|
Who What Now posted:False rape accusations aren't a major problem, but for some reason reactionary dudes always try and pretend it's some sort of epidemic sweeping the nation. Why the plural? I wasn't talking about generic false rape accusations, I was talking about a SPECIFIC one. I mean, although I tend to forget how fringy it is here, there isn't really anyone that believes Tawana Brawley's story any more, right? I mean, go read about it. I'm guessing you're a young person that wasn't alive or aware when it all went down. I mean, it was a huge shitshow, but in the end, given all teh available evidence, in a super high profile case, it was determined that she did indeed falsely accuse Stephen Pagones. Here's a snippet: Wiki about Tawana Brawley Case posted:The report further concluded that the "unsworn public allegations against Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones" were false and had no basis in fact. To issue the report, the grand jury heard from 180 witnesses, saw 250 exhibits and recorded more than 6,000 pages of testimony.[3] The whole thing was a bunch of Bullshit that cause a ton of trouble, but yeah, Al Sharpton is a hero
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:I seem to remember false accusations of that nature being used as a cudgel by racists against black men historically in America. What makes you think this practice won't continue to some extent, especially in places accepting refugees? that was typically men using sexual panic as a method to justify violence. the kind of false rape accusations we're talking about are women, out of the blue, claiming sexual trauma on themselves to attack men for whatever reason. it's borne out of a different kind of sexual panic, generally an emasculated incel type who is afraid of the woman themselves rather than using a woman to explain their fear of black men. so there's not a 1:1 relationship here between the types of false rape allegations
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Is advocating for this false rape girl literally the only thing Al Sharpton has done in his life to you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Are you claiming that Tawana Brawley was really raped by Stephen Pagones? You should call Eric Schneiderman and tell him to reopen the case! This is huge news! If there was any gain to be had for Sharpton it would have occurred regardless of whether or not it was false or not because, despite popular discourse suggesting otherwise, there is usually no conspiracy involved in false rape allegations. Sharpton almost certainly didn't conspire with her to falsely accuse someone of rape to bolster his own career. If you think that you're delusional. The lawyers not being able to work again? Yeah, that would happen with gross legal misconduct. That should happen with gross legal misconduct. Sharpton gaining popularity off the back of this case wasn't because it was a vast conspiracy, it was because he came to the defense of a black girl who had been allegedly raped. That's a noble thing to do, regardless of the eventual outcome. If a man throws himself into a burning building because he hears the screams of a baby trapped inside, most sensible people probably won't think he's a dick because it later turned out to be a toy baby with realistic crying sounds. I do happen to think Sharpton is very full of himself but that's rather unrelated to his work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm inclined to think that there isn't a lefty Milo or really anyone as gross as Milo anywhere in the anglosphere. Ward Churchill, maybe? does anyone care about that guy anymore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the mistake you're making here is thinking that you understand logic, or how it works. see you're taking the least charitable interpretation of sharpton's actions when prompted to explain why you hate the man so much, which is a very non-convicing argument to anyone who does not share your intrinsic, learned dislike. simply asserting your initial assumption and then trying to retrofit some explanation isn't really how logic works, pal Yeah, wow that's pretty personal. You're pretty judgmental for someone known here for suggesting that Veterans killing themselves is a good thing. You obviously weren't around during the Tawana Brawley stuff. It came at a time of really high racial tensions, and it made things worse. Of course, you're too cool to care, but I'd be careful sharing that opinion with anyone who lived through that time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Why the plural? I wasn't talking about generic false rape accusations, I was talking about a SPECIFIC one. I mean, although I tend to forget how fringy it is here, there isn't really anyone that believes Tawana Brawley's story any more, right? I mean, go read about it. I'm guessing you're a young person that wasn't alive or aware when it all went down. I mean, it was a huge shitshow, but in the end, given all teh available evidence, in a super high profile case, it was determined that she did indeed falsely accuse Stephen Pagones. Here's a snippet: You need to establish when all of it was known and when he said what. That's how this works. If someone has no good reason to distrust a claim and they trust it they haven't done anything wrong until it's proven to be untrue, and if they're involved in the case even then there's ethics considerations. And oh Jesus Christ not the inflamed racial tensions thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Why the plural? I wasn't talking about generic false rape accusations, I was talking about a SPECIFIC one. I mean, although I tend to forget how fringy it is here, there isn't really anyone that believes Tawana Brawley's story any more, right? I mean, go read about it. I'm guessing you're a young person that wasn't alive or aware when it all went down. I mean, it was a huge shitshow, but in the end, given all teh available evidence, in a super high profile case, it was determined that she did indeed falsely accuse Stephen Pagones. Here's a snippet: What, exactly, did Sharpton actually do that is so horrible in your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yeah, wow that's pretty personal. You're pretty judgmental for someone known here for suggesting that Veterans killing themselves is a good thing. Please enlighten us, what did Al do that hurt race relations and how did it hurt race relations? What should he have done instead?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yeah, wow that's pretty personal. You're pretty judgmental for someone known here for suggesting that Veterans killing themselves is a good thing. so you're not disputing the fact that you're taking the least charitable, most misinterpreted possible position on sharpton's actions in order to explain why you hate the man so much? i mean it's pretty obvious he didn't conspire to gently caress up anyone's day, he commited the horrible sin of believing a black woman who said she was raped and it's puzzling to me why that's such a big no-no in your perspective. personally i think it's a good thing that we believe women who say they are raped, why is that so wrong to you? it's also odd that you would cite "high racial tensions" and then fault al sharpton, a man who made his living defusing racial tensions, for getting involved. you should take a deep breath and slow down, your arguments are getting contradictory
