Posts you had second thought about and decided not to post - put them here

[Received via EYE-TO-TEXT DICTATION by EyeLXPostTM] DETECTION: Elevation increased LOCATION: Eyebrows [Thank you for opting IN to receive automatic updates from ID: 44002912002 username: EVAN69 - EyeLXPostTM Tracking Software "Let others see the post-tential you do"]

Who fuckin' cares why they do it?

people who fuckin' want to know why people do horrible things

I mean, sure, but how much brainpower do you want to spend trying to figure out why men do terrible things? A lot of the time, it boils down to, They can get away with it. Maybe that's a better place to spend brainpower.

Bill_Tench.gif

Exactly, look at the massive amount of literature on serial killers or the roots of the third reich. There's a strong desire among many people to learn about stuff like that, in a lot of cases because it is so far outside of how their own brains operate, so they are grappling with how such messed up mindsets come about. But yes, I do think "I did it because I could get away with it" is an underrated motivation.

It can be naive to boil down every enemy / bad person motivation as "because: evil". Whether you get anywhere productive by being more curious about it than that is entirely situational.

Exactly, look at the massive amount of literature on serial killers or the roots of the third reich. There's a strong desire among many people to learn about stuff like that, in a lot of cases because it is so far outside of how their own brains operate, so they are grappling with how such messed up mindsets come about. But yes, I do think "I did it because I could get away with it" is an underrated motivation.

― Muad'Doob (Moodles)

i think a lot of people would like to _think_ the third reich is far outside of how their brains operate but i'm not sure the evidence available now necessarily backs that up :(

I think Hannah Arendt buried that idea.

[after catching a sniper who has killed four innocent people]

Sniper : Don't you want to know why?

Horatio Caine : You just killed four innocent people, you're evil, you enjoy death, I hope you enjoy your own.

Lmao.

As the person who triggered this round of soul searching, let me clarify: it’s not that deep. I just meant I personally don’t enjoy reading dipshit analysis of sensitive topics which ilx is at best crass and at worst openly contemptuous towards. You can relax now. Just dismiss my post if it upsets you. It’s fine.

I don't often agree with gyac (or she with me), but I agree with her 100% on this. There really is no need to "get inside the head" of someone who wants to jack off in front of unsuspecting/unwilling strangers (or worse yet, subordinates), and the desire to "understand" such people is the mark of an asshole, not an empath.

i think a lot of people would like to _think_ the third reich is far outside of how their brains operate but i'm not sure the evidence available now necessarily backs that up :(

Well yes, that's true too.

the mark of an empath will not come out in normal wash

I really can't believe purported smart men give a shit about the subtleties of racists and fascists.

ok i'm gonna challops here, yeah! i think there is! this isn't one-off behavior, this is something a lot of guys do. i don't whip out my tits and start fondling them in front of other people. to me challenging patriarchy means deconstructing patriarchal behaviors - and i'd call masturbating in front of people without their _enthusiastic consent_ a basically patriarchal behavior. NOT TO SAY THAT WOMEN DON'T DO THIS, patriarchy is _system_, women can act (and many women do act) to reinforce patriarchy and men can be victims of patriarchy.

post booms imo

Who fuckin' cares why they do it?

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Monday, June 5, 2023 3:55 PM (forty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I do -- when I was a young man this happened to me several times: on Greyhound buses, in public restrooms, on un-busy streets. Dudes would yell "hey! hey, you!" and I'd look and they'd either unzip or it'd turn out they were already jackin it. Men do this to people -- some men do. It was vaguely traumatic for me but kinda small change compared to the other shit in my life at the time. I'm super interested in parsing the meaning of this behavior, in what ways we can talk about it that might prevent other people from doing it, in constructive conversations. I don't think "just say those people are fuckin animals and move on" is really useful or helpful. It's absolutely a patriarchal/kyriarchial thing and subjecting the behavior to revolutionary analysis is not only useful but vital, I also get how people might not wanna read it.

(I should say, I use "young man" because that's how I think of myself then but this is when I'm 11, 12, 13 years old.)

I agree that "why do abusers engage in abuse?" is an important question worth addressing. I also think it HAS been addressed, extensively, in our discourse for years and years now and while that doesn't mean it's been somehow "solved" it does imo mean that a constructive conversation about the topic should start from somewhere stronger than "well here's my theory". It also shouldn't be the immediate sole focus when news of abuse comes out, which is why I'm glad soref didn't post this on the original thread it was meant for.

Re: exposure, I am myself interested in this topic, but exclusively in the context of "talking about traumatic childhood experiences with my therapist" and "reading research papers/well-researched articles". It is interesting but this here is the wrong forum for it, imho.

i guess for me the downside of what i'll call the "rawhide" approach to abusers is that it sort of presupposes the _existence_ of a just society. like, you know, masturbating non-consensually in front of someone else is a clear violation of moral norms, if someone does that just...

just what, exactly? i mean what do you _do_ with someone like louis c.k.? or whoever the latest guy is, or paul rubens (or maybe paul rubens doesn't count to you!), or...

because the truth is that _not_ everyone has the same moral norms, some people _are_ of the opinion that just because someone non-consensually masturbates in front of their employees doesn't mean you shouldn't see them in concert, some people will be like "come on! they're _funny!_". and if i have to deal with _that_ sort of moral reasoning, you know, why should i draw the line at the moral reasoning of someone who non-consensually masturbates in front of someone else??

