 AM
ergill sanchezThe former in the midst of a from-the-start-too-long discussion of buttery digits (one you've threatened to restart here on page 11), the latter part of the ongoing saga of rape semantics. You were part of the thicket, pluck.

I didn't claim otherwise. I said I didn't choose it and I tried to steer away from it. That is all. If that's not good enough for you, then my bad. If the only acceptable thing I could have done was immediately acquiesce to people policing when the word rape is allowed to be used, a thing rape survivors are often quite vocal about being damaging a rape apologists do regularly precisely because it is damaging, then I'm just going to disappoint you always.
Dec 8, 2016 2:44 AM
ergill sanchezWell, my entree into this was your post, so I went into the article expecting something more rape than rapey. Instead I came out grossed out by the general picture of two old men colluding to humiliate a girl, not really clear on what was or wasn't simulated. Then I read her interview, which seemed to hew even less to your lede. Then I came back here and saw Janson's response. My first thought was, this can go one of two ways: you could say, "Ok, maybe rape, maybe not, it's not clear, but we can agree on the more important point that it was exploitative and totally awful," or everyone could descend into skeevy pseudo-scholastic debates (no thanks), accusations and counter-accusations and pulpiteering. The word ended up being a distraction. Kind of like if someone posted an article and said it detailed "actually definitively genocide" committed by the US in Iraq, and then you go on to read it and it details our execrable but-not-obviously-genocidal policies. "I hope we don't lose our focus here!" someone says.

I said on the very first page:

"I hesitate to not call that on the rape side of the border, but alright."

on the second page I said:

"I'm not insistent on calling this rape so much as incredulous that calling it rape harms the usefulness of the word."

I've certainly made my disappointment known that the first response was to discuss what was rape or not rather than any other topic. I even offered an example of what could be discussed instead. I'm not the one that made this the hill we're all fighting on.
Dec 8, 2016 1:29 AM
pluckylumpDidn't Favreau's character die?

No. He was in a coma. Does it even matter now that we have web-pits?

If his character was dead he could voice the web-pits. Now they'll have to get someone else. Ray Winstone should do it.
Dec 7, 2016 9:46 PM
pluckylumpDidn't Favreau's character die?

He exploded, but he got better.

He can never escape the Marvel machine!
Dec 7, 2016 7:36 PM
Didn't Favreau's character die?
Dec 7, 2016 7:13 PM
If you want to debate over the certainty of butter actually being smeared near or in her anus, fine. Let's go nuts. You want to get hot and bothered over the use of "for real", and refuse to accept that my intention was different from your interpretation, waste someone else's time.
Dec 7, 2016 6:21 PM
ergill sanchezYou started the thread turning "I felt a little raped" into "She was actually definitely raped," a tabloidy extrapolation, and hand-waving "assault of a sexual nature. That's rape," which is just wrong. I feel like if someone else posted this without the editorializing and the heedless heel-digging, we wouldn't be here right now.

I didn't turn "I felt a little raped" into anything. Her interview wasn't the catalyst of this thread. It was the interview of the director saying they kept information from her about humiliating her with butter.

I don't think you guys even read the link. It seems you, Janson and crumbsroom just saw "for real rape" and thought I was talking about penis insertion and no matter how many times I say I'm not, the line of argument just changes hands.
Dec 7, 2016 5:56 PM
Janson Jinnistan
pluckylumpIt's almost like rape is super complicated and making definitive statements about it is difficult if not dangerous.

"For real".

As I already said, to differentiate from the simulated rape. It was not, as you chose to interpret it, an attempt to make the rape more severe than regular rape. How about, "The Rape Scene in Last Tango in Paris? There was Some Non-Simulated Rape in There."
Dec 7, 2016 5:34 AM
Janson JinnistanAnd, plucky? ?I took a recess from foreplay to post this so I hope you're happy.