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:You obviously weren't around during the Tawana Brawley stuff. It came at a time of really high racial tensions, and it made things worse. Oh, so it's the fault of black people that blacks were so hated?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-jEQYHAFfjg Here is a half hour documentary pretty much leaning for the MRA type but generally the activist culture in ottawa is full of lovely lamoes. And here is an article contrasting our new culture of censorship vs free speech absolutism: http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/29371/im-free-speech-absolutist/
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What, exactly, did Sharpton actually do that is so horrible in your eyes? As soon as her accusations went public, her story started falling apart. I mean, how do you people not know any of this? Sharpton, rather than saying you know what, maybe we should tone this down and find resolution, doubled down instead, and turned it into a race issue. He was on TV every day (pre-internet, only a few channels plus CNN) fanning the flames, which he did. Did anyone else in this thread live in NYC at the time? Do you remember what it was like in Brooklyn? The Day of Outrage, Crown Heights?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:As soon as her accusations went public, her story started falling apart. I mean, how do you people not know any of this? Sharpton, rather than saying you know what, maybe we should tone this down and find resolution, doubled down instead, and turned it into a race issue. He was on TV every day (pre-internet, only a few channels plus CNN) fanning the flames, which he did. Did anyone else in this thread live in NYC at the time? Do you remember what it was like in Brooklyn? The Day of Outrage, Crown Heights? yeah wow, what an rear end in a top hat, trusting that a black woman would not lie about her rape. i can see why you hate this monster so much. he should be shot we should totally confirm your thirty year old memories, middle aged man who apparently distrusts black people for mysterious but i'm sure valid reasons
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so you're not disputing the fact that you're taking the least charitable, most misinterpreted possible position on sharpton's actions in order to explain why you hate the man so much? i mean it's pretty obvious he didn't conspire to gently caress up anyone's day, he commited the horrible sin of believing a black woman who said she was raped and it's puzzling to me why that's such a big no-no in your perspective. personally i think it's a good thing that we believe women who say they are raped, why is that so wrong to you? How is it "pretty obvious" that he didn't conspire? The Jury at his trial felt otherwise and fined him $345,000 but I guess you know better from your perch in nowheresville.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so you're not disputing the fact that you're taking the least charitable, most misinterpreted possible position on sharpton's actions in order to explain why you hate the man so much? i mean it's pretty obvious he didn't conspire to gently caress up anyone's day, he commited the horrible sin of believing a black woman who said she was raped and it's puzzling to me why that's such a big no-no in your perspective. personally i think it's a good thing that we believe women who say they are raped, why is that so wrong to you? It's actually worse than saying that believing her is bad, the way he presents it, not dismissing her claims out of hand is in itself the problem. It'd be understandable if he were saying that he kept supporting her claims after they were proved to be untrue happened and was bad, but he's saying standing up for them at all to the point of a trial to determine their validity was in and of itself bad and hoooooly poo poo the implications of that. Like only now with extensive coaching have we reached actual allegations of actual wrongdoing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah wow, what an rear end in a top hat, trusting that a black woman would not lie about her rape. i can see why you hate this monster so much. he should be shot Wow, you sure draw a lot of wrong conclusions about a lot of stuff. Surely though, if it's my memory that's at fault, you can provide some sources that say otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Sethex posted:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-jEQYHAFfjg "I'm a free speech absolutist, unless someone is telling me to shut up"
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:How is it "pretty obvious" that he didn't conspire? The Jury at his trial felt otherwise and fined him $345,000 but I guess you know better from your perch in nowheresville. uhhh that's not the legal or actual definition of conspiracy. i think you should take a time out from this thread, you're not making any sense gobbagool posted:Wow, you sure draw a lot of wrong conclusions about a lot of stuff. Surely though, if it's my memory that's at fault, you can provide some sources that say otherwise? i mean it's pretty obvious to me that you don't trust black people, given that you've been ranting for a half hour about two black people who you think lied three decades ago. evidently you're still hung up on this and there's only so many reasons why that would be the case boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:It's actually worse than saying that believing her is bad, the way he presents it, not dismissing her claims out of hand is in itself the problem. It'd be understandable if he were saying that he kept supporting her claims after they were proved to be untrue happened and was bad, but he's saying standing up for them at all to the point of a trial to determine their validity was in and of itself bad and hoooooly poo poo the implications of that. Like I said, her case fell apart long before the trial. It was in the news every day, constantly. Go on and state your implications though, o moral arbiter of the thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
