199
Apparently men have to be tracked for safety reasons. (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.world
69 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I find it alarming that to "protect" women, men have to be surveilled secretly in all public places. This is way beyond dystopian.

AI and remote security personnel get to decide if someone is "a predator" and take 'em down preemptively if they look suspicious.

What could possibly go wrong?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -11 points 8 months ago* (15 children)

We'll do anything but force men to take accountability for their actions and to change our culture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    So your take-away from this article about a surveillance tool that seeks patterns of behavior and movement amongst hundreds of random people in a public space is "those privileged men will do anything to remain unaccountable" for... minding their business on in the tube, mall, or sidewalk? This is waaaayyy bigger than that level of bigotry, and in fact pandering to that very bigotry is exactly the tool used to get 51% of the population on board with implementing it without considering the very real consequences for them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (9 children)

    I think their point is that this technology will continue the trend of not making men take accountability for their actions. Expanding surveillance and preemptively arresting guys for being awkward does nothing to put guys like Brock Allen Turner (aka Brock Turner) (aka Allen Turner) in jail for raping people.

    Definitely better ways to phrase it though. A lot of people think that "forcing men to take accountability for their actions" means "forcing all men to take accountability for all other men's actions," but that's not really what they said

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (8 children)

    What pragmatically can anyone do?

    Am I suppose to stalk my female friends 24/7 like a vigilante to prevent them from being assaulted? Maybe put a webcam in their bedroom and watch every sexual encounter they have to make sure they aren't assaulted? At that point I am the sex criminal.

    The very premise that other people are responsible for someone else's crimes is totally absurd. We don't do this with say... bank robberies. Most bank robberies are done by men, and yet I don't hear how it's every man's job to stop bank robberies from every happening. The people who are supposed to stop that are security guards and police. Are we supposed to have some sort of anti-SA police force that goes around policing every social interaction men and women have in public?

    There are countries that do have that very thing...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 8 months ago

    Yes there are. Perhaps the "between the lines" of all this is that to protect women, they should be confined to the home and when out (with permission and escort of course) they should be covered head to toe in garments that hide everything but the eyes!

    Oh, wait.....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    It's a more complicated situation than any one person can have an answer to. That said, I think a large part of the problem is that we live in a society that normalizes sexual assault to an extent. Everyone knows that rape is bad, just like everyone knows that robbing banks is bad. The difference is that most bank robbers don't delude themselves into thinking that they're somehow innocent of any wrongdoing. They might offer personal circumstances as some sort of justification for having robbed a bank, but by and large when someone robs a bank, they know they've robbed a bank.

    Contrast that with sexual assault, where by and large people who commit sexual assault rationalize their crimes to the point where they believe themselves to be fully innocent. Most people believe themselves to be "good people." Since I'm a good person and good people don't rape, that means the sex I had wasn't rape.

    She was into it when we started. She never said no. Did you see what she was wearing? She was asleep, it was a victimless crime. I just couldn't control myself. He's 14, but he wasn't complaining. He's bigger and stronger than me, if he doesn't want it he can stop me any time.

    All bank robbers know that they are bank robbers, but most rapists don't know that they are rapists. And you're right to ask what anyone can do, because that's a very hard question to answer. My friends don't tell me when they have sex, and they certainly don't tell me about the circumstances of the sex they have. If they're doing sexual assaults, there's literally no way for me to know.

    That's why I think it has to be an enormous cultural shift. We have to instill in the minds of everyone that if a person can't and/or doesn't enthusiastically agree to sexual contact, then sexual contact is sexual assault. We also have to instill in everyone's minds that there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" person, there's just people. Everyone is capable of doing good or bad things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Rationalizing the mass surveillance by claiming people rationalize their bad behavior (no way to really know that) is a very bad approach.

    Rule of law is concrete. If one thinks they're a good person while both taking someone else's agency and breaking a felony-level law, that is on them. Taking away everybody else's freedom and privacy because some people are narcissistic sociopaths is the kind of thing authoritarian narcissistic sociopaths do to get and maintain control.

    We don't have to instill in the minds of anyone anything other than basic human empathy and an understanding of the Golden Rule as a starting point of social interaction.

    People forget that the surveilling party can be narcissistic sociopaths like anybody else. The difference is the scale of damage they can do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    When did I rationalize mass surveillance?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    You did it when you spent a considerable amount of space explaining how sexual abuse is different because these abusers don't think they're doing anything wrong, so society needs a way to police them.

    This was the bulk of your response to being against total public surveilance. You also didn't explicitly agree or disagree with my assertion.

    Instead you gave an explanation of the problems of criminality in society, asserted that something had to be done, and presented a huge cultural shift as the solution.

    This neatly leaves the uncareful reader to potentially conclude that the surveilance is a reasonable approach to deal with an intractable social problem.

    However, it really is not an intractable problem. it is a hypersensitivity to a horrific behavior that gets eyeballs in our truly fucked up profit-driven media system that thrives on manipulating our often morbid curiosity.

