The problem with LHoD is the high dudgeon in which he entered the thread, demanding to know what ‘the fuck’ the deal was with Blake’suse of the word ‘murderess’ and instructing him from on high that we don’t need to know the killer has a vagina.
This is Political Correctness and Social Justice Warriorism at it’s most typical. Political correctness because it assumes the use of gender-specific words are sexist and that to be identified as a woman is somehow demeaning, and SJW-ism because of the gall it takes to presume to attack someone for their use of an apparently non-PC approved word and to issue an instruction not to use it. All this is far sillier in my opinion than the use of the word that triggered it, which, given the topic of the thread, is perfectly germane.
Here’s the thing though, we only have the claim of one person–a convicted killer, that he raped her. It’s entirely possible she was a jilted lover or any number of other things. Without any other evidence I take a neutral view on rape claims, they should be investigated appropriate. Sadly many rapes cannot be proven, that is a sad fact.
But this isn’t a neutral case, because we actually know the woman making the rape claim is a liar, a convicted killer, and one who has actually repeatedly said she bears no responsibility for this terrible crime and feels no guilt or responsibility for her own actions.
That means she isn’t a “neutral woman who has alleged she was raped”, and the totality of her situation makes me less inclined to believe her. Not least of which because she was complicit in the killing of the one man whom, if we (society) had been able to investigate rape we could’ve interviewed to ascertain to a degree the legitimacy of the charges against him.
I think you did a good job refuting things I never said.
The problem I have is that DrDeth keeps making statements that Esparza made up the rape claim to cover up the murder, but we know she was making the rape claim PRIOR to the murder. It was not an after-the-fact story, it was a before-the-fact story. So when I see this posted:
I’m going to call him out on his fucked up timeline. I’m not the only one; Damuri Ajashi has also called him out on this.
If you’re trying to convince people that your position on an issue is right, it helps if you describe the issue accurately. Putting false information forward, especially continuing to do it after it’s been pointed out, is something that all Dopers should dissuade, IMO.
You shouldn’t read my post as a refutation of anything you said–it wasn’t intended that way. It was an explanation as to one may not trust her claim of rape. It’s personally how I view it, she’s known to be a liar and convicted killer, so I view the authenticity of any of her claims with a suspicious eye.
“Murderess” is not a common word used in English. I type “murderess” into Google, I get all definitions, like any word. I type “murderer,” and I get news stories.
Pick a (alleged) female murderer. Go ahead and look her up with “murderess.” Google will flat out assume you mistyped and will look for “murder” instead. I had it happen with both Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox.
The other words are all words that are on their way out. Female actors by and large prefer “actor.” Certain awards have been renamed “female actor” instead of “actress.” The official language in most places is to use “server,” not waiter or waitress. And I haven’t heard the word “heiress” outside of an old murder mystery.
If you’ve never heard anyone get upset over it, then you’ve just not been paying attention to the rest of the world. Gendered nouns have been on their way out for a long time. And using them is commonly considered offensive, like using “Negro.” There are a few hangers on, but “murderess” is not one of them.
As for the outrage here, it’s a combination of factors. We have a guy who keeps on saying stuff about the case that wasn’t in the article without providing a citation and who, unlike you, is sure that the woman just made up the rape allegation. That he also uses the word “murderess” paints a picture of bigoted thought processes.
Throw in that he keeps on using it, and a defender who is whining about SJW and PC nonsense, and you have the recipe for a pretty nasty fight. The only thing keeping it in check are the rules here.
So who precisely is it who does NOT think this woman should go to jail? Anyone? We’re all quite upset at them, clucking our tongues at those people who will make her a minor celebrity, or who would “be up in arms about the sentence she got”. Can anyone actually point to these people? Are there any in this thread?
Also, “murderess” is clearly an archaic and weird term. But note that LHOD didn’t come into this thread and start saying “OMG, you said murderess, you sexist”. He just said “why use that term? why was it necessary?”, and later “well, go ahead and keep using it, but I’ll think it’s silly”. (Not precise quotes.) And from that, people are accusing him of PC and SJW.
Because, yeah, disagreeing with people on a message board is really the same thing as, I dunno, forcing people from their jobs. Sure. You wonder why no one takes accusations of SJW and PC seriously? This is one of the reasons… they’re thrown around everywhere. “You’re being PC” is, ironically, just as overused as the PC-accusers think “you’re being racist” is. With the difference being that racism has done actual damage to millions of lives for millennia, while PC barely exists and is impossible to actually define.
“What the fuck is the deal with “murderess”? The -er suffix is only for dudes now? She’s a murderer, we don’t need a separate suffix to point out her vagina.”
How do you get from that to “This is Political Correctness and Social Justice Warriorism at it’s most typical.”
Even if I was someone who believed in PCness and SJWness the way you, the problem does not come from disagreement or questioning, it comes from silencing or attacking or labeling or intimidation.
Holy crap, even if I stop participating, the hijack continues. Interesting, isn’t it, how much people would rather talk about this than the OP topic?
In any case, I WROTE those initial, er “proclamations” (a word as accurate in this case as “greeting cards” or “sweet nothings”), and can confirm that MaxTheVool expresses a clear understanding of what I expressed.
Let me be a bit more specific about what I meant by each of those four words:
Silencing: An attempt that goes outside the realm of just the conversation to try to prevent the other person from arguing. Me saying “oh, shut up and be quiet” is not silencing, at least in the sense that I intended it. Talking to the mods to try to get the person banned would be. Erasing all of their posts so other people can’t read them would be.
Attacking: I guess arguable… probably my mistake for including such a vague word in the first place, but in fairness, I was typing in a hurry, not trying to really stop and think what differentiates actual-troublesome-thought-policing from saying-stuff-on-a-message-board. But even so, it only even approaches attacking because of the use of profanity. He’s not saying anything about the speaker, just about what was said.
Labeling: “Only a racist would say that”. LHOD is not doing this at all
Intimidation: This requires large numbers of people who collectively have power over the speaker. Clearly not the case
Sure. Kobal2 expressed that opinion in a couple of posts early in the thread, suggesting that a fine or community service would be better punishment than prison. And the OP’s link indicates that some advocates for sexual assault victims are of a similar mindset. Those are the posts/opinions I was responding to.
Blake’s chain of logic seems to go something like this:
-The murdered victim was never convicted of rape.
-You’re innocent until proven guilty
-Therefore the murder victim was innocent
-That means he didn’t rape her
-Anyway there are other possible reasons for having someone killed
-She told at least one lie to protect herself from prison after the murder
-Therefore she was almost certainly lying in an attempt to make the murder happen.
I find that logic chain somewhat less than compelling.
At the same time, any hypothetical person who cavalierly accepted the claims about the murderer’s rape would also earn a raised eyebrow from me. Whether she was raped or not is entirely unclear to me.