Vekter featuring in 'Yobi:Third times the charm' in the latest chapter of complaints nut

[TheRex9001]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?p=687648#p687648

[dirk_mcblade]

Is that just comic relief or do you hate Tohg actually

I'm not going to get into specifics but someone close to me is a survivor of a botched sexual assault so yes I do hate Tohg for saying it was due to something stupid like whatever clothing she was wearing or any reason really other than the guy's decision to corner her in a bathroom.

Being contrarian is fine but at a certain point you cross the line into just being an apologist for sexual abusers when you're basically suggesting that half the population should be wearing burqas instead to solve the problem. In other words that's being a useful idiot.

[Bawhoppennn]

Yeah I'm not defending that remark

[Super Aggro Crag]

Is that just comic relief or do you hate Tohg actually

I'm not going to get into specifics but someone close to me is a survivor of a botched sexual assault so yes I do hate Tohg for saying it was due to something stupid like whatever clothing she was wearing or any reason really other than the guy's decision to corner her in a bathroom.

Being contrarian is fine but at a certain point you cross the line into just being an apologist for sexual abusers when you're basically suggesting that half the population should be wearing burqas. In other words that's being a useful idiot.

sometimes people are just retarded and you gotta say "look man what you said what kind of retarded and i dont agree with it, i'm not really interested in arguing with you on why i think its retarded and i hope you can do the research to learn why what you said is so fucking retarded but until you stop being a retard im gonna think less of you"

[dirk_mcblade]

That's why I'm saying if discord jannies are dealing with a dozen or two of people complaining about that guy the easiest solution for them is to just kick him out and he's not exactly making himself into a defendable figure.
To be clear I'm not accusing him of actually being an abuser unless evidence comes up otherwise, just an extreme idiot who's trying to provide cover for them, knowingly or not.

[Archie700]

The main reason why he was banned from discord to begin with was not because he was mentally ill, but because he directly harassed a person through DMs with his beliefs unwarranted, and then tried to scare them when they ended up getting mods involved.

From Hulk:

But more pertinently is a giant series of DM's you sent one particular user which for the sake of their own protection I will summarize here:

You kept implying that you had "met someone" that had "supernatural powers" and that anyone who slept with this woman would "end up comatose" and that she "knew where you lived."

Then you went on to say that this individual's name was "Faustina" and that she referred to you only as "mortal" and that you realized that she wasn't a human entity. You also kept linking them back to some youtube channel about a christian motivational lady named sister sharon, and that this "faustina" character knew something about sister sharon being in the "book of life"

The ban reason.

When it your behavior goes to the point that you're directly harassing people from the community, people aren't going to accommodate you for being "different" if it means having to ignore your behavior. We're not trained psychiatrists who can treat him or know exactly what he needs.

[sinfulbliss]

The main reason why he was banned from discord to begin with was not because he was mentally ill, but because he directly harassed a person through DMs with his beliefs unwarranted, and then tried to scare them when they ended up getting mods involved.

From Hulk:

But more pertinently is a giant series of DM's you sent one particular user which for the sake of their own protection I will summarize here:

You kept implying that you had "met someone" that had "supernatural powers" and that anyone who slept with this woman would "end up comatose" and that she "knew where you lived."

Then you went on to say that this individual's name was "Faustina" and that she referred to you only as "mortal" and that you realized that she wasn't a human entity. You also kept linking them back to some youtube channel about a christian motivational lady named sister sharon, and that this "faustina" character knew something about sister sharon being in the "book of life"

The ban reason.

When it your behavior goes to the point that you're directly harassing people from the community, people aren't going to accommodate you for being "different" if it means having to ignore your behavior. We're not trained psychiatrists who can treat him or know exactly what he needs.

TBH those comments are just bizarre but “harassment” is kind of far. Just block them if you don’t want to hear about Faustina lmao it has nothing to do with their behavior on a public server

[Bawhoppennn]

The main reason why he was banned from discord to begin with was not because he was mentally ill, but because he directly harassed a person through DMs with his beliefs unwarranted, and then tried to scare them when they ended up getting mods involved.

From Hulk:

But more pertinently is a giant series of DM's you sent one particular user which for the sake of their own protection I will summarize here:

You kept implying that you had "met someone" that had "supernatural powers" and that anyone who slept with this woman would "end up comatose" and that she "knew where you lived."