and i can choose not to, i can choose to say "well anybody who does that is wrong and anyone who makes excuses for someone who does that is wrong and..."

and what? it's me against the world? i don't _have_ to make compromises, i don't _have_ to spend a lot of time slowly explaining to well-meaning cis people why they shouldn't buy the harry potter game, but to some extent i _can_, and i feel like it's of benefit to me to do so. and if i'm going to do that, i have a hard time doing that without getting into the motivations and mindset of the person who is doing The Bad Thing.

of course it's going to be different for other people, and there is a question of appropriate venue. the original thread itself, i agree, probably not the place for that discussion. here? to me this is a good place, this is a thread that's kind of implicitly _for_ metadiscussion.

to be fair, paul rubens was jacking it in a porn theater, which seems like an appropriate venue for that sort of behavior

Let me just say, I posted that above in a moment of exasperation because I for one am tired of giving that much head space to the motivations of predators. I've spent more than half my life in it, it hasn't brought me any closer to understanding.

My thoughts exactly. I thought your post was fine and otm.

Likewise, you said it much more elegantly than I did.

I kind of resent the implication that a lack of interest in going over this again means you must subscribe to a worldview where some people are driven by pure evil and it's totally incomprehensible that feels like a huge strawman

I don't see anyone implying that here.

It can be naive to boil down every enemy / bad person motivation as "because: evil"

can we start a separate "this is the thread where we strawman" thread for this latest detour

this seems like a mischaracterisation of the it's not that deep position which would (I assume) be more interested in how this behaviour reinforces patriarchy in X industry or society than in the deeply boring and massively overindulged posited internal struggles of these men xp

xp what we talk about when we talk about strawmanning and why we shouldn't talk about it anymore because it's deeply boring and if you don't find it deeply boring then that's not ok, here's why

If there’s no curiosity about the behavior then yes, the conclusion is usually to portray the evildoer as having cartoon character motivations, which complicates conversations about how to deal with the consequences of that behavior in industry and society. It’s actually a circle not a straight line.

we live in a society

Yes well there's your strawman - the idea that the frustration itt comes from a lack of curiosity rather than frustration at these motivations being re-analysed over and over in ways unlikely to bring up new results.

xpost

straight line is actually a kind of circle (Ex: what is the radius?)

everyone's brain works differently - some people feel compelled to understand the human motivations behind abhorrent behavior, other people don't - there is no "correct" way of approaching it

xps in other words we can understand how eg gender relations are structured and enforced without having to posit some unknowable evil at the core (we can but it's not necessary on a descriptive level) but the obsessive focus on the individual psychology (of guys who must be loving all this attention) seems in practice to have a mystifying effect on this understanding (not least because individual psychology isn't really a thing)

crut otm

also when was the point of ilx to "bring up new results" ?

When an album is repolled iirc

Yes well there's your strawman - the idea that the frustration itt comes from a lack of curiosity rather than frustration at these motivations being re-analysed over and over in ways unlikely to bring up new results.

xpost

― Daniel_Rf, Tuesday, June 6, 2023 11:31 AM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Well idk we're not all caught up equally on these supposed conversations where we figured all that motivation stuff out already! Congrats on your hard work.

But anyway, indeed if you don't identify with the strawman I'm describing then you aren't who I'm referring to. I do suspect some people are that person though.

it's not a question of hard work to notice that every time abuse from a celebrity is reported there is a whole lot of writing and thinking about what that means for and about the abuser, in a way that easily dwarfs any talk about the victim; there are obviously reasons for that but it's still a fucked up dynamic, even when the ppl engaging in these discussions are well intentioned. as I've said above this doesn't mean the question of these motivations has been solved or that I have the answers.

I'm not a fan of the clunky way those conversations unfold and how often they're missing the point. I totally agree there!

the most boring historical debate is "what really motivated hitler?" as if antisemitism isn't a good enough answer and we need to delve into his parental issues and sexuality for some reason

discussions are clunky and point missing by design on this thread it's all drivebys that's what it's here for

it is a pretty bad thread idea tbf, I was thinking of mentioning recent discourse to my wife but realised the concept of the thread itself would provoke such eyerolling that I wouldn't get far past that

Threads you had second thought about and decided not to post

See you could have discussions about anything on ilx, but those threads tend to get taken over by people taking up all the oxygen of the discussion with repeatedly asking for basic concepts to be explained; or you might (just as an example!) make a reference to violence that targeted a group you’re a member of only to have that mocked; or you might just not feel like the derailing of serious topics that happens frequently enough that it’s just not worth it. Stop trying to ascribe other motivations than that, it’s really not complicated.

Speaking of boring and oversimplified, unironically fulfilling Godwin's Law is an interesting choice, but I feel like this knee-jerk resistance towards analyzing human behavior is due to the way it inevitably humanizes in the process, and if that's true it supports the point I was making.

Anyway! I'll go back to lurking and making occasional dumb joke posts.

I think you have very different experience of some of the posters itt if you think they’re resistant to analysing human behaviour.

They aren't! I don't think that. I'm talking about who we do and do not want to be reminded are also humans.

disclaimer: that acknowledgement is not synonymous with sympathizing