What's the appeal - - Honestly

[Kelliezgirl]

I don’t think you really understand what it’s like to be on the receiving end of loathsome vitriol from the anti-woke brigade.

Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what I’ve seen trans people subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness. Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what I’ve seen POC subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness. Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what women are subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness.

If you had to suffer any of that, you might think twice about co-opting the battle cry of the Uruk-Hai tendency.

This is not a nice debating point, it’s about using the same cudgel that others use to batter anyone they dislike. You don’t have to believe me, you’re lucky you’ve never had to deal with that shit. Do what you want, but at least you are now informed.

And now we have the victim Olympics. That's the one Woke tactic you forgot to mention Simon.

 

[HordHolm]

Well, that was a fun concept for a thread that got turned into a pile of steaming, stinking shit. Well done everyone.

 

[iwatchus]

What's the evidence that a song like this will increase the occurrence of rape?

There have been multiple discussions in the AH where people will vehemently argue that none of their stories will lead anyone to do anything. And those stories are far more direct and graphic than Baby it's Cold Outside. But somehow it is a gateway to rape?

Okay, I will bite one more time. But I really don't want to be arguing this.

I don't think such thing as proof exists for anything about human behavior. We are just not measurable that way.

But I think there is a logical progression. Which of these steps do you disagree with:

1) The arts (written, visual, and performing) can impact human behavior. This is widely believed and exploited by commercial, religious, and political interests for many generations.

2) Art that demonstrates a behavior in a positive light encourages more people to pursue that behavior.

3) The song under consideration is a fun and positive depiction of a man convincing a woman to stay in a sexually compromising situation against her stated wishes, even if not her actual wishes.

4) Many men will misinterpret a woman's intent around sexuality.

5) If more men refuse to take no for an answer, when a oman means no, more rapes occur.

Again, which of these steps do you disagree with or deny follow from the earlier statements?

 

[AG31]

Okay, I will bite one more time. But I really don't want to be arguing this.

I don't think such thing as proof exists for anything about human behavior. We are just not measurable that way.

But I think there is a logical progression. Which of these steps do you disagree with:

1) The arts (written, visual, and performing) can impact human behavior. This is widely believed and exploited by commercial, religious, and political interests for many generations.

2) Art that demonstrates a behavior in a positive light encourages more people to pursue that behavior.

3) The song under consideration is a fun and positive depiction of a man convincing a woman to stay in a sexually compromising situation against her stated wishes, even if not her actual wishes.

4) Many men will misinterpret a woman's intent around sexuality.

5) If more men refuse to take no for an answer, when a oman means no, more rapes occur.

Again, which of these steps do you disagree with or deny follow from the earlier statements?

So you don't like the song. You probably don't like Rubens' The Rape of the Sabines? What action are you suggesting?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Hmm. So you're saying that identity can have a bearing on how credible a perspective is, but not on how credible an opinion is?

If one part of your identity is, like, 20 years of experience as a diesel mechanic, does that make your opinion on emissions or engine efficiency standards more credible than someone who knows absolutely nothing about how cars work?

I still think I'm missing something.

So, if we have an experienced diesel mechanic debating an environmentalist who has never popped the hood on his car would we defer to the mechanic?

The biggest flaw in the arguments about "you aren't x ergo you can't have an opinion" is that it ignores the sample size.

Suppose, since this is an erotic site, that we were actually talking about sex.
If we discussed what women like, and men offered an opinion.
"How dare you, you aren't a woman!"
But here's the thing. Women don't necessarily know what women like. They know what THEY like, singular.
Compare that to a man who has had 20 female partners over the course of his life.
Who is actually better equipped to offer an opinion? He has a much larger sample size to extrapolate an opinion from.

The reverse is equally true of course.
A man only knows what he likes.
A woman knows what all of her partners liked (or didn't).

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Hmm. So you're saying that identity can have a bearing on how credible a perspective is, but not on how credible an opinion is?

If one part of your identity is, like, 20 years of experience as a diesel mechanic, does that make your opinion on emissions or engine efficiency standards more credible than someone who knows absolutely nothing about how cars work?

I still think I'm missing something.

Opinions don't require knowledge, experience, or situation. This should be evident by the opinions expressed by many.

Facts are required for a person to have perspective. Beliefs are required for them to have an opinion. Now, a person's identity can certainly influence their beliefs. For example, a diesel mechanic may have the opinion that those engines are superior to other types of engines, but that is not a factual perspective, only an opinion.

 

[PennyThompson]

So, if we have an experienced diesel mechanic debating an environmentalist who has never popped the hood on his car would we defer to the mechanic?

Possibly, yes! When we talk about the specifics and nuances of something, expertise matters and might teach us something, even (especially?) things that we might not want to hear.

So I chose that specific example because I was once chatting with a diesel guy and the topic of pollution and emissions came up, and he explained (I'm probably butchering the details because I'm not an expert) that a lot of the industry tests and measurements were bullshit because they only measured for particles of a certain size. So car companies were designing systems that just made the exhaust particles come out of the tailpipe smaller, which was actually worse for the environment and human health than the bigger particles that were being measured and regulated.