Then you went on to say that this individual's name was "Faustina" and that she referred to you only as "mortal" and that you realized that she wasn't a human entity. You also kept linking them back to some youtube channel about a christian motivational lady named sister sharon, and that this "faustina" character knew something about sister sharon being in the "book of life"

The ban reason.

When it your behavior goes to the point that you're directly harassing people from the community, people aren't going to accommodate you for being "different" if it means having to ignore your behavior. We're not trained psychiatrists who can treat him or know exactly what he needs.

Like I said before, I understand that was the reasoning. But without knowing any of the specific logs at all since they're private, I really had intuition that Tohg meant something else by the messages that got sent, and they just came across incredibly poorly. It was super common for Tohg to go off on some weird tangent, and insinuating a demon knows about someone may have just as much to do with whatever naturalistic mythology that's being talked about, rather than being a form of intimidation. I just know how clueless Tohg could be sometimes when speaking, and I would not be surprised if this happened.
But it is possible that I am reading it entirely wrong--- maybe it was just real provocation towards someone, full stop. Whatever it was, Tohg in that appeal generally took responsibility for that behavior's outcome... With every factor here being the case, I just have had a hard time not seeing there being a broader picture where being mentally ill was not atleast a substantial factor.

I want to be really clear here: Tohg has problems. I really don't want to be misconstrued: I did not know about the victim blaming remark prior to my original post, and their statement on that is indefensible.

As for the other separate stuff we're discussing though, without repeating anything, I think just gets to a broader issue of how we react and deal with people who do not fit the norm in a large way. Tohg I felt was appropriate to bring that up, with what I knew about them.

Perspective on stuff matters a lot and is so easy to be incomplete. Almost all of my interactions with Tohg have been 1-on-1. It was certainly bizarre, but I personally had never seen any of the bad things Tohg had said until this thread (including the the victim-blaming one, I was told Tohg was active in Polcon and said some bad shit? I was given no specifics so I have no clue if this is true or how severe it was). Maybe I don't know enough, and Tohg truly is also fucked up to others. I just had never before seen that once in any of my hundreds of messages back and forth when we talked privately.

If I end up being wrong about Tohg in the end, I am sorry. I just was basing it off what I've known previously, and wanted to point out my concerns with the ban based on that.

[Super Aggro Crag]

its ok bawhoppen

[Bawhoppennn]

Yeah fair enough. This Yobi nut turned into a Tohg nut. (By the way for anyone interested, I believe Tohg is going to see someone these days, based on the last message they sent to me before blocking me- I can only hope that will get them a level head and see things more clearly, while also regretting anything bad that they did say/do)

[sinfulbliss]

Yeah fair enough. This Yobi nut turned into a Tohg nut. (By the way for anyone interested, I believe Tohg is going to see someone these days, based on the last message they sent to me before blocking me- I can only hope that will get them a level head and see things more clearly, while also regretting anything bad that they did say/do)

That says a lot about your character to get blocked for being nice to someone, and then defend them after despite it.

[dirk_mcblade]

Nobody is mad at you baw, I just think tohg is dumb based on those excerpts so I don't really feel bad for his discord situation at present. Furthermore the discord is generally unimportant except for a few limited purposes that probably have workarounds anyway if he chooses to pursue a way to communicate with other coders.

[Kendrickorium]

this thread is getting dangerously close to some starsector posting

[kinnebian]

this thread is getting dangerously close to some starsector posting

starsector? i like that game.

[Lacran]

big disagree. if i said to a grieving parent “your child deserved to get murdered at school,” isn’t that WAY WORSE than saying “they could have prevented getting murdered if they were more careful.”

IDK there’s no reason to distort one as the other just to make it sound worse than it is when it’s ALREADY really bad regardless

Sinful you aren't being nuanced here, even though you think you are.

Saying revealing clothes is a prime factor of rape is indeed not saying it is deserved. It is however directly supporting victim blaming by adding an incorrect onus of responsibility.

A big reason why it's viewed this way is rape is largely defined by a lack of consent. By trying to use someone's attire as a cause for rape you are implying that people dressing a certain way are knowingly increasing their risk of rape.

By claiming the victim was being either reckless or ignorant you undermine the fact they never actually had a choice to avoid the assault. This emboldens the argument that they were somehow deserving or a party to their own rape.

