Paula wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Rawr. You've got quite an eye for the birds.

Grrrrr, you just beat me to that very bad joke

I realise now that I should have made this joke "Birds of a feather flock together" about you two after this...but sigh once again my brains joke area fails to activate until much too late.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Paula wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Rawr. You've got quite an eye for the birds.

Grrrrr, you just beat me to that very bad joke

I realise now that I should have made this joke "Birds of a feather flock together" about you two after this...but sigh once again my brains joke area fails to activate until much too late.

Awwwww, I'm like that, just often that touch too late to still be funny

Paula wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Paula wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Rawr. You've got quite an eye for the birds.

Grrrrr, you just beat me to that very bad joke

I realise now that I should have made this joke "Birds of a feather flock together" about you two after this...but sigh once again my brains joke area fails to activate until much too late.

Awwwww, I'm like that, just often that touch too late to still be funny

We are joked challenged, we should start a forum called Joke+ and call everyone privileged for being able to joke quickly.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Paula wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Paula wrote:

Grrrrr, you just beat me to that very bad joke

I realise now that I should have made this joke "Birds of a feather flock together" about you two after this...but sigh once again my brains joke area fails to activate until much too late.

Awwwww, I'm like that, just often that touch too late to still be funny

We are joked challenged, we should start a forum called Joke+ and call everyone privileged for being able to joke quickly.

I feel quite oppressed when they start joking freely and instantaneously, especially the puns, they know I'm shit at puns but still they shove their fucking pun-privilege in my face. Fucking. No. Just. Don't.

Spearthrower wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:
I think they were talking about going somewhere and there being a group of men ogling their breasts and bottom. That is uncomfortable and it can be harassment.

Where I direct my gaze is none of your concern. Ever.

This is where it gets cracked. Gaze cannot, by definition, hurt anyone. It's not harassment. It might make people feel uncomfortable, but it in the same way just being in a room full of men might make women feel uncomfortable - that doesn't make a room full of men become 'harassment'.

And I read that thread: the gaze analogy was used in reference to a completely innocent and stupid limerick. A limerick that's just like the discomfort you get when you walk into a room full of men and they look at you. That's what it said. I am not trying to make this appear pathetic - that's literally what it said.

My faith in humanity's intelligence plummeted right at that moment.

If someone said "stop" and they didn't, it would then be harassment. Harassment doesn't always have to do with "hurting" someone. It is what someone finds threatening or disturbing. Imagine going into a store and you are trying to buy stuff and the cashier is just staring at you, their head keeps on going to the level of your chest and crouch, and they are not ringing anything up. You say "please don't stare at my chest, you've already done it for 5 minutes, just ring me up" but they keep on doing nothing but ogling at you and so you feel disturbed, that would be harassment. Of course there is illegal harassment, but I'm not talking about those kind.

Imagination Theory wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:
I think they were talking about going somewhere and there being a group of men ogling their breasts and bottom. That is uncomfortable and it can be harassment.

Where I direct my gaze is none of your concern. Ever.

This is where it gets cracked. Gaze cannot, by definition, hurt anyone. It's not harassment. It might make people feel uncomfortable, but it in the same way just being in a room full of men might make women feel uncomfortable - that doesn't make a room full of men become 'harassment'.

And I read that thread: the gaze analogy was used in reference to a completely innocent and stupid limerick. A limerick that's just like the discomfort you get when you walk into a room full of men and they look at you. That's what it said. I am not trying to make this appear pathetic - that's literally what it said.

My faith in humanity's intelligence plummeted right at that moment.

If someone said "stop" and they didn't, it would then be harassment. Harassment doesn't always have to do with "hurting" someone.

FFS, it is well-known that sometimes when people say 'stop', they are teasing, and it means 'go'. There is a sub-population that has extreme difficulty with ambiguity, and the world is supposed to stop for them. Fucking forget it.

Imagination Theory wrote:If someone said "stop" and they didn't, it would then be harassment. Harassment doesn't always have to do with "hurting" someone. It is what someone finds threatening or disturbing. Imagine going into a store and you are trying to buy stuff and the cashier is just staring at you, their head keeps on going to the level of your chest and crouch, and they are not ringing anything up. You say "please don't stare at my chest, you've already done it for 5 minutes, just ring me up" but they keep on doing nothing but ogling at you and so you feel disturbed, that would be harassment. Of course there is illegal harassment, but I'm not talking about those kind.

When does this ever happen except in imaginary scenarios on threads like this?

But no, if I were the 'victim' in your scenario, I wouldn't consider it 'harassment', I'd think the person was mentally disabled.


Just examine the woo for a moment here: you're effectively saying that you somehow own the photons bouncing off your chest.

Not even your chest - presumably it's covered over with sufficient levels of covering that you would deem appropriate to be going out in public in. The photons bouncing off the contours of your chest through the fabric of your clothing.

Obviously, touching you somewhere intimate without your consent is harassment. Speaking to you in a way that makes you fear for your safety is harassment. Making obscene gestures is harassment.