You finally said it after most of a loving page of jerking off motions.gobbagool posted:Wow, you sure draw a lot of wrong conclusions about a lot of stuff. Surely though, if it's my memory that's at fault, you can provide some sources that say otherwise? It's your utter loving inability to manage reasonable criticisms until the thread's pried them from you, kicking and screaming the whole way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:You finally said it after most of a loving page of jerking off motions. you can't help people from being poor communicators, especially when they're pissed about something and that anger inhibits their thought processes
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you can't help people from being poor communicators, especially when they're pissed about something and that anger inhibits their thought processes Says the king of the personal attack. No wonder you're a sharpton fan
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:As soon as her accusations went public, her story started falling apart. I mean, how do you people not know any of this? Sharpton, rather than saying you know what, maybe we should tone this down and find resolution, doubled down instead, and turned it into a race issue. He was on TV every day (pre-internet, only a few channels plus CNN) fanning the flames, which he did. Did anyone else in this thread live in NYC at the time? Do you remember what it was like in Brooklyn? The Day of Outrage, Crown Heights? Wait, so his supposed unforgivable crime was not immediately calling the woman a whore and a liar the second she came under scrutiny? Oh no, truly he is a monster beyond comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i fail to see what canceling a speech on the theme of "when you think about it, black women really are too loud. like if u agree (and donate to my patreon)" takes away from the marketplace of ideas. My issue is less that Milo has anything of value to add to the conversation and more about the idea that we have at some stage appointed an arbiter of good and correct opinions to hold, despite my inability to remember who that is, and when it happened. Also? It isn't just this douche, either. Richard Dawkins and (I believe) Sam Harris have been de-platformed as well. Milo is a cartoon, but Dawkins (despite holding opinions I find to be lovely) is somewhat of a celebrated biologist - are we saying that The Selfish Gene has no place in the marketplace of ideas? Chris Rock isn't interested in playing colleges and universities for similar reasons now as well. I remember a time when he was considered to be one of the more important Black voices in popular culture, but I guess we can throw him out of the marketplace as well? Kind of a lovely marketplace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:uhhh that's not the legal or actual definition of conspiracy. i think you should take a time out from this thread, you're not making any sense As usual, you missed the point, which was to ask if it would be ok for people to shout down and prevent Sharpton from speaking, but of course, instead of addressing that you go about making Sharpton out to be a hero, that nobody in their right mind could possibly be opposed to. That says a lot more about you then me, and I'm comfortable with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
There are plenty of criticisms to be made of Sharpton, even by black people, but 'believed a girl who said she had been raped' is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:As usual, you missed the point, which was to ask if it would be ok for people to shout down and prevent Sharpton from speaking, but of course, instead of addressing that you go about making Sharpton out to be a hero, that nobody in their right mind could possibly be opposed to. That says a lot more about you then me, and I'm comfortable with that. well i asked you what you find so distasteful about sharpton as to contrast him with milo, and the first thing you said was "he stood up for a black woman who said she was raped" so yeah uh, yeah, i don't really know where to go from there. to put it lightly, you failed to answer my question in a satisfactory let alone convincing fashion
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:As usual, you missed the point, which was to ask if it would be ok for people to shout down and prevent Sharpton from speaking, but of course, instead of addressing that you go about making Sharpton out to be a hero, that nobody in their right mind could possibly be opposed to. That says a lot more about you then me, and I'm comfortable with that. Why do you think that people shouting down and preventing Al Sharpton from speaking hasn't happened?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:There are plenty of criticisms to be made of Sharpton, even by black people, but 'believed a girl who said she had been raped' is not one of them. aaaaaaaaand I never said that "believing a girl who said she had been raped" was a problem. We should believe all women and men who say they have been raped, to the extent that any other accusation should automatically be believed. Sharpton stuck with her long after her case fell apart, and continued to jack up the accusations. it was quite a shitshow, you should read up on it. There's a solid reason that most people who remember that episode don't find Sharpton to be a trustworthy player.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
