Another elevator joke for you all:
So Pierce Harlan of the False Rape Society blog gets into an elevator ….
Well, OK, not a joke. In his latest post, Harlan offers a reaction, of sorts, to the whole atheist elevator incident –- by relating an anecdote of a recent elevator experience of his own.
EDITED TO ADD: Harlan has now deleted the post in question. It can still be seen, at least for now, in Google’s cache of the original page, which you can find here. Grab screenshots! Back to the story:
Seems he was riding a hotel elevator with a sweet old lady. Neither one said anything to the other (Harlan apparently hates talking to sweet old ladies) but when he got off the elevator – well, let’s let him explain:
I glanced back at her and saw that … she was immobilized with fear. In fact, she was practically cowering in the corner. Her eyes couldn’t have been wider if I had whipped out my dick and lathered it up with Grey Poupon. Hers was the face of utter, unbridled fear, and she was watching me like the scardest of scared deer. She said not a word but her demeanor practically pleaded, “Please don’t rape me, sir!”
Now, Harlan seems to have what you might call a taste for overstatement. He describes feminists as “screeching banshees” and “extremist loons allied with the sexual grievance industry.” I doubt he could describe a chicken-salad sandwich without resorting to angry hyperbole. (That was a little bit of overstatement on my part.) But let’s just assume that there is at least a kernel of truth here: this woman was creeped out by Harlan.
So what was Harlan’s response to this woman’s obvious discomfort?
[N]o one has more empathy for his fellow human beings than I do. The first thought that came to my mind in response to the obvious fear on the face of this pathetic, sweet looking, older woman — who probably never hurt anyone in her entire life — was fuck you!
Obviously we are supposed to ask just what it was that drove Harlan – the self-described world’s most empathetic man – to say something so seemingly callous? Well, as is usually the case with those we write about here, it all comes back to man-hating ladies and their male allies, with their evil insistence on sexual assault education (sorry, “indoctrination”) and their callous demands to “’take back the night,’ although the night has always been theirs.”(I don’t quite know what that means, but it sure sounds selfish of these women to want a whole extra night just for themselves.)
Ours is, Harlan says, “a culture marked by crass, hysterical fear-mongering about male sexual predation and violence.” (Evidently some guys haven’t gotten the memo on this.)
But all this evil misandry seems to have left poor Mr. Harlan in an uncharitable mood towards, well, almost everyone — though he directs his worst opprobrium at sweet old ladies.
Fuck them all. The paranoia of the woman in the elevator is her problem, not mine. Ironically, the elevator, the hotel itself, the car she rode in and the roads she rode on to get to the hotel were all undoubtedly conceived, designed, and built by men — men she’d fear just as much as me if they were standing in that elevator with her. I felt no guilt or shame or bewilderment over the fact that she fears me because of my birth class. Let her fear me. I can’t change it, and I have too much to do to worry about it.
And maybe, just maybe, it’s good that some people fear us. Maybe we should exult in the power we wield by reason of their paranoia. One thing I know: I will never do anything to alleviate their paranoia. In fact, I’m just fine with it, thank you very much. If someday, my riding the elevator causes some old woman to have a heart attack, that, too, is not my problem. Blame it on a culture that I don’t approve of. Blame on sweet looking, older women who give in to the paranoia.
Truly the world’s most empathetic man.
Harlan goes on to talk briefly about the Rebecca Watson elevator incident. Needless to say, he adds nothing interesting to the discussion.
Awww. Harlan hasn’t come back, and Marc is playing with my quotes! Without even involving me! Unfair! *sniffle*
Seriously, Marc? You’re not even worth it . Your frivolous, persnickety word-parsing is simply tedious, and I’m not going to bother.
Oh God, please! You get something very wrong, I’m not the nitpicker here, I am the victim of constant, tedious, boring, substanceless nitpicking.
And if someone can prove the existence of privilege… I’m still interested in that!
That’s terrible… maybe there’s an ointment for it.
Marc: yes, me again. Why? Because you can’t argue. Because the things you say, aren’t what you think you say.
