Clarify what? You haven’t asked me anything. You throw baseless accusations based on a terrible read of what I said and then want me to bend over backwards for you? Troll behavior, I expect better from this community.
It’s a profiling of something in context, much like how the original post I made was about profiling something in context, not me making a generalizing, universal statement about all women in all contexts. So far, you have yet to ask me what exactly you want clarification on. I’m not a mind-reader.
I want you to clarify why you think it is relevant to whether they would be a honey pot or not to address their kinks. Imo their politics is enough to be on c/srs and trying to talk about their kinks just derails criticism of their politics into argumenta ad hominem that in the end benefits nobody.
It’s not ad hominem to analyze a stranger on the internet, especially on reddit which is known for bot behavior and in general in political spaces, to consider the possibility that someone is not being entirely honest and upfront about everything. Ad hominem is when you bypass the content of someone’s argument and attack them personally, which is not relevant to what I originally said; this is SRS, the presumption is we are not taking these people’s positions seriously, there is no obligation to go through and refute what they have said in the screenshot like it’s a serious argument.
Furthermore, I did not even attack the person in the screenshot in question. I did not attack their kink either. What I did was question the combined factors of the situation and thereby the honesty and implications surrounding them. It is literally the case that degradation kink is linked to masochism and masochists attract sadists. This is not a put down, it is just a factual reality of how kinks work. It is further a factual reality of how living under patriarchy works that when a woman puts something out there that is likely to attract sadists, especially in the wildness of the internet, they probably aren’t going to get lots of attention from upstanding kink-practicing citizens who understand aftercare, safewords, and so on, and practice “safe, sane, consensual” and all that. It’s also a reality of living under patriarchy that for a woman of 27 to get to that age without having any awful experiences with men that would make them cautious of putting themself out there in such way, if there is no other motive than a personal kink relationship, is unlikely, thus “naive”. Naive is not an insult, in this context, nor a general proclamation about women or their competence. The whole point is that they likely wouldn’t be naive in such a way, lacking the context of how such things can occur because women under patriarchy tend to have dealings with men who range from awkward to creep to predator from a young age.
Lastly, the honeypot supposition comes from a combination of factors that I already stated in the original post. None of what I said was more than suspicion based on various factors. Not to be confused with paranoia, which would have me seeing shadows everywhere, where there is nothing. There is shifty stuff that goes on, on the internet and sometimes in political spaces as well. People can take it too far to the point of being overly suspicious of normal people, but if you have no skepticism about any of it, that is itself naive.
Ok then clarify what you said :p
Clarify what? You haven’t asked me anything. You throw baseless accusations based on a terrible read of what I said and then want me to bend over backwards for you? Troll behavior, I expect better from this community.
I misunderstand what you say, you point that out, and I ask for clarification. How in any way is that “trolling”?
It’s a profiling of something in context, much like how the original post I made was about profiling something in context, not me making a generalizing, universal statement about all women in all contexts. So far, you have yet to ask me what exactly you want clarification on. I’m not a mind-reader.
I want you to clarify why you think it is relevant to whether they would be a honey pot or not to address their kinks. Imo their politics is enough to be on c/srs and trying to talk about their kinks just derails criticism of their politics into argumenta ad hominem that in the end benefits nobody.
It’s not ad hominem to analyze a stranger on the internet, especially on reddit which is known for bot behavior and in general in political spaces, to consider the possibility that someone is not being entirely honest and upfront about everything. Ad hominem is when you bypass the content of someone’s argument and attack them personally, which is not relevant to what I originally said; this is SRS, the presumption is we are not taking these people’s positions seriously, there is no obligation to go through and refute what they have said in the screenshot like it’s a serious argument.
Furthermore, I did not even attack the person in the screenshot in question. I did not attack their kink either. What I did was question the combined factors of the situation and thereby the honesty and implications surrounding them. It is literally the case that degradation kink is linked to masochism and masochists attract sadists. This is not a put down, it is just a factual reality of how kinks work. It is further a factual reality of how living under patriarchy works that when a woman puts something out there that is likely to attract sadists, especially in the wildness of the internet, they probably aren’t going to get lots of attention from upstanding kink-practicing citizens who understand aftercare, safewords, and so on, and practice “safe, sane, consensual” and all that. It’s also a reality of living under patriarchy that for a woman of 27 to get to that age without having any awful experiences with men that would make them cautious of putting themself out there in such way, if there is no other motive than a personal kink relationship, is unlikely, thus “naive”. Naive is not an insult, in this context, nor a general proclamation about women or their competence. The whole point is that they likely wouldn’t be naive in such a way, lacking the context of how such things can occur because women under patriarchy tend to have dealings with men who range from awkward to creep to predator from a young age.
Lastly, the honeypot supposition comes from a combination of factors that I already stated in the original post. None of what I said was more than suspicion based on various factors. Not to be confused with paranoia, which would have me seeing shadows everywhere, where there is nothing. There is shifty stuff that goes on, on the internet and sometimes in political spaces as well. People can take it too far to the point of being overly suspicious of normal people, but if you have no skepticism about any of it, that is itself naive.