    It is the constant airing of these events twenty four hours a day. If there are only 24 cases of such behavior on the planet in a single day, you will hear about it. That is 24 out of 9 billion people. Clearly evidence of the horrific cruelty of most humans, and particularly men, right? We have to do something to protect the innocent (insert women, children depending on the nature of the intractable problem).

    Our history is littered with authoritarian movements making people believe the reality of a few bad actors is rampant cross society and is due to the "other". They rally the weak willed foolish into destroying freedom, individuality, and life for their dear leaders' enrichment, all while believing their moral certainty is unassailable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    You did it when you spent a considerable amount of space explaining how sexual abuse is different because these abusers don't think they're doing anything wrong, so society needs a way to police them.

    Nope. I actually never once advocated for more surveillance, and in fact tacitly argued against it in this comment. I spent a considerate amount of space explaining why this is a massive issue that can't easily be solved by simply telling people not to commit sexual assault, and that in order to reduce it, we need to educate people on what sexual assault is and instill in them the fact that they are capable of committing it. Like, I literally said that the problem was largely that we live in a society that normalizes sexual assault. This isn't something that more surveillance could solve.

    [...] and presented a huge cultural shift as the solution. This neatly leaves the uncareful reader to potentially conclude that the surveilance is a reasonable approach to deal with an intractable social problem.

    No. The "huge cultural shift" I was talking about was a shift away from a culture that rationalizes and justifies sexual assault, which I made clear in the same paragraph in which I said "enormous cultural shift." I forgot that Lemmings can't read, and that was my bad.

    *Edited the formatting to make my argument flow better

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 6 months ago

    Well, I put this as side to look closer and respond intelligently, and never really took that time.

    Based on your response and the fact I'm not going to analyze your earlier post and my response more deeply, I'm going to acknowledge that I likely misinterpreted your intent given I agree with most of this particular comment's apparent intent.

    TL;DR;

    I probably misunderstood you and apologize for the accusation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Yeah, but it's worse than that. Some people don't even know they were raped. Some people, think you not raping them is worse than raping them. For some being enthusiastic consent happens at the moment of the act, but then is revoked retroactively due to guilt and shame.

    Rape and SA don't really have very clear cut and obvious cases, esp from the victim or the perpetuator's POV. It's easy to judge it from an external POV, naturally. But it's VERY gray. I have had so many sexual encounters that were so messy, including encounters where there was no sex, and the other party accused me SA for not raping them, because in their twisted mentality, my lack of overbearing sexual desire was somehow insulting and painful for them. Literally, I had a woman over, she was falling over drunk, so I put her to sleep on my couch, and the next morning she sent me a flurry of texts about how I had SA her and violated her by not sleeping with her and she was going to post my info all over the internet and make sure I was punished for being a good person because how DARE I not take advantage of her what is wrong with me, I must be gay, etc.

    I didn't have sex with her because she barely conscious and it would be rape. And yet, her mind, I was still an evil-doing bad guy because it hurt her feelings for me to not rape her while she was semi-conscious. I can't say for certain, but I suspect his woman was clearly a previous victim of sexual abuse. I've also had similar encounters with women in the case of physical abuse, where the encounter was "be a man and hit me to prove to me you care."

    Peoples mentalities around sex are not cut and dry. They are incredibly messy and fraught. Lots of people pressure other people into sex, or feel compelled to have sex because they know the relationship can't progress or be secured without it. When I first started dating, I quickly learned that most women expected me to be sexually aggressive ASAP and if I asking them for sex, I wasn't interested. So had to learn to fake an interest just so I had more opportunity to continue to see them. Lots of dates think I am a pussy if I don't try to force myself on them.

    I've also had so many other encounters where people lectured me on safe sex, consent, etc. but then when we were in the sexual act, they demanded I sleep with them without a condom, and then retroactively decided that doing so was wrong/bad. Or, that I was a pussy for wanting to use a condom. Some of those encounters also result in physical/sexual assault on myself by the woman. I've also had horrible sexual encounters that I hated, where the other party thought it was AMAZING and vice versa.

    I mean really, there is no 'solution' unless you're going to have some neutral third party observing all sexual relations between people. People themselves are not capable of that. They have zero objectivity about themselves the vast majority of the time and they their narrative in the heat of the moment is VERY different than it is before or after that moment. You can be VERY clear ahead of time about what you want and your boundaries... but that in no way means the other person cares or listens or they don't change those desires/boundaries during the act.

    Not to mention that some people are very bitter when faced with rejection and will retroactively change the entire relationship's story post-breakup. During the relationship you are charming and wonderful and compassionate, but post-breakup you're a manipulative evil person who seduced and took advantage of them...

    What is the solution to any of that? You require some sort of psychological assessment or licensing before you are allowed to give consent?

    I don't think there is any 'solution.' I just think shitty people are shitty and it has nothing to do with culture. And shitty people will victimize others and make themselves out to be the victims, because yes, like you said, they are 'good people' and they can never do anything wrong. They are sex-positive and open minded and perfect! They could never assault anyone!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent