Oh, one other thing - I also don’t give a fuck about the “liberal” bona fides of anyone you cite. We don’t all march in lockstep, you idiot.
I’m not dismissing the existence of feminists or gay people on twitter. What a silly thing to say, especially after I believe I mentioned they existed. There is a difference between feminists on twitter or discussions of feminist topics on twitter, two very real things, and Feminist Twitter. Same for gay people/topics on twitter.
Also, the fact you are pearl-clutching over the terminology I use is adorable in its complete lack of awareness of current linguistics. Lol.
You are intensely unable to discuss things with nuance, unless of course you’re being a rape or sexual assault apologist and then you have all the nuance in the world to dismiss every scenario that doesn’t fit the very narrow definition you’ve decided on for both.
~Insert Rihanna rolling up her window gif here.~
I asked for a cite because there was no cite. Once there’s a cite, then I can actually look at it, evaluate it, and respond to it, which is what I did. And I don’t believe that the police concluding that a certain amount of allegations are false or baseless tells us much about how common maliciously false rape accusations (and I assume you’re concerned about maliciously false accusations, as opposed to mistaken identity or honestly different recollections of an event, right?).
As for arrests going public, that’s not what was being discussed. You said or implied that with accusations, the accused becomes public while the accuser does not. I’m highly skeptical of this.
If I were the one so ignorant about such a basic fact, people would be having a field day. Have you never read a news story about a rape case?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This doesn’t conflict with anything I said. I remain skeptical of your claim that any time someone is accused of rape, the accusation and the name of the accused becomes public. If that’s not your claim, then I’m not sure what you’re complaining about.
Looks like you’re being slippery to cover for some embarrassment, but whatever. Maybe if you reflect on some of these facts I’m providing you, you might change your position some.
But yes: arrests are a matter of public record, even if prosecutors ultimately decide not to go to trial. Hence the asymmetric nature of the accusations in this scenario I laid out. One person is not really being meaningfully accused in a public sense because no one knows who she is. The other one is very publicly being accused, but without the public having the chance to evaluate the credibility of the accuser.
But I forgot: somehow everything is tilted in favor of the man in this situation, in some nebulous way. :rolleyes:
BTW, Dibble: kudos for bringing us back to colonialism at least. Your purity test illustrates very well my complaint from so many pages back about not viewing colonialism with all its shades of gray. If you don’t understand that the people being colonized were better off with more colonizers like Mill and fewer who were out for exploitation and cruelty, I don’t know what to tell you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’re jumping all over the place because so many of your claims are bullshit (or, at best, unsupported). I make a point of being pretty specific, and you haven’t actually refuted anything I’ve said.
So what? This doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said. Tons of accusations never lead to arrests.
Yes, I get that you are unconcerned by the overwhelming amount of women who have been raped or assaulted and never received justice, but terribly worried by the very tiny number of falsely accused men whose lives were adversely affected. It doesn’t reflect well on you, and I think you should rethink that.
They would have been far, far better off without any colonizers at all. Might as well defend slavery by pointing out that some slave owners didn’t routinely rape their slaves.
FFS. Did you read the excerpt from the New Yorker piece? All those strong progressive positions in the middle of the 19th fucking century, but you’re just going to dismiss him because he’s not quite in tune with what a woke person in 2018 would think.
Yet the vast majority of modern day Muslims’ beliefs are much further from this ideal, but they get a pass from TWC, apparently solely because of their complexion and hair texture. It’s absurd.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where did I dismiss him or his beliefs? You used Mill to defend colonialism (or one type of colonialism). That’s like defending certain types of slavery. Mill may have had many admirable qualities, and views that were particularly progressive for his time, but he still said things (paternalistic and racist things) in support of colonialism and imperialism, and it’s entirely reasonable to criticize him for these things.
Not sure who TWC is, and I don’t know what you’re talking about.
He’s not getting traction on his move from colonialism to false rape accusations, so now he’ll try anti-Muslim bigotry and see how that works.
One of these.
Okay, I’m going to assume it’s “The Wrestling Channel”.
*I *did? I thought it was you who quoted the racist imperialist flunky first?
Well, look at that - a real live false dichotomy in the wild. And it’s a big 'un!
I could give a fuck that Mill was better than, say, Columbus. What he wasn’t better than was no colonialism at all.
Oh, and stop trying to make “TWC” happen, you pathetic troll. It’s not going to happen!
“The Woke crowd” - someone’s trying too hard.
And as for the rest, your guess is as good as mine - especially the “hair texture” thing, that’s just … divorced from reality. I mean, a lot of Muslims are darker than the average White person, so I suppose “complexion” makes sense but … “hair texture”? It’s just bizarre.
Lots of Muslims in my building (or families with women who just like to wear the hijab for no reason), and their hair is definitely a different texture than that of the people of Northern European ancestry to whom TWC applies their double standard.
BTW, I don’t give a fuck if TWC “happens”. This is not “fetch”, mmkay? It’s my own snark, combined with utilitarian laziness since it is a group I refer to again and again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tell us more about this fictional group of people TWC. Is outer space involved?
Un-fucking-believable. “Muslim hair texture”, can he sink any lower, I wonder?
Whatever you say, Gretchen.
If you think Muslims have a hair texture, then you are clearly talking about an ethnicity or race, not a religion.
Is the point of all this to just draw SlackerInc out into revealing all the bigotry we already know about? He’s an Islamophobe and White Nationalist. He’s made that quite clear.
The weird thing is that he’s also anti-Trump, so he might actually be doing some good in the alt-right community. He can agree with them on stuff and still tell them how Trump is bad. The rest of us can’t do that.
Well, I’m not much of a Twitter user myself. I definitely am aware of a lot of feminists who post on Twitter, just as I’m aware of a lot of authors and actors who post on Twitter. I have not seen them routinely described as constituting virtual communities called “feminist Twitter” or “author Twitter” or “actor Twitter”, in the way that the virtual community of black Twitter users discussing issues of special relevance to black people is often called “Black Twitter”.
Then I don’t really know what you do mean. Legal, constitutional rights have a very specific meaning, and their infringement is a very serious matter. Legal rights are special because they apply just as stringently to shitty people being assholes as they do to nice people being nice. That’s not equally true of all the “mandates” executed by “society”, to borrow the phrasing of your Mill quote.
Okay, but in what way are this hypothetical person’s “rights” being violated? Since you say you’re using “rights” to mean more than actual legal rights, where are you drawing the line between “people uncharitably jumping to conclusions about me” and “people violating my rights”?
:dubious: :dubious: :dubious: Golly. Dialing back the hyperbole a bit here (since I assume you are not expecting us to believe that Keillor’s career, much less his life, has been literally “wiped away”), in what way are you claiming that Keillor’s “rights” are being violated, according to your own definition of “rights”?
You also haven’t made it clear how the reasons for MPR’s decision to end contracts with Keillor should be “demonstrated to your satisfaction”. An MPR official has described their decision-making process in an open letter:
Can you please explain exactly what you feel MPR should have done differently or additionally to “demonstrate to your satisfaction” their justification for ending Keillor’s contracts?