Your argument boils down to "there are very bad people out there so we need another Kiwi Farms to fight this."

I have heard this type of rhetoric so many times and it makes me sick to the stomach every single time. So much evil are done in the name of protecting victimized people from the worst offenders. Police militarization, illegal mass surveillance, censorship, extraordinary renditions, torture, invasions, using civilian starvation as a tool for war, killing medical workers, and many many more. Doesn't make any of it right.

▲

mandmandam 5 days ago | parent [-]

"Women having a platform to talk with each other without men is somehow equivalent to killing medical workers and torture".

See, it's easy to "boil arguments down". However, this is a forum where we're supposed to interpret what people say in the best possible way.

That said, I am having trouble figuring out how you manage to compare an online stalking and bullying website to a forum where women can warn each other of serial assaulters. The intention is clearly entirely different, even if both are open to abuse (like every forum of every type ever).

▲

soraminazuki 5 days ago | parent [-]

> See, it's easy to "boil arguments down".

You demonstrated a straw man argument. I called you out for using a certain type of rhetoric, commonly referred to as "think of the children." There's a big difference. I "boiled down" your argument to the type of rhetoric being used.

> However, this is a forum where we're supposed to interpret what people say in the best possible way.

How ironic. You first presented an example of a bad faith reinterpretation of my comment to demonstrate a fallacy. But then repeated that same reinterpretation in your own argument. How can you present a bad example, and then immediately follow that example?

You also took my use of the term "boil down" out of context. That too isn't the "best possible interpretation."

> The intention is clearly entirely different

The pretext doesn't matter. The "intention" of killing medical workers may be fighting terrorism. Doesn't make it right.

I'm not even sure that there's a difference in pretext either between this and Kiwi Farms. Both userbases claim to expose bad people.

▲

mandmandam 5 days ago | parent [-]

My argument was that because women can not rely on the justice system, you can't blame them for resorting to talking to each other on the internet about potential predators.

That's not a "strawman argument", it's just basic common sense - if the law isn't protecting you, then you have to protect yourself. As someone else itt put it: Women being vigilant is rational behaviour".

And while you lambast my source (despite the fact that any set of statistics you like will say that rape has heinous reporting, referral and conviction rates), you say yourself in a sibling comment that the only way to fix this is by improving the justice system. You admit, in your own words, that the justice system is inadequate here and not fit for purpose.

Your beef, as generously as I can interpret it, seems to be that allowing women to talk to each other about potential predators could result in false accusations (that's what a "think of the children" argument looks like btw). You then repeatedly conflate this forum with "torture", "mass surveillance", and an organized bullying group that has caused at least 3 suicides - that part I can't wrap my head around. You even compare this forum to "censorship" - the rank irony is giving me a headache.

All the crazy things that have happened in the last 6 months, and this is what has you up in arms. Women talking to each other, trying to protect themselves from assault and rape. Absolutely wild.

▲

jadamson 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> All the crazy things that have happened in the last 6 months, and this is what has you up in arms. Women talking to each other, trying to protect themselves from assault and rape. Absolutely wild.

You have no idea what else he is or isn't up in arms about.

Given that the concern is users of this app /making stuff up/, this line is a touch ironic.

▲

mandmandam 5 days ago | parent [-]

> You have no idea what else he is or isn't up in arms about.

I actually looked back through 6 months worth of their comments. This is the angriest they've been here.

> Given that the concern is users of this app /making stuff up/, this line is a touch ironic.

I don't know why you would believe that I claimed to know what they're like in their personal life. It seems pretty obvious to me that I'd be referring to their comments here, but consider that point clarified now.

	▲	jadamson 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, you didn't. You'd only need to have gone back one page to find a firey comment about mistreatment of the homeless. Have you heard of NPD? That's who this app is for.

▲

soraminazuki 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You're misconstruing what I said so many times in ridiculous ways that it's impossible to call out every single one of them.

> That's not a "strawman argument"

Except the straw man I was referring to was your misconstruing of my argument. You can't pull off another straw man to prove that something isn't a straw man.

> you can't blame them for resorting to talking to each other on the internet about potential predators.

I did not. I'm against profiting off a site that's entirely about people anonymously gossiping about others. Moreover the site encourages users to "share experiences, anonymous dating reviews, and support." It's not even restricted to vigilante justice, meaning that your point about the site being about predators is a false premise.

From another article [1]:

> "What clubs does he go to?" another person asked on a different post. "He’s cute."

This is in line with the purpose of the platform. But how would you feel if someone else secretly publicized your whereabouts in this way while gossiping about your looks?

