Perhaps don’t talk for us.
Hey, @Gyrate - as a (multiple) rape survivor, I say your comparison was on point and not a despicable line of reasoning in the slightest.
The victim-blaming in this thread is not unexpected, but then I look at who’s doing it, and It’s hardly surprising.
Then your comparison of rape with verbal criticism is equally as disgusting as Gyrate’s and I’ve no interest in what you have to say
Oh, yeah, talk to us … until you don’t like what we have to say. Such a surprise.
And “verbal criticism” =/= “being chased down in a car”, which is what Gyrate was talking about here as the “rape” analogy, not your words, which is just the “rape apologist” part of the equation.
For very personal reasons I find it distasteful to equate rape and crime with media attention that is purposefully sought.
Consider me over-sensitive on the subject.
I’d suggest you rewind and re-read. Gyrate’s rape comparison came up as a part of an aside on criticising Meghan and Harry, not the alleged “car chase”.
Let’s recap.
I read - your criticism is the “line of argument”, not the rape, in Gyrate’s post.
Your sensitivity doesn’t change the hypocrisy there. You were all gung-ho when you assumed all victims of sex attacks would just naturally be on your side of the argument. Get corrected, and suddenly our truths aren’t worth anything.
Because it’s not at all clear that the paparazzi did anything illegal. There are certain situations where following a person is an offense - but it’s not just any following. It’s going to have to be more - maybe it puts the followed person in fear of physical harm.( such as if the follower has made threats) Maybe it results in alarming the person with no legitimate purpose. ( Taking photos is a legitimate purpose). Maybe it’s intended to annoy the person being followed ( Paparazzi don’t intend to annoy, they intend to take pictures) . About the only thing the police could so is what they did - block traffic and provide an escort.
AKA, they were asking for it.
Here is the bottom line, all humans, even those who court media attention and publicity, have the right to live their lives free of harassment. Harassment as defined by the dictionary “to annoy persistently” or “to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct”, not as defined by the legal system.
UK tabloids are not engaged in sober even handed journalism, they are harassing these people, because harassment makes them money. We don’t have the power to stop them from making money off of harassment, or to make their harassment illegal because of the effect such laws would have on the sober even handed journalism society requires.
Harry and Meghan have not done a single thing to justify being harassed by tabloids, nothing.
Asking for what? media attention? yes. That is exactly what they are doing. South Park summarised this nicely.
You can find contrary positions to pretty much any statement. There’s nothing anyone can say that will be agreed with by all members of a certain group.
But yes, I am fairly confident that most victims of rape would not appreciate their attack being compared to media attention and criticism that a person has purposefully sought.
And once again you attempt to portray overt harassment as “media attention and criticism” to deflect from your own disgusting comparison. If you perpetually minimize whatever happens, you can continue to claim it’s all their fault, right?
Just keep dissembling to excuse your victim blaming.
Harassment. I gave you a handy definition, in case you’re not entirely sure what that big word meant. Were they asking to be harassed, followed by people throughout the city, in multiple vehicles, to the point where they basically have to play “mission impossible” and secretly change cars just to be allowed to go home in peace?
They did not ask for that, and they do not deserve that regardless of how much you hate them for liking avocados.
nope, remember, these were the exact words you started this hijack with.
And my response was purely about publicity and criticism. Which you then compared with being raped.
You didn’t talk about harrassment or the alleged “car chase” and neither did I.
You did inject the alleged car chase into the argument some posts later after your sex crime comparison when I assume you realised your error and wanted try and make it seem like I was minimising what potentially could be a dangerous incident (that we don’t actually know happened).
Right from the off I’ve referenced publicity and criticism, the criticism that you first brought up. That you haven’t understood that is your problem not mine.
Another thread where no one can understand Novelty, despite his world renowned communication skills.
What were the odds?
Well that’s simple enough. No-one deserves to be put in danger. If it did happen the people responsible should be punished.
However I do think they deliberately seek media attention and as such are absolutely open to the criticism and attention that then follows. Which is what I originally said.
I think comparing that position to the victim-blaming of a rape victim is obnoxious in the extreme but you seem to think otherwise.
The kraken awakes!
Is it because it highlights what a scum-bag argument you were making?
No, I agree, being compared to made-up strawmen would be offensive.
What the ever-living fuck did you think the “this” in their post was, if not the car chase.?