But the direction someone's eyes are pointed isn't harassment just because you say so. Think about it. By the same stretch, you can just demand that anyone looking at your face is 'harassing' you. Why would that be any different than the position you've just stated? It's untenable, and I reject it.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

scott1328 wrote:WTF. A limerick I would not hesitate to tell my maiden aunt is sexual harassment?

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3586

I mean seriously, Robert S is absolutely right about this: the A+ wankers are Portlandia Bookstore Feminists and they are why McCreight walked away from this bullshit.

So, this is sexual harassment?! How?!

Bureaucracy is a catastrophe
A waste of time for you and me

A form for formality
no tit nor tat nor cup of tea

it's elemental mediocrity
that's petty officiality

To understand bureaucracy
here's a degree in nonsensology

The bureaucrat's autocracy
infuses me with inordinacy

I'd rather follow astrology
Than deal with this bureaucracy.

It is not that one. It is Glob's comment to Buckle they had the problem with;

As a Vogon, I must point out that your poetry is absolutely stunning!

In your honour:

There was a young lady called Buckle
Who lived life with calmness and chill
Until she dealt with a banker
who was a real wanker
and she ended up feeling quite ill.

Buckle is a member on A+, so they feel Glob singled her out. And Glob singled her out in a form that is always used to make fun of someone.

"A young lady" means this limerick is going to have sexual overtones, same with "a wanker" (all this and the above is what members at A+ said, I didn't even know what a limerick was until yesterday, so I don't know) and then the "feels quite ill" means rape?

Imagination Theory wrote:
Buckle is a member on A+, so they feel Glob singled her out. And Glob singled her out in a form that is always used to make fun of someone.

If you just want to gossip about what goes on at A+, that is fine with me. Gossip is gossip, IT, and it is called 'gossip' for a reason.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:
Buckle is a member on A+, so they feel Glob singled her out. And Glob singled her out in a form that is always used to make fun of someone.

If you just want to gossip about what goes on at A+, that is fine with me. Gossip is gossip, IT, and it is called 'gossip' for a reason.

I was explaining what the real limerick was and what they thought about it since two people didn't know. I even said that above. I don't know what the limerick means, I thought it meant that the banks are awful and that is why she was ill. But at A+ they said there is a history and you have to take that into account.

This is the one A+ has a problem with;

As a Vogon, I must point out that your poetry is absolutely stunning!

In your honour:

There was a young lady called Buckle
Who lived life with calmness and chill
Until she dealt with a banker
who was a real wanker
and she ended up feeling quite ill.

Imagination Theory wrote:But at A+ they said there is a history and you have to take that into account.

No, I don't have to take it into account. Every discursive human has a history. Not every discursive human wants to give an excuse.

Spearthrower wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:If someone said "stop" and they didn't, it would then be harassment. Harassment doesn't always have to do with "hurting" someone. It is what someone finds threatening or disturbing. Imagine going into a store and you are trying to buy stuff and the cashier is just staring at you, their head keeps on going to the level of your chest and crouch, and they are not ringing anything up. You say "please don't stare at my chest, you've already done it for 5 minutes, just ring me up" but they keep on doing nothing but ogling at you and so you feel disturbed, that would be harassment. Of course there is illegal harassment, but I'm not talking about those kind.

When does this ever happen except in imaginary scenarios on threads like this?

But no, if I were the 'victim' in your scenario, I wouldn't consider it 'harassment', I'd think the person was mentally disabled.


Just examine the woo for a moment here: you're effectively saying that you somehow own the photons bouncing off your chest.

Not even your chest - presumably it's covered over with sufficient levels of covering that you would deem appropriate to be going out in public in. The photons bouncing off the contours of your chest through the fabric of your clothing.

Obviously, touching you somewhere intimate without your consent is harassment. Speaking to you in a way that makes you fear for your safety is harassment. Making obscene gestures is harassment.

But the direction someone's eyes are pointed isn't harassment just because you say so. Think about it. By the same stretch, you can just demand that anyone looking at your face is 'harassing' you. Why would that be any different than the position you've just stated? It's untenable, and I reject it.

Yes, anything a person finds "threatening or disturbing and they say "stop" and it doesn't stop, is harassment to that person (no matter how unreasonable what they find to be "disturbing" or "threatening"). So, a Christian could feel harassed right here in this thread. A person could feel harassed for having someone look at their hands and face, etc.

I'm not talking about sexual harassment or illegal harassment. Maybe we mean harassment in different ways?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:But at A+ they said there is a history and you have to take that into account.

No, I don't have to take it into account. Every discursive human has a history. Not every discursive human wants to give an excuse.

Then don't, but they are and that (with the other things I said) is why they thought it was sexual harassment.

And what I am saying is gossip, just to be clear since last time I wasn't. Yes, I'm writing what people at A+ thought about the real limerick in question since two people were confused by it. It is gossip.

