The SA pile-on is bullshit, really. I didn’t pay too close attention because I don’t give a flying fuck about football or the Outrage of the Week, but I paid close enough attention to actually get the point he was trying to make. I’m of the impression he got pilloried partly because he holds other contemptible views and is prone to profound right-wing absurdities and glurge and partly because he had the temerity to hold to a view of whatshisface’s innocence.
You could turn the whole bullshit kerfuffle on its ear by simply changing the nature of things. Not a molestation case but a simple murder, and have SA proclaiming the innocence of someone because IHHO they couldn’t have stabbed the victim at such-and-such an angle based on what the witness was seeing at the time. Once you lose the heightened shrillness of it being about kids his point, whether or not you disagree with it, is easy to see. To paint him with a scandalous brush is reprehensible, particularly when there are so many other vapid, objectionable, and idiotic things to pit him for.
This pitting is particularly exemplary of the malignant mindset. He pointed out facts and made corrections. There is no paedophilia or pederast content. The OP is a bullshit attack.
I don’t know about this Woody Allen thing but there was no bullshit in the Sandusky pile-on. His remarks in that thread were at best moronic and at worst outright excusal of sexual assault on a child.
This isn’t court. In my book (and I obviously don’t speak for everybody), most folks get a certain amount of benefit of the doubt. But once that’s used up, you get no more until you’ve prove you’ve actually changed your ways.
At this point, it’s incredibly fair game to ask why SA would even pick that particular nit. Tying it to his past posting record is fair. Judging each post in isolation on its own merits is great in theory but it wouldn’t work in practice on some long-time posters.
I’ll tell you what is physically impossible: Getting an adult penis in a paper towel tube. Too narrow. If SA can do it, then that tells us more than we needed to know.
Yes, I disagree with Starving Artist on his stand on the impossibility of man on boy shower sex. I disagree with Starving Artist on his stand on race, I disagree on Starving Artist’s stance on the role of women. I disagree on Starving Artist’s stance on crime, education and a host of many other things. As I have already said, I’m not basing this pitting on any one post.
I repeat: He is a vile little man. In all respects. He should die of shame.
Is it Starving Artist’s birthday or something? The OP just gave him the gift of yet another thread where he can go on and on about with Penn State horsecrap and whine about how unfaaaaaaaair everybody is.
Too late. SA is compelled to defend to the death every assertion he makes, no matter how preposterous, and there will be at least four or five posters who feel compelled to respond equally. This will add, at a minimum, 500 posts to the thread, at least 20% of which will consist of SA restating the same assertions he made in his first post.
So, what does the Penn State stuff have to do with Woody Allen? If the OP wants to pit SA for the Penn State affair, WTF is this bullshit reference to the WA thread?
… and there will be seven or eight commenting on how stupid and useless it is to engage SA, not realizing that for those four or five, they’re just having fun.
I think that’s what I find shameful. A disagreement regarding the physical impossibility has been expanded into something completely different–it’s been contorted as an in-joke to imply that there is a lascivious desire, one seemingly made up out of whole cloth. Again, I didn’t follow the case at all and didn’t wade through all fifty jillion posts in the thread. But when I did look, all I found were repeated attempts to explain how it would have been impossible blah blah, and here’s how/why blah blah, not an iota of the prurient overtones in the original, just projections by attackers who didn’t like his opinion.
As an analogy, I think 9/11 Truthers are nuts. Do I think their contorted theories about how thermite must have taken down the buildings means they are closet pyromaniacs and want to destroy other buildings? Not a chance.
ETA: On a side note, making the occasional crack at things is a wholly different story. If people didn’t jump on the chance to shove ‘paper towel tube’ into threads where they disagree with him it would be very different. Case in point if the ‘on his stand’ in the quoted post was a joke, it was exhale-through-the-nose worthy. But that’s a very different thing from the stream of baseless attacks.