In general doesn’t mean always. To take your hospital example. The question of the “good/bad” nature of a hospital isn’t one case. It’s the totality of cases.
As I said, in general people who play against the house in Vegas lose. Lots of people play. I can probably find several thousand a year who have a good run at the craps table, or hit a jackpot in the slots.
How many play craps, or the slots? The house, over time, always wins. In the situations where that advantage doesn’t exist, the house changes the rules (poker, where they charge a fee to play).
And this shit… “What he meant was…” No. What he said was. That’s what you have to work with. Why? Because that’s what’s there.
Anyone can play the, “What he meant was.” Here, I’ll show you.
Oh no, you again.
What you meant was something like, “shit, now I have to actually try to defend my weak ass arguments
It’s easy. Anyone can do it. And it’s not valid.
What you said was, “Oh no, you again.” I don’t know what you meant by it. All I have are ideas (based on how you went on in other threads about what you see as, “nit-picking”, given that pretty much the only person dissecting logical fallacies is me. If you want to call someone out, listen to PZ Myers and use names. Passive aggressive is for cowards. Don’t make the audience guess. You can do better than that. Stand behind your words. Be proud of them. When you want to insult someone do it so they know. Don’t shilly-shally behind deniability. It makes you look wishy-washy). To tell people what you meant, would be to lie, unless there was supporting evidence I could quote from elsewhere.
All you have to do to not get this treatment is put together well structured arguments. Spearhafoc can worry about grammar, but you have a handle on that. So you are a couple of steps above NWO on the visually difficult to read scale. A little more work and you could actually be a powerful sort of trollish figure.
But you’ll have to bring better game than this if you want to move on to the big leagues.
And I’m here to help you.
So Harlan took the post down. … Interesting.
It’s still available on Google cache — I put up a link and took some screenshots.
Maybe I should not have the image of that “lady” from Little Britain in my head when thinking of Mr. Harlan’s flouncing.
Maybe I should not have the image of that “lady” from Little Britain in my head when thinking of Mr. Harlan’s flouncing.
I totally want that image in my head! Where is it?
Pecunium, thank you, thank you, for doing what I lack the heart to do.
(David, I think we killed Mr. Harlan’s post, or near enough. Its skin is mounted on the wall of my messy library/office/cat box room now.)
mediumdave: I don’t really have a heart anymore not sense the Army took it out. Interrogation training makes one a bit hard-hearted, but to be an instructor you have to be ruthless.
I keep thinking of having it put back in… but it’s easier this way. Sometimes I wear it on my sleeve, but mostly I just look at it and ponder what it would be like to have it warming me from the inside again.
Then I I go back to tormenting things, and I realise there are other pleasures; which don’t need that sort of thing.
In general doesn’t mean always. To take your hospital example. The question of the “good/bad” nature of a hospital isn’t one case. It’s the totality of cases.
Go back and read the my post again.
The hospital example had absolutely nothing to do with the general/never distinction.
The platypus example was about general/never distinction. Of course you ignore that because you don’t know what to say against that.
What you meant was something like, “shit, now I have to actually try to defend my weak ass arguments
It’s easy. Anyone can do it. And it’s not valid.
No, I don’t mean that, I just hate your boring and wrong stuff you write.
“Oh no, you again” = disappointment. Nothing less, nothing more.
What you said was, “Oh no, you again.” I don’t know what you meant by it. All I have are ideas (based on how you went on in other threads about what you see as, “nit-picking”, given that pretty much the only person dissecting logical fallacies is me.
No, you are a parody of someone who tries to dissect logical fallacies.
If you want to call someone out, listen to PZ Myers and use names. Passive aggressive is for cowards.Don’t make the audience guess. You can do better than that. Stand behind your words. Be proud of them. When you want to insult someone do it so they know. Don’t shilly-shally behind deniability. It makes you look wishy-washy). To tell people what you meant, would be to lie, unless there was supporting evidence I could quote from elsewhere.
Oh I have an advice to you as well:
Don’t annoy me any further or I’ll say Rebecca Watson that you think SEX is a not a bad reason for the male atheists to hope more women participate in their atheist conferences.