The statement is not saying "there are ways to protect yourself" he is saying "you can usually not be raped by just dressing different" a similar statement would be "if you don't want your kid shot take them to a better school." Not only does it not solve the issue, it's saying that the victims made a clear choice to put themselves at risk.

You are correct that the two statements are not the same, but one directly feeds into the other, so they are commonly conflated.

[sinfulbliss]

big disagree. if i said to a grieving parent “your child deserved to get murdered at school,” isn’t that WAY WORSE than saying “they could have prevented getting murdered if they were more careful.”

IDK there’s no reason to distort one as the other just to make it sound worse than it is when it’s ALREADY really bad regardless

Sinful you aren't being nuanced here, even though you think you are.

Saying revealing clothes is a prime factor of rape is indeed not saying it is deserved. It is however directly supporting victim blaming by adding an incorrect onus of responsibility.

A big reason why it's viewed this way is rape is largely defined by a lack of consent. By trying to use someone's attire as a cause for rape you are implying that people dressing a certain way are knowingly increasing their risk of rape.

By claiming the victim was being either reckless or ignorant you undermine the fact they never actually had a choice to avoid the assault. This emboldens the argument that they were somehow deserving or a party to their own rape.

The statement is not saying "there are ways to protect yourself" he is saying "you can usually not be raped by just dressing different" a similar statement would be "if you don't want your kid shot take them to a better school." Not only does it not solve the issue, it's saying that the victims made a clear choice to put themselves at risk.

You are correct that the two statements are not the same, but one directly feeds into the other, so they are commonly conflated.

why did u write all this just to agree with me in the end

[Lacran]

why did u write all this just to agree with me in the end

Because you chose to be (half)right in the dumbest way possible. If you read and take a moment to process before you respond you'd know that.

[sinfulbliss]

why did u write all this just to agree with me in the end

Because you chose to be (half)right in the dumbest way possible. If you read and take a moment to process before you respond you'd know that.

my only mistake was reading it
it read like chatGPT really boring also didn’t learn anything just kind of repeated stuff that was obvious in a longer more monotonous way

0/10 for creativity
2/10 for quality (i guess u didn’t say anything wrong at least)
0/10 for tone

overall rating: digg

[sinfulbliss]

A big reason why it's viewed this way is rape is largely defined by a lack of consent.

[Lacran]

I'll try to keep it simple.

It's retarded to take issue with conflating it, because they are in essence the same in all but the most simplistic technical sense.

You aren't adding anything to a conversation when you get flustered about people not discussing things in the most literal and simplistic way possible.

[dirk_mcblade]

At least the people who would be saying "you deserved it" have some balls about the fact they hate the victims instead of this lukewarm "I'm just saying women should be more careful" angle you're going for, sinful. If you're going to be a dick you might as well skip the half measures instead of trying to convince yourself you're the one being reasonable when you're really just taking responsibility away from the people committing crimes by talking about what the victim should do.
That thinking is cut from the same cloth as people saying theft is okay because of poverty or some other libtard shit, and I'm chalking that up to horse shoe theory.

[sinfulbliss]

At least the people who would be saying "you deserved it" have some balls about the fact they hate the victims instead of this lukewarm "I'm just saying women should be more careful" angle you're going for, sinful. If you're going to be a dick you might as well skip the half measures instead of trying to convince yourself you're the one being reasonable when you're really just taking responsibility away from the people committing crimes by talking about what the victim should do.
That thinking is cut from the same cloth as people saying theft is okay because of poverty or some other libtard shit, and I'm chalking that up to horse shoe theory.

Woah woah woah, hold the fuck up pal. At no point was “women should be more careful” my angle. That was Togh’s angle. It’s indefensible, obviously. But what’s even more indefensible is saying rape victims deserve to be raped. Make sense?

[sinfulbliss]

It's retarded to take issue with conflating it, because they are in essence the same in all but the most simplistic technical sense.

The fact you had to go through 6 paragraphs of mental gymnastics to argue that the statements were the “same,” only to end up with “erm… well they’re easy to conflate…!” is proof the statements are not the same. Is it really too much to ask that we hold people accountable only for what they say, and not what they may or may not be implying?

[Lacran]

Toghs angle was female modesty usually prevents rape from occurring.

The rationale of that statement is essentially the same as women being at fault for a rape occuring.

