"Would you like to go up to my room for a drink, then?" "I'm not sure about the epistemological foundations of your offer..." "Well, Foucault might say...." "OK, never mind, just do me."
-
-
Replying to @iwrotesham @stevennovella and
lol. I think it's more like: Her - I really enjoyed your discussion on... Skeptic dude - Well we could discuss it more privately if you like. Her - I don't see a reason to... Skeptic dude - Here's a dick pic Her - OMG leave me alone Skeptic community - just boys being boys.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @maxkatz515 @iwrotesham and
Also, some of the worst predators were celebrity superstars in the skeptic movement. Female fans, especially those unaware of their history, could be very very flattered when these skeptic celebs paid attention to them or wanted to have a drink with them.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @maxkatz515 and
Leaving aside the dick pix... Are we saying it is "predatory" for a popular man, even an authentic celebrity, to engage in sexual dalliances with admiring women in his orbit? Are we really saying that the mere fact of a woman being "in the thrall" of a man obliges him to demur?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @iwrotesham @gorskon and
This isn't the end of flirting or courtship as Jordan Peterson would have you believe. This is about admiring women looking up to a celebrity who will (commonly) abuse his power to turn a convo to a much more lascivious place than it ever should have been, and immediately.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @maxkatz515 @gorskon and
Could we define "predator"? There's a tone here that is starting to bother me. It implies that an attractive man by definition is obliged to regard his attractiveness as giving him unfair "power" over women. Please tell me that's not what we're saying.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @iwrotesham @gorskon and
It's his celebrity that gives him power, not any perceived attractiveness. The power isn't unfair to have, but when used to get in the pants of an admirer, or to shield the admired from ridicule, that is some rank behavior that should not be dismissed. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @maxkatz515 @gorskon and
But answer me on this point. Is a celebrity not supposed to sleep with women (or men) who want to sleep with him? That takes us down a very dangerous and illogical road, does it not? We can agree that it may be tacky to capitalize on one's lure, but how can it be "wrong"?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Stick_Pins @FinchLydia and
To me, predator = you force/drug people to have sex with you. There is, must be, a huge difference between a predator and a player. Or a predator and a sleazebag. I'm not nuts about the "power imbalance" dynamic, either. I accept it as policy, but I deem it wrong.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Your definition of "predator" is woefully limited.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @FinchLydia and
We all agree that Weinstein-like quid pro quo coercion is illegal. But if you're talking about seduction, manipulation...? I think we have to leave that alone.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @iwrotesham @gorskon and
'manipulation' is ok to get someone to sleep with you? ok. I hope i never attend a conference with people with that opinion. I tough the world had moved on but maybe not
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.