A little more work and you could actually be a powerful sort of trollish figure.
But you’ll have to bring better game than this if you want to move on to the big leagues.
And I’m here to help you.
That’s always the funniest part, when you try this psycho manipulating stuff. Like the “wouldn’t it be great if you would be the guy that could prove us all wrong” stuff.
“I’m a LADEEE”
Pecunium:
“Hoping to get more SEX is not a bad reason to be a feminist.”
😀 😀 😀
That’s terrible… maybe there’s an ointment for it.
I think it’s terrible that people like Pecunium rather make this their own crusade instead of recognizing that attacking people that actually support their cause like me, won’t help them. Just because we had some disagreement on minor things he suddenly doesn’t care anymore about the principles I believe in. So the greatest ointment would be if we just could put this minor quarrel aside and again concentrate on the things that matter.
I guess I’m not surprised that our law hotel lawyer designer friend didn’t answer my question, but Pierce Harlan, if you’re still around, I would still love to know what your qualifications and/or expertise is in rape and CJ. For example, I have been a rape-victim advocate for several years, including within the prison system. I have worked with victims of rape/sexual assault as well as people who are in prison for rape; I’ve worked within the state legal system as well as with alternative justice groups; and I’ve volunteered with victims’ rights clinics also.
Please, I’d really love to know where you’re getting your perspective on rape/false rape accusations from.
Whoa, Beth. That show takes some pretty cheap shots at trans people and crossdressers.
yes, very offensive material!
Marc: And Rebecca Watson is going to care? I must confess, I am shaking in my boots that you went all boldface and warned me not to annoy you. I think I need some smelling salts. I am getting a case of the vapors. that you would misrepresent me, as you have misrepresented other people. I’m sho
Now, as to the hospital/platypus. They are the same example. but we’ll go back to the source.
Marc: And Rebecca Watson is going to care? I must confess, I am shaking in my boots that you went all boldface and warned me not to annoy you. I think I need some smelling salts. I am getting a case of the vapors from the idea that you would no more be unwilling to stoop to misrepresenting me than you have been of anyone else.
So feel free to write to Rebecca Watson. If you need her contact info, let me know.
Now, as to the hospital/platypus. They are the same example. but we’ll go back to the source.
That is you, right after you said,
So the direct “refutation” you offered is the hospital.
On to the monotremes:
Nitpicker: “The Platypus and the Echidna are mammals and lay eggs. But in general mammals don’t lay eggs.”
Me: “But what about this animal we lately discovered, it breastfeeds it’s youngs, lays eggs and is not a Platypus or an Echidna?”
Nitpicker: “So what? I only said in general! In general mammals don’t lay eggs, not never. What’s your problem?”
There is nothing here. It’s true. In general mammals don’t lay eggs. If we find a dozen more of those, that won’t change that, in general, mammals are placental.
That one case in a thousand is contrary to the general state of being doesn’t invalidate the general state of being. In general children are less than 5′ tall at ten years of age. Even if some sub-group of the human race was prone to attaining adult height at the age of nine the general rule applies.
What you are trying to do is nonsense. Generally men don’t leave a promising career, with a multi-million dollar annual paycheck and join the Army. Pat Tillman did. It does’t change that people don’t generally do that.
That’s why they are general rules, not absolute rules (e.g. if I drop an object in a 1G fiedl it will accelerate until it either attains terminal velocity to it’s denisty, surface area and surface condition or hits the source of the 1g field). Absolute rules are invalidated when a single contradictory instance occurs.
My problem with you isn’t that we had a disagreement. I’ve had disagreements with other people (e.g. MRAL). Disagreements are transient. My problem with you is that you are dishonest.
Take, for example, your misuse of the Gruber quotation. You cited it as if it meant one thing, when it fact it said quite the opposite.
You also say I ought to be treating you as if we were some sort of allies, working to the same ends. I fail to see it.
What you seemed to be doing with the Gruber quote, from both the ways in which you framed it, to the dishonest way in which you used it, was to say that false allegations of rape are a large problem. That they can’t be measured. Contextually you were implying that arguments of their being common need to be given some credence.