Glob claims to be an African who lived thru and fought against Apartheid in South Africa. He has lived through many threats, including having a gun held to his head, his partner shot at, and his daughter threatened with rape. He sounds like someone who is a real fighter for Social Justice, who is rightly defensive when accused of harassment. Especially by a third party delicate doily who has to twist and torture words to come up with an interpretation that is mildly off-color.

Can he be forgiven for issuing a notpology? Absolutely. Since the thought police over there require sincere apologies, how could any self respecting being apologize for a no offense?. But don't worry, Ceepolk has written the apology script for him, he just needs to memorize it and practice it until he means it.

He also levied a well-deserved accusation of First World troubles at the forum. Well done.

The "abused" whose feelings in this matter have been completely ignored as though she doesn't even exist in this matter, has gone on record twice as saying she was not offended, does not see a cause for offense, and in any case has accepted Glob's apology and thinks the matter should drop. (No doubt she is just another victim who is aiding her oppressor)

I must clarify something: Glob was not banned for posting the limerick. He was temp banned for asking the question "Let's be perfectly clear here. are you accusing me of harassment?" (Yes, hewas being accused)

Robert S was temp banned because he objected to the trivialization of sexual harassment, R33v3 was temp banned for telling the forum to grow up. (Wasn't he banned for trolling a couple months ago? Remember when the entire RatSkep forum sent legions of trolls over to A+? I don't either.)

Imagination Theory wrote:
Yes, anything a person finds "threatening or disturbing and they say "stop" and it doesn't stop, is harassment to that person (no matter how unreasonable what they find to be "disturbing" or "threatening"). So, a Christian could feel harassed right here in this thread. A person could feel harassed for having someone look at their hands and face, etc.

I'm not talking about sexual harassment or illegal harassment. Maybe we mean harassment in different ways?

Is this your position, or are you explaining A+theism's position?

Because this is manifestly make-believe and contrary to all sense.

No one has the magical power to issue Stop commands just because they don't like something.

It's only 'harassment' in the sense that this person has failed to comprehend they are a member of a social species that has just as many rights to do X as they have to demand that person not do X.

Let me try again.

Let's say I am looking at your chest. You think it's harassment.

Ok, so let's say I am looking at your chest from 5 metres away. 10 metres away. 30 metres away. 100 metres away.

At what cut-off point does it cease to be harassment?

This is woo-thinking IT, and if someone wants to indulge in woo, they are welcome. However, they cannot oblige the rest of the world to take that woo seriously.

That's precisely the nonsense going on at A+theism - they think they can enforce their unreasonable (actually: delusional) expectations on others.

Yes, that is what A+ thinks of as harassment. That is why they seem to use it where it shouldn't be used. And abuse to them is whenever a person feels abused. That is how they use those terms. Some people feel confused how x can be harassment or abuse over at A+ and that is why. Also, once someone says they feel abused or harassed if you try to question them about it that is called "gas lighting" and one can be banned for it.

So, with the limerick thing 3 people there felt harassed. So Globe (and anyone else who makes someone feel something bad) was suppose to try to understand where they were coming from, not get on the defensive (which some thought was threatening) and then say "sorry".

Imagination Theory wrote:That is why they seem to use it where it shouldn't be used..

Want to run that by us again, or did you just think this is an explanation of anything?

I mean, you did use the word 'why' in a sentence that is not a question. That somebody thinks of something in a particular way is not an explanation as to how it should be used by anyone but so-and-so. This is basic stuff.

If you just want to say Atheism+ can do as it sees fit, it's not saying a fuck of a lot.

Other, that is, than sitting both sides of the fence in a thread clearly hostile to Atheism+.

Imagination Theory wrote:Yes, that is what A+ thinks of as harassment. That is why they seem to use it where it shouldn't be used. And abuse to them is whenever a person feels abused. That is how they use those terms. Some people feel confused how x can be harassment or abuse over at A+ and that is why. Also, once someone says they feel abused or harassed if you try to question them about it that is called "gas lighting" and one can be banned for it.

Damnit IT - I'm so far down the rabbit hole now, I am starting to think everyone's a Hatter! My mistake!

I think i need a trigger warning stating clearly that 'no stupid is contained herein'!

Imagination Theory wrote:Yes, that is what A+ thinks of as harassment. That is why they seem to use it where it shouldn't be used. And abuse to them is whenever a person feels abused. That is how they use those terms. Some people feel confused how x can be harassment or abuse over at A+ and that is why. Also, once someone says they feel abused or harassed if you try to question them about it that is called "gas lighting" and one can be banned for it.

Eowyn Entwife didn't exactly leave much room for the possibility that it was a matter of interpretation, though. Her post is a fairly straightforward accusation of intentional harassment.

Imagination Theory wrote:So, with the limerick thing 3 people there felt harassed. So Globe (and anyone else who makes someone feel something bad) was suppose to try to understand where they were coming from, not get on the defensive (which some thought was threatening) and then say "sorry".

Then Eowyn should understand how accusation of intentional harassment affect people. Glob the Funct had every right to call her on that.