It's why I was hoping Simon would extrapolate on his post, because it sounded like his "four axioms of wokeness" included the axiom that woke people believe expertise is real and lived experiences matter and he doesn't believe that, and I thought that was probably not what he was trying to say

 

[AG31]

But here's the thing. Women don't necessarily know what women like. They know what THEY like, singular.
Compare that to a man who has had 20 female partners over the course of his life.
Who is actually better equipped to offer an opinion? He has a much larger sample size to extrapolate an opinion from.

This deserves repeating.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Possibly, yes! When we talk about the specifics and nuances of something, expertise matters and might teach us something, even (especially?) things that we might not want to hear.

So I chose that specific example because I was once chatting with a diesel guy and the topic of pollution and emissions came up, and he explained (I'm probably butchering the details because I'm not an expert) that a lot of the industry tests and measurements were bullshit because they only measured for particles of a certain size. So car companies were designing systems that just made the exhaust particles come out of the tailpipe smaller, which was actually worse for the environment and human health than the bigger particles that were being measured and regulated.

It's why I was hoping Simon would extrapolate on his post, because it sounded like his "four axioms of wokeness" included the axiom that woke people believe expertise is real and lived experiences matter and he doesn't believe that, and I thought that was probably not what he was trying to say

I think that the woke often retreat to "expertise" by which they really mean credentialism.
Perhaps a better analogy for me to have used would be saying you can't question someone who has driven a diesel truck for the last 30 years. That makes him some sort of de facto expert, where as our diesel mechanic's perspective is irrelevant because he drives a Prius and how dare he pretend to understand diesels.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This deserves repeating.

Thank you.

 

[SmilingLez]

Suppose, since this is an erotic site, that we were actually talking about sex.
If we discussed what women like, and men offered an opinion.
"How dare you, you aren't a woman!"
But here's the thing. Women don't necessarily know what women like. They know what THEY like, singular.
Compare that to a man who has had 20 female partners over the course of his life.
Who is actually better equipped to offer an opinion? He has a much larger sample size to extrapolate an opinion from.

The reverse is equally true of course.
A man only knows what he likes.
A woman knows what all of her partners liked (or didn't).

hmmm

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Okay, I will bite one more time. But I really don't want to be arguing this.

I don't think such thing as proof exists for anything about human behavior. We are just not measurable that way.

But I think there is a logical progression. Which of these steps do you disagree with:

1) The arts (written, visual, and performing) can impact human behavior. This is widely believed and exploited by commercial, religious, and political interests for many generations.

2) Art that demonstrates a behavior in a positive light encourages more people to pursue that behavior.

3) The song under consideration is a fun and positive depiction of a man convincing a woman to stay in a sexually compromising situation against her stated wishes, even if not her actual wishes.

4) Many men will misinterpret a woman's intent around sexuality.

5) If more men refuse to take no for an answer, when a oman means no, more rapes occur.

Again, which of these steps do you disagree with or deny follow from the earlier statements?

Your argument falls apart at #3. With "against her stated wishes" and sex is never mentioned. He wants her to stay longer but there is no evidence to support "in a sexually compromising situation." She's already been there with him for quite some time, how has the evening suddenly transformed into sexually compromising"?
She points out there will be rumors but that's not the same as them actually committing to doing something.

 

[SmilingLez]

My question is - it valid to "judge" at a song released in 1944 with 2025 "eyes"?

 

[SimonDoom]

I don’t think you really understand what it’s like to be on the receiving end of loathsome vitriol from the anti-woke brigade.

Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what I’ve seen trans people subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness. Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what I’ve seen POC subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness. Maybe if you had to suffer one tenth of what women are subjected to in the name of anti-wokeness.

If you had to suffer any of that, you might think twice about co-opting the battle cry of the Uruk-Hai tendency.

This is not a nice debating point, it’s about using the same cudgel that others use to batter anyone they dislike. You don’t have to believe me, you’re lucky you’ve never had to deal with that shit. Do what you want, but at least you are now informed.

No I don't have any idea.

But I have to say this: This post is yet another example. You are providing me with a laundry list of all the different rhetorical strategies that are characteristic of this way of thinking, which I will try to avoid naming in the interest of lessening rancor as much as I can. This response is yet another classic tactic. The "You don't know what it's like to suffer and should be more cautious about what you say" response.

And, honestly, my response to that is, no, I have no idea what it's like, but frankly, I don't care that much. I don't say what I say to provoke you. I say it because I believe it, and I'm not going to dial that back out of concern for people's feelings. We're not friends at a party; we're writing colleagues talking about topics of interest regarding writing. A certain amount of objectivity is important, and a willingness to let others say things in a way that we might not expect them to use at a party or across a table at lunch if they're friends of ours.

None of us has a veto power over another's speech rights because of our pain and suffering. No person's feelings are more important than any other person's feelings. And in any event, I'm expressing my ideas, not my feelings.

