Ha, I see that’s the first thing that article mentions. But it’s also wrong because that title, overall, is kickass. It’s absolutely wonderful that we are getting more diverse characters. Do you know how challenging it has been to find black superheroes? My husband’s been looking, he’s a big Marvel action figure collector and we may end up adopting a child of another race. That kid needs people to look up to, that look like him (or her.)
Black Panther is one of the most kick ass characters in Marvel. Though not American. Which is why I thought the kerfuffle over the Black Panther movie “has to have an African American director” was beyond stupid.
Luke Cage kicks ass, but I honestly don’t know how well any solo titles of his sell. Rhodesy has been short changed by Marvel by making him War Machine and not enough characterization in Civil War the comic series. I have no idea how Falcon is getting on. Everyone loves Storm. And at DC everyone loves John Stewart. Cyborg I think it was stupid to shoehorn him into the JLA just for diversity.
I have no prob with diverse characters as long as the story isn’t hamfisted. Like Jane Foster getting mad at Absorbing Mans misogyny. Uhhhh Jane? Is him being a murderer not enough?
Yeah, that scene made me kind of cringe. Overall it’s a great title though. Jason Aaron wrote one of my favorites, Wolverine and the X-Men, so I was pretty pumped about Thor. Most of my superhero knowledge is X-Men titles so it was cool to learn about another aspect of Marvel Universe through the eyes of a woman. And it does make a difference to me, to have heroes more like me. Agreed Storm is the ultimate badass, especially in her Mohawk years. X-men was about diversity before that was a mainstream subject.
I’m not sure where to put this, so I’m putting it here, names and all. I have no idea if she’s a SJW, but she’s very clearly anti-police and that’s good enough for me.
Latina (or Latina American) Katherine Torres gets pulled over for not having a front plate on her car. First question from the cop was “Are you a US Citizen”, he then went on to ask for for Social Security Number and insurance. She feels she was profiled and called in a Latino Advocacy group, Voces de la Frontera, that helped her fight. The had a press release, they went to the police station with her to file a complaint.
She was told if she didn’t withdraw the complaint, Katherine Torres would be receive criminal charges.
Seems pretty awful, right.
The story unfolded, the dashcam video was released, her case fell apart.
Turns out her story was a whole bunch of bullshit.
He did pull her over for not having a front plate and he did request her SS number, which they have been doing for everyone for years so they can snag unpaid tickets from tax refunds. However, he never, not once, asked her about her citizenship, which was the whole point of all of this.
Speculation on my part leads me to assume that the ‘threat’ of criminal charges for not withdrawing the complaint were going to be for filing a false complaint (police report?).
This is the shit that pisses me off about SJWs, so many of them don’t seem to understand that some minorities will, in fact, lie and/or use the race/sex card in an attempt to get what they’re after.
But shame on the advocacy group for not requesting the dashcam video and reviewing it before doing a press release and good for the PD for saying ‘fine, that’s her side, here’s ours’.
Here’s her news story, with video:
Woman accuses Greendale police of profiling her, asking 'Are you a U.S. citizen?'
Here’s the one that was released later:
Oh, and considering the officer didn’t giver her a ticket for not having a plate OR proof of insurance, but just a seatbelt ticket (which is like 10 or 20 dollars), I’m not sure what her end game was.
I can only assume she wasn’t aware of the dashcam.
In fact, that reminds me of another one recently. I had no idea it was ‘a thing’ just saw something pop up on youtube that said something like ‘woman freaks out over speeding ticket’. It was an officer pulling someone over and during the 20 or so minute encounter he acted totally calm, cool and collected. Never raised is voice or acted in frustration even as wrestled her to the ground while she was throwing a tempter tantrum. After that, I saw some related videos. Turns out, a week or so before that was released, a bystander’s video was on the internet…the bystander only caught the second part, the part where she was being put in handcuffs, yelling and screaming. The bystander missed the officer telling her, probably 10 times that ‘I need to remove your rear plate, could you hand me your keys so I know you won’t back up over me’ and her refusing.
Original dash/body cam:
What I really liked about this one is the what that the officer not only acknowledged the bystander recording him but even told her ‘you can record me, just stay out of the street’.
Two final thoughts: I really don’t understand why people [usually white/privileged/women/whatever] seem to fall into the trap of believing that a minority can’t tell a lie. If they say something [WRT being offended or harmed] it’s true, period. A few years ago someone on my facebook feed was talking about a woman being raped. Another person tossed out the idea that maybe it didn’t actually happen and that she was just using the threat of going to the police as leverage. SJW asking why a woman would lie about being raped. Um, duh, says it right there, leverage. I’ve seen it happen first (second?) hand.