i feel one can make a case in favor of letting Dawkins and - im gritting my teeth as i type this - even Harris speak. they have actual ideas and things like that, even if i do find them disagreeable. but Milo is just such an ideological vacuum i feel like getting bent out of shape on his behalf is, at best, credulous. its less that there should be some arbiter of good opinions, and more that if there is an outcry, it should be evaluated. if the best argument one can make in favor of angering a large portion of the student body is "youre all just buttmad and full of care, and furthermore hugbox safespace cultural marxism," perhaps there isnt much value in the exercise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Angular Landbury posted:My issue is less that Milo has anything of value to add to the conversation and more about the idea that we have at some stage appointed an arbiter of good and correct opinions to hold, despite my inability to remember who that is, and when it happened. i really doubt this is true, though. people like to indicate that there is some PC Cop looming above all, judging what is good and bad, but really people invoke this godlike figure as a way of (in my experience) justifying why they can dismiss criticism from others. like really it's just more of a faceless Other than can be blamed for being incorrect about speech rather than just accepting that if you say anything to a large enough audience, some people are going to disagree with you, perhaps bitterly
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:aaaaaaaaand I never said that "believing a girl who said she had been raped" was a problem. We should believe all women and men who say they have been raped, to the extent that any other accusation should automatically be believed. Sharpton stuck with her long after her case fell apart, and continued to jack up the accusations. it was quite a shitshow, you should read up on it. There's a solid reason that most people who remember that episode don't find Sharpton to be a trustworthy player. you probably should have said this first instead of saying "he defended a woman who made false rape accusations" when prompted as to why he was a bad person like i said, anger inhibits clear communication. i suggest working on that in your personal life
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Why do you think that people shouting down and preventing Al Sharpton from speaking hasn't happened? I'm unaware of it happening? I could certainly be wrong, but again, still not the point. The point is, and there's a lot of intentionally obtuse posters here, that if you're OK with Milo, or George Will, or that Muslim woman being shouted down and denied the stage, you also, logically, have to be ok with Al Sharpton, or Madeline Albright, or any other figure on the other side of the aisle being shouted down as well, even to the extent that similar tactics like threats of violence are used to prevent the discussion. Alternatively, you could (should) not be OK with either, and be consistent. I don't expect anyone here to agree, or at least the professional contrarians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:The point is, and there's a lot of intentionally obtuse posters here, that if you're OK with Milo, or George Will, or that Muslim woman being shouted down and denied the stage, you also, logically, have to be ok with Al Sharpton, or Madeline Albright, or any other figure on the other side of the aisle being shouted down as well, even to the extent that similar tactics like threats of violence are used to prevent the discussion. Alternatively, you could (should) not be OK with either, and be consistent. I don't expect anyone here to agree, or at least the professional contrarians. no, actually, this doesn't logically follow. you can't use some transitive property of anger to say "well if you hate my guy, i hate your guy, and we're even stevens". the entire discussion here revolves around the content of people's speech, not team partisanship, and digging into team partisanship indicates you don't really understand the discussion (lol @ "that muslim woman")
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
gobbagool why do you keep holding up people like Al Sharpton and Madeline Albright as if theyre relevant luminaries of the left as it currently exists. i dont think you know very much about anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i really doubt this is true, though. people like to indicate that there is some PC Cop looming above all, judging what is good and bad, but really people invoke this godlike figure as a way of (in my experience) justifying why they can dismiss criticism from others. like really it's just more of a faceless Other than can be blamed for being incorrect about speech rather than just accepting that if you say anything to a large enough audience, some people are going to disagree with you, perhaps bitterly Yeah, it's hyperbole and sarcasm. There is no boss of culture, it's just groups of people imposing their will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:gobbagool why do you keep holding up people like Al Sharpton and Madeline Albright as if theyre relevant luminaries of the left as it currently exists. i dont think you know very much about anything. The current luminaries of the left appear to be pop stars and... (checks calendar) Roxanne Gay is okay to like this week too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:no, actually, this doesn't logically follow. you can't use some transitive property of anger to say "well if you hate my guy, i hate your guy, and we're even stevens". the entire discussion here revolves around the content of people's speech, not team partisanship, and digging into team partisanship indicates you don't really understand the discussion Right, and you've appointed yourself moral arbiter of the value of the content of their speech, very convenient. I said "that muslim woman" because I didnt remember her name off the top of my head. I'm sure you're clutching your pearls over it, but it wasn't intended in the way that you'll absolutely twist it because of your sociopathic personality
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:gobbagool why do you keep holding up people like Al Sharpton and Madeline Albright as if theyre relevant luminaries of the left as it currently exists. i dont think you know very much about anything. he's admitted he's middle aged and the most recent thing he can think of that al sharpton did is three decades old, so Angular Landbury posted:Yeah, it's hyperbole and sarcasm. There is no boss of culture, it's just groups of people imposing their will. sure but this seems to me that the censor most people are mad about only exists in their mental frameworks of 'who will be mad if i say this'
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:42
|
|