[Lacran]

It's retarded to take issue with conflating it, because they are in essence the same in all but the most simplistic technical sense.

The fact you had to go through 6 paragraphs of mental gymnastics to argue that the statements were the “same,” only to end up with “erm… well they’re easy to conflate…!” is proof the statements are not the same. Is it really too much to ask that we hold people accountable only for what they say, and not what they may or may not be implying?

It's not mental gymnastics, it's a basic train of thought. I don't understand why you struggle to comprehend any perspective other than your own in every discussion you are involved in. Why do you even try conversing with people?

[sinfulbliss]

Toghs angle was female mostly usually prevents rape from occurring.

The rationale of that statement is essentially the same as women being at fault for a rape occuring.

Being at fault for something isn’t the same as deserving it.

If I go driving with my kid in the back seat and I don’t drive super defensively, leading to my car getting T-boned by a guy that ran an intersection, and let’s say it kills my kid in the accident — am I at fault? I mean no, the guy that ran the intersection was at fault obviously. But if someone said I was at fault it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as saying I DESERVED to have my car hit and my kid killed. Make sense?

[EmpressMaia]

4 fuckingpages????

[TheRex9001]

4 fuckingpages????

Soon five.........

[Lacran]

Toghs angle was female mostly usually prevents rape from occurring.

The rationale of that statement is essentially the same as women being at fault for a rape occuring.

Being at fault for something isn’t the same as deserving it.

If I go driving with my kid in the back seat and I don’t drive defensively enough, leading to my car getting T-boned by a guy that ran an intersection, and let’s say it kills my kid in the accident — am I at fault? I mean no, the guy that ran the intersection was at fault obviously. But if someone said I was at fault it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as saying I DESERVED to have my car hit and my kid killed. Make sense?

You really need to get better at analogy. No this is not the same.

If you take a crime where a person imposes a situation or act onto another, and then you say the way to usually prevent it is to dress differently, you have now placed all responsiblity for the act occuring on the victim.

Its why in some deeply religion countries the victim is more likely to be punished for the rape, because even if you view the rapist is bad, you are placing all autonmy on the person that had just been robbed of theirs. Blame is technically being placed at both parties, but the responsibility for preventing is solely on the victim. The rape is viewed as simple cause and effect of the victims actions.

[sinfulbliss]

Toghs angle was female mostly usually prevents rape from occurring.

The rationale of that statement is essentially the same as women being at fault for a rape occuring.

Being at fault for something isn’t the same as deserving it.

If I go driving with my kid in the back seat and I don’t drive defensively enough, leading to my car getting T-boned by a guy that ran an intersection, and let’s say it kills my kid in the accident — am I at fault? I mean no, the guy that ran the intersection was at fault obviously. But if someone said I was at fault it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as saying I DESERVED to have my car hit and my kid killed. Make sense?

You really need to get better at analogy. No this is not the same.

If you take a crime where a person imposes a situation or act onto another, and then you say the way to usually prevent it is to dress differently, you have now placed all responsiblity for the act occuring on the victim.

Its why in some deeply religion countries the victim is more likely to be punished for the rape, because even if you view the rapist is bad, you are placing all autonmy on the person that had just been robbed of theirs. Blame is technically being placed at both parties, but the responsibility for preventing is solely on the victim. The rape is viewed as simple cause and effect of the victims actions.

analogies aren't supposed to be the same. it was given to show the difference between culpability and deservedness. i have ascertained this conversation is without fruit, and I bid you adieu

[Lacran]

Analogies are supposed to be used to reframe an arguement to shed light on the point being made in a manner that allows the arguement to apply interchangably, not introduce new variables that obfuscate it or can't be applied to the original.

The arguement togh makes is more like him saying your kid got T-boned because you had a provocative bumper sticker that made the other driver angry.

[dirk_mcblade]

I'm confused. Were we trying to rank how bad togh's statement was or what is sinful even arguing about? I'm not even sure what togh said verbatim.
It's a stupid general argument regardless. Supposedly most rape victims are attacked by someone they know and trusted, so I don't see how clothing choice matters in that circumstance since the predator already knows what they look like before they corner them somewhere. What clothing choice deters that? Padlocked platemail?

[Kendrickorium]

UUUUGGHHHHHHHH LOCK THE THREAD

[Armhulen]

WELL... IF IT'LL SAVE KENDRICK'S SMILE...