Second, always keep in mind, being offended doesn’t make you right, it makes you offended. Sometimes it makes you right, sometimes it means the other person needs to change their ways, but just because you’re offended doesn’t not require someone else to change.
Sometimes the proper response to Me: “I’m sorry if you’re feelings were hurt” /You “That’s not an apology” really is “I know, I wasn’t apologizing, I didn’t do anything wrong”.
I know of pretty much no one, liberal or otherwise, who believes that minorities never lie, or women never lie about rape. If that’s who you’re worried about, then I think you’re worried about a minuscule number of people.
Some people get confused between "all things being equal, we will give the benefit of the doubt to the less powerful person in the situation " and believing that these folks never lie.
Except SJWs. Their entire mantra seems to be based around the ‘fact’ that anything that a minority says needs to be taken as ‘the truth’ and you shall not dispute it since you haven’t lived their life so you can’t possibly know. In general it’s not worded quite like that, it’s usually turned around such that when anyone of any minority status makes any type of complaint and you question it at all it makes you some type of “-ist” instead of just a person trying to make sure they have all the facts in order.
Next time you see a little SJW thing on FB jump in and question it. See what happens. You don’t even have to dispute it. You can just say something like ‘Is there any camera footage’ or ‘how long did she work there for?’. Inevetibly, someone will say “IT DOESN’T MATTER, SHE SAID ______ SO WE KNOW IT HAPPENED”. See how many times you can nicely rephrase the question before someone tells you that ‘you need to stop talking’, says ‘ew’, ‘blocked’, suggests that your sex or race somehow plays into the facts of her/his unrelated case or tells you to go away.
There’s plenty of SJWs that believe that minorities (both in sex and race) never lie about these things, but the SJWs will ‘fight the good fight’ without knowing any more than one or two statements.
Just look at my above example. A whole huge deal involving an advocacy deal, a complaint against the police department, a press release, the media etc…all because a Latina woman said the a police officer asked her if she was a US Citizen.
These sound like mostly mythical people. Sure, some small number probably always believe minorities no matter what – but your example doesn’t necessarily mean that. Taking her accusations seriously is reasonable, up to and including challenging the police department. When it turns out there’s a video that shows that she was lying, that doesn’t mean that taking her accusation seriously was wrong – it just means that taking an accusation seriously doesn’t mean that it’s always going to be true.
The only bad actor in your story is the lying women. Those who took her accusation seriously were acting properly and reasonably. Police departments and others in authority should be challenged, and when evidence shows they are innocent of wrongdoing, it should come to light, as it did in this case. Lying is wrong, but advocates can’t know without further evidence if someone is lying, and publicizing criticism and lodging complaints is sometimes the only way to find out if it’s true.
I’ve questioned claims from liberals and conservatives on Facebook (and elsewhere) and I haven’t experienced this backlash you describe. I’ve been called a SJW many times too (a label that still seems positive – who wouldn’t want to fight for social justice?).
Complaints should be taken seriously and not dismissed without evidence against them. There’s no need to bring up the possibility of a woman lying about rape until there’s actually evidence that she lied about rape. That doesn’t mean that her word is law – but it means that her word should be taken seriously and investigated.
Agreed. The problem was that the advocacy group took her at her word (though it’s possible I misread something late at night when I ran across the article) which is the whole issue I wrote the post about. They didn’t do their due diligence.
What came to light was that there wasn’t anything to be challenged other than the woman’s bullshit claim who, IMO, now owes everyone a big giant public apology for wasting their time, resources, tax dollars and emotional investment, not to mention that every time some knowingly does something like this, it makes it harder for the next person to build a legitimate case when it really does happen.
How many causes do SJWs go apeshit for when the victim is full of shit, when the victim is ‘the only bad actor’. I really doubt I just randomly stumbled on to the first one ever.
If you’ve been called a SJW and you’re referring to liberals in the third person I’m guessing you’re not the intended audience of the thread.
True, but if I have to work on the assumption that what someone says is true until proven otherwise, it would be nice if people could treat me (“me” in general) as if I do believe the person but I can’t just take their word for it so I’m just trying to get all the information. Some of information gathering may be or may sound like prodding for counter evidence, but I (again ‘I’ in general) need to fully convinced myself in order to be able to fully fight for you.
But that is what advocacy groups are for; they take someone’s claim and run with it. Often enough the person making the claim was honest, or mistaken, but everyone deserves to be heard.