> And while you lambast my source

That's another bald faced lie that distracts from the issue, which is running a Kiwi Farms clone with a PR spin. I didn't even mention your statistics because it's irrelevant. Like with all agendas pushed under the "think of the children" style narrative, it doesn't solve the issues it purports to solve. All it does is destroy more lives.

> You admit, in your own words, that the justice system is inadequate here and not fit for purpose.

The justice system is the only chance there is of achieving justice. Your preferred replacement of tech entrepreneurs encouraging people to throw rocks at total strangers and profiting off of it is the exact opposite of justice.

If there's anything wrong with the justice system, it has to be fixed. Ditching the rule of law in favor of systemized mass-scale mob justice is a non-starter.

> Your beef, as generously as I can interpret it, seems to be that allowing women to talk to each other about potential predators could result in false accusations (that's what a "think of the children" argument looks like btw).

How can you possibly lecture others about charitable interpretation of other people's arguments? That's an egregious misrepresentation of what I actually wrote. And you pull this trick over and over again.

> You then repeatedly conflate this forum with "torture", "mass surveillance"

> You even compare this forum to "censorship"

Another lie. Those examples were brought up in relation to the validity of "think of the children" rhetoric, not the forum.

> You then repeatedly conflate this forum with ... an organized bullying group

I don't think they consider it bullying, but rather an act of justice against evil people. I disagree though.

> the rank irony is giving me a headache

That's because your "irony" is a malicious straw man. It's giving me a headache as well.

> All the crazy things that have happened in the last 6 months, and this is what has you up in arms. Women talking to each other, trying to protect themselves from assault and rape. Absolutely wild.

I am up in arms against what has happened in the last 6 months, or actually, way longer than that. I'm not up in arms against women talking to each other.

If anything, your reactionary views on justice and your barrage of omissions, diversions, and outright lies to make your point makes you much more closer to the people you're trying so hard to associate me with.

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/women-are-anonymously...

▲

mandmandam 5 days ago | parent [-]

When all is said and done, the heart of your anger is that women might be "secretly publicizing" (your exact words, lol) things about men - sometimes about "their looks", and sometimes about the threat of assault and rape.

That's more than silly. It's dangerous for our sisters and mothers, and an attack on free speech.

I sincerely hope you can recognize that the threat of rape and assault rather outweighs the threat of people saying mean and untrue things about you behind our back. If not, well, then you might be the type of person that forum was made to talk about.

▲

soraminazuki 4 days ago | parent [-]

> When all is said and done, the heart of your anger is that women might be "secretly publicizing" (your exact words, lol) things about men

My "heart of my anger" is that this platform actively encourages the likes of JK Rowling to doxx, slander, and harass people. You know, the self-proclaimed advocate for women's safety who nowadays literally refers to transgender women as male sexual predators. The same person who insistently spreads a lie about a cis woman Olympian boxer being a violent man gleefully punching women and stealing medals. Things like this severely harm many innocent people, women included. It disproportionately affects marginalized people the most. It will eventually result in deaths if it hasn't already. Yet the platform is egging such harassers on for profit. Despite you championing it as the true alternative to the justice system, it openly spits on the notion of justice and the rule of law.

But even if what you wrote actually was the core of my argument, which we both know is not, that's also a valid concern as well. If I ever saw a post on social media non-consensually posting photos and personal information of people of any gender, with strangers critiquing their looks and asking about their whereabouts, I'd flag that without a second thought. It speaks volumes about your sense of ethics that you'd mock me for this.

Last but not least, you are again cherry picking and misrepresenting what I've said, after being called out for it multiple times. You resort to diversions and lies instead of making an honest argument because you know what you're advocating for is morally questionable.

▲

mandmandam 4 days ago | parent [-]

> this platform actively encourages the likes of JK Rowling to doxx, slander, and harass people.

What an interesting lie.

You see women encouraged to protect each other, and 'women' gets autotranslated in your brain into "JK Rowling". 'Protect each other' gets transformed into "doxx, slander and harass people". Fascinating.

I'm sure that even though I'm directly quoting you this will be accused of misreading your arguments again, and that's fascinating too, but I'm tired cap. I'm tired.

	▲	soraminazuki 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		There is PR fluff, and there is reality. There is a reason that democracies have created the justice system and this notion called the rule of law. There is a reason we don't rely on "the market" to handle such issues. No, Tea isn't the sole exception in a world of greedy investors. There is a reason Tea is basing the whole platform around gossip. There is a reason Tea brands this as "safety" despite it imposing no restriction on users to keep the topic solely about safety. They are simply not what they claim to be.