That’s not supporting my position. My position is that false rape allegations are wrong. That intentionally false allegations of rape (as with any other such crime) need to be investigated, and prosecuted. But I don’t think their is some vast number of such allegations out there, and I most certainly don’t think they are anywhere near the equal of rape denial.
Now, it’s possible you are in agreement with me. If so, you have utterly failed to convey this. If it is true then your logical,and rhetorical, skills are in even worse shape than I thought.
But being in agreement with me, in that case, is almost worse than not. You are lazy, dishonest, and weasel-worded. I’d rather not have people like that on my side, thank you very much.
Summer_Snow, British comedy in general takes cheap shots at everything. This show holds nothing sacred in particular.
That is why I liked Smack the Pony.
Yes, but there’s a difference between being crass and deliberately playing on transphobia. I’ve seen some hilarious Smack the Pony skits that didn’t reinforce bigotry.
I must confess, I am shaking in my boots that you went all boldface and warned me not to annoy you.
Oh please, that was just a joke, don’t take everything so serious.
Take, for example, your misuse of the Gruber quotation. You cited it as if it meant one thing, when it fact it said quite the opposite.
I’m sorry where have I quoted Gruber, where? Please quote me so I know, I really cannot remember ever quoting Gruber.
You also say I ought to be treating you as if we were some sort of allies, working to the same ends. I fail to see it.
Have I, in the end aside from some minor differences not always supported what you believed in? Just because I can’t support your “support participation of woman – you get more sex”… (something I will never support) how can you be that unforgiving?
Now, it’s possible you are in agreement with me. If so, you have utterly failed to convey this. If it is true then your logical,and rhetorical, skills are in even worse shape than I thought.
Honestly I don’t know what I could be in disagreement of and I hope this unfortunate misunderstanding will clear up soon.
But being in agreement with me, in that case, is almost worse than not. You are lazy, dishonest, and weasel-worded. I’d rather not have people like that on my side, thank you very much.
Don’t you think that you might hurt me with these accusations. The “lazy” and “weasel-worded” thing… I can live with that. But dishonest — no!
Marc: Sorry: I misread Harlan as you: My mistake. In that case you weren’t dishonest.
So yes, I made a mistake (not the first, not even the first here). But that doesn’t change the rest of it. Disagreements are transitory. We might be in all sweet accord on something else. But how you agree, and the patterns of your past, those matter. What you’ve done, by way of making your point, colors how future arguments from you are judged. That’s one’s reputation.
What I’ve said is that were men to be attentive to women’s interests, needs, fears, that the odds of women being more interested in them would go up. That is likely to lead to more sex. That would be a win-win.
What you didn’t support was that Rebecca Watson* had the right to call out a guy for being creepy.
But when you say that “getting more sex is a good reason to be a feminist” is my position…. that’s a lie.
When you say that your analogies aren’t what they are, that’s dishonest.
*I know that was an attempt at humor. It failed. I made fun of it. Don’t take it so seriously.
I know Summer-that is why I liked the show when I found out about it. Unlike Little Britain, they were able to get laughs without being cruel.
What you didn’t support was that Rebecca Watson* had the right to call out a guy for being creepy.
Something that probably known for is my radical approach to problems… to get down to the root of the trouble. You must interpret everything I say in that context otherwise it doesn’t make sense. So as I said many times before, if we assume the final aim still would be the multi-phased elimination of the male sex, we can say: Watson can complain as much as she wants but what for? Anything she would achieve would just be like treating the symptoms.
What I’ve said is that were men to be attentive to women’s interests, needs, fears, that the odds of women being more interested in them would go up. That is likely to lead to more sex. That would be a win-win.
OK.
When you say that your analogies aren’t what they are, that’s dishonest.
I’m sorry for what I’ve written. I’m ashamed of it, now, how can I ever correct what I’ve said?
Why would you drop that Little Britain clip in this thread, though? It relies on hateful stereotypes of trans people for all of its gags. That’s not funny, and it’s not okay.