Some bullshit claims do waste the system resources but until we learn how to filter out the bullshit before it is investigated then we need to accept that the occasional person will try to game the system.
How do you know they didn’t do their “due diliigence”? Maybe they asked the police department for their side of the story and were ignored.
I’m sure there are other cases in which liars lie, and people take those lies seriously. There are also many, many more cases in which somone is being honest in their accusations.
I’m definitely a liberal. On social justice issues (race, LGBT, women’s rights, etc.) I’m probably one of the most liberal members of this board. SJW seems like something to aspire to. At best I’m a social justice talker – I don’t actually risk anything. Maybe one day I’ll actually risk something and be a social justice “warrior”, like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr.
As long as you’re not a jerk about it, ask away. But if you’re talking to or about a rape victim (or possible rape victim), something that may seem reasonable to you might be traumatic to them, or other victims. What a woman was wearing is immaterial, for example. So is how much she drank. So is why or whether she agreed to go into a man’s apartment. None of those sorts of things have anything to do with rape, and asking about them is implying blame, for this potential survivor and other real survivors, whether you mean it or not.
From the article:
First: May 31st: Original incident
Second:June 2nd: On Friday, they held a news conference outside the Greendale police station. The group says a proposed state law encourages this type of profiling.
Third:June 2nd: Complaint filed against PD
Fourth: June 6: GPD releases dashcam video
Fifth: June 6th: Advocacy group disputes veracity of video
Sixth: June 6th: Advocacy Group and Torres go to police department, watch entire unedited video from beginning to end; withdraw complaint.
If there are other facts out there that paint a different story, I either didn’t see them or missed the articles.
Again, I agree, and if people would cool their jets for 12 seconds perhaps they’d understand why people need to ask victims the questions they ask. Maybe it’s to weed out the bullshit, maybe it’s to strengthen the case.
You awarded yourself the prize of most liberal member on the board and (kinda sorta) compared yourself to Mandela and MLK. You win!
You’re right and when those questions are asked, it’s a separate issue altogether. However, people should be able ask if she can prove that she was actually at the apartment and other types of questions without anyone flipping out.
Case in point: One of the Cosby accusers said that he raped her at the playboy mansion on some specific date. As it turns out (at least when I heard it), he had proof, by way of round trip plane tickets, hotel receipts, phone records from the room and a public speaking engagement from an event in New York for the same day…but none of that mattered because it suggested they were dismissing the victim and she’s a victim so he needs to be punished. Even explaining to people that neither Cosby nor the alleged victim were seen at the place where she claimed it happened mattered.
Again, if you want Social Justice, that’s all well and good, but some people need their heads screwed on a bit better.
Ever seen the term “Schrodinger’s Rapist”? For bonus enjoyment, look for arguments trying to twist it so that Schrodinger’s Rapist is a valid position but Schrodinger’s Terrorist or Schrodinger’s Black Thug aren’t. It can be fun to watch them try to square the circle.
I don’t see what this demonstrates. Other than the original lie, what’s the problem here? They were aggressive, and then when presented proof they withdrew the complaint.
Sometimes advocates will get something wrong. That’s okay.
This is a very vague sort of complaint. Maybe there’s the exact perfect level of skepticism in order to minimize advocating for false complaints… but humans aren’t always going to reach that perfect level. These particular advocates will probably be a little more skeptical next time, but they should remain open and caring towards those who come forward with complaints, and they should recognize that it’s okay to be wrong sometimes.
That’s not really what I said, but yay! What do I win?
There will always be false claims, but so what? There’s nothing we can do about it. We should be open and caring, but that doesn’t mean we need to accept everything without verification.
I think what you’re complaining about is an incredibly minor sort of problem. Better to be a little careful before challenging someone if you don’t have evidence that they’re lying then to be obnoxious to possible rape survivors, or survivors of police abuse, it seems to me.
Do they not have police officers in Evergreen or something?
This is exactly the kind of thing that pisses me off.
Even from a purely strategic standpoint, we fucking need men in our corner, dammit. What agenda does this even serve?
There is also a guy who used to post over at Freethoughtblogs who has moved on to Patheos who once wrote an entry (I don’t know if it is still available) where he talked about how, if he is walking on a sidewalk and was coming up on a woman at a time when nobody else is around, he will cross the road and walk on the opposite sidewalk until he is a reasonable distance away from the woman to make her feel more comfortable.
I mean, I have no desire to make anyone uncomfortable, but come on!
You may not choose to do this, but do you really care if he does?
I’m just worried about the strain to my eye muscles from all the rolling.
Uh-oh, I think I might be catching it…