I didn't know you were such a Boston fan.
Dec 7, 2016 5:24 AM
ergill sanchezPremature to what? There will never be a time that we can't doubt someone's testimony based off of pure speculation. But since the thread was predicated on believing and respecting her testimony, and the integrity of testimony is such an important subject here, that's not casual route to take.

It's almost like rape is super complicated and making definitive statements about it is difficult if not dangerous.
Dec 7, 2016 5:18 AM
ergill sanchezI haven't said you demanded it was always true. I disagreed with your contention that it can always be invoked as a credible possibility.

Then I guess disagreement is where we be.
Dec 7, 2016 4:55 AM
ergill sanchezAll manner of things are "well documented facts." Lying is a well documented fact. Misunderstanding is a well documented fact. That doesn't mean they're credibly invoked in every given case or that they can't be deeply patronizing to the person you're supposedly defending.

Being open to something does not mean demanding it is always true.

Janson pointed to her words to shut down any chance that she was raped. I suggested that her words could be informed by the culture she lived in. That is a suggestion that his declaration of certainty is premature, not an opposite declaration of certainty.
Dec 7, 2016 4:39 AM
ergill sanchezInsofar as everyone has called it horrible and a sort of sexual assault, I feel like the so-called middle ground has been in sight from early on. You've set yourself at pretty high pitch, however, and rubbed Janson the wrong way, who set himself at a haughty pitch and rubbed you the wrong way. Whatever happens, I'm not going to talk about phantom digits.

I think you mean crumbsroom came in at a pretty high pitch and eventually lead the whole thread that direction.

ergill sanchezBut how badly do you need the possibility that she's internalized rape culture? Enough that Janson is obligated to credit it in every given case? Enough to invoke this with no evidence whatsoever in order to dismiss parts of her testimony that don't jibe with the story you want to tell? ?I feel like that's the tail wagging the dog. Her story doesn't have to have the nascent possibility of every aspect of rape culture in order for it to matter or for said aspects to exist separately. It doesn't have to hold everything on its shoulders.

How badly do I need the possibility that she's internalized rape culture? I'm not likely to be raped, so I personally don't really need it. Victims internalizing rape culture is a well documented problem. It should always be considered as a possibility. I'm not advocating dismissal when someone says they weren't raped. I posed it initially as something that should be pondered. I wondered what she would say divorced from rape culture. It could be different, and it could not be. We can't pretend that everything said by everyone isn't steeped in rape culture. It is. This isn't a discussion for certainty, drawn lines, or dismissal.
Dec 7, 2016 4:10 AM
Sam Bee's vitriol toward Jill Stein is super weird, particularly over initiating recounts. She called it undermining democracy, which doesn't even make sense.
Dec 7, 2016 3:32 AM
AllegedlyYarnIn the interview I read (and quoted), Schneider stated that she was, in fact, informed of the butter and its intended use before they shot the scene. It seems, the problem here isn't with the nature of the touching, per se, but rather the apparently coerced consent (i.e,, the age difference, prestige difference, time pressure, potential threat to future employment). That is, if Brando had been "inspired," told the director, and then they approached her with the idea, and given her a day or two to consider the creative choice, and if later, without being pressured or coerced, she agreed to the butter application, then it would not have been an offense, right?? ?

My reading of it was that the entire rape scene wasn't originally scripted and she was told about it just before they started to film it. The butter itself was still secret as Bertolucci stated in his interview.

They needed to make it clear to her that it wouldn't reflect on her badly or cause any trouble if she refused. She obviously thought she had no choice but to do the scene. The butter needed to be a part of the disclosure. Then there's non-coerced consent. Maybe it would still be super disturbing for her, but she would have gone into it with the information she needed to make fair and informed consent.

AllegedlyYarnWhat do you think of what happened to the actress in Brown Bunny? Or to Sean Young in Blade Runner?

As far as I know Brown Bunny was done with consent and the actress has defended her choice to participate. I think it's messed up that people thought Sevigny had destroyed her career for participating. On Blade Runner, I don't think I know anything about that.
Dec 6, 2016 10:16 PM