I would imagine you have no idea what it's like to be the subject of vitriol of woke people who want to shut you up, or physically block you from getting into a building, or get you fired, or shout down what you are trying to say at a lecture hall, or call you vicious names and threaten you in social media. This sort of thing goes on often now. Do you care about that person's feelings?

When people in these kinds of discussions say "you should be more sensitive" what they usually really mean is "you should be more sensitive to how I feel," not "you should be more sensitive, generally." And actually, no, I don't. All feelings matter.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

My question is - it valid to "judge" at a song released in 1944 with 2025 "eyes"?

Frankly there isn't anything wrong with this song even looking at it through 2025 eyes.

That said, any art is a reflection of the period it was created.
Criticizing Casablanca for not having a diverse cast misses that point.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't have a strong opinion on most of this, and I think it can only be an endlessly cyclical argument, but I'm really curious about this one:

I genuinely want to know more about this, because I'm struggling to square it with the world around me.

Wouldn't being old have a bearing on the qualification of one's opinion on aging? Wouldn't being pregnant have a bearing on the qualification of one's opinion on childbirth? Being wheelchair bound and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Serving in the military and going to war?

Surely there are endless examples of where one part of a person's identity might give them more experience (and more personal stake) in a given subject? I'm so confused that I feel like I might be missing part of your point

I overstated my point by using the word "any." Being old qualifies you to say something about being old.

But the point is that your personal experience makes you an expert only on your personal experience. Being a man doesn't make you an expert on the subject of men generally. You know your one little personal slice of the totality of male experience.

On the subject relevant to this discussion, for instance, seduction, some women have their experience with that and their perspective is valid. But it's not universal. I've had my experiences with seduction and been able to form judgments about women I've been with and the interactions and discussions I've had with them, and their attitudes about seduction, and I have a valid point of view on that subject, too.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It was probably done about the same time the Dean Martin song was popular. It was an old black and white movie, typical of its time. It may have been in color though.

The famous one is Dean Martin. And that is part of my time. He recorded that in my formative years. I agree that it would be unlikely to be recorded quite that way now.

I hope that the "ours" in your statement was those of us in the forum. I am not the oldest one here, so several of us may view this differently.

Its time was the first time where women could be reflected as having sexual interests (which was beyond good, IMO). But the times had not really learned to deal with some of the implications of the sexual freedom the sixties brought.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Found it.

 

[SmilingLez]

Frankly there isn't anything wrong with this song even looking at it through 2025 eyes.

That said, any art is a reflection of the period it was created.
Criticizing Casablanca for not having a diverse cast misses that point.

I agree

 

[MillieDynamite]

From the same movie.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

 

[EmilyMiller]

No I don't have any idea.

But I have to say this: This post is yet another example. You are providing me with a laundry list of all the different rhetorical strategies that are characteristic of this way of thinking, which I will try to avoid naming in the interest of lessening rancor as much as I can. This response is yet another classic tactic. The "You don't know what it's like to suffer and should be more cautious about what you say" response.

And, honestly, my response to that is, no, I have no idea what it's like, but frankly, I don't care that much. I don't say what I say to provoke you. I say it because I believe it, and I'm not going to dial that back out of concern for people's feelings. We're not friends at a party; we're writing colleagues talking about topics of interest regarding writing. A certain amount of objectivity is important, and a willingness to let others say things in a way that we might not expect them to use at a party or across a table at lunch if they're friends of ours.

None of us has a veto power over another's speech rights because of our pain and suffering. No person's feelings are more important than any other person's feelings. And in any event, I'm expressing my ideas, not my feelings.

I would imagine you have no idea what it's like to be the subject of vitriol of woke people who want to shut you up, or physically block you from getting into a building, or get you fired, or shout down what you are trying to say at a lecture hall, or call you vicious names and threaten you in social media. This sort of thing goes on often now. Do you care about that person's feelings?

When people in these kinds of discussions say "you should be more sensitive" what they usually really mean is "you should be more sensitive to how I feel," not "you should be more sensitive, generally." And actually, no, I don't. All feelings matter.

Empathy rating: zero. No, negative.

Not surprising. Discussion closed.

 

[MillieDynamite]

@SimmonDoom woke folk haven't treated me that way at all. But those right-wing, gun-toting, racist, anti-interracial, anti-married-lesbian/gay, anti-adoptive parents of either race children have shouted me down, threatened my life, and made our lives miserable at times. So, I feel your pain, even if I can't empathize with your views.

Empathy rating: zero. No, negative.

Not surprising. Discussion closed.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Empathy rating: zero. No, negative.

Not surprising. Discussion closed.

Translation:
My attempt at emotional blackmail failed. I have no chance of prevailing on the merits of the argument so I will try and make a dramatic exit to save face.

 

[Britva415]

My question is - it valid to "judge" at a song released in 1944 with 2025 "eyes"?

I think it's totally OK to say "in 2025 this sounds like [say how it sounds like]."

I don't think it's OK to say "in 1944 that was what they meant."