Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Rape accusation against Duke lacrosse team

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6 7 8 9 10... 11

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:21 / 30.05.06

Hush, Flyboy. Pushing back the world-threatening power of feminism is more important than a little rape here and there, and you know it.

Phallicus, simple question: have you actually read this thread, or have you only read the most recent post to this thread before your own? If the latter, please read the thread. If the former, congratulations. Please connect your assertions to the thread - for example, you could start by explaining what was stomach-turning about the articles, and how exactly your comments about liberal wet dreams stand outside the act of conclusion-drawing about which you seem so unhappy.

Phex: Dorset Doom

15:32 / 30.05.06

That's exactly how those assholes are going to spin it- 'We're doing freedom of speech! Constitution! We're trying to create debate!' I read an interview (sorry, no link) with the creator of a cartoony computer RPG where the players take the role of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, of Columbine Massacre infamy, who said he just wanted to create discussion with his equally misguided videogame. Truth is, whichever of these guys is the most damaged suggested this travesty and the rest of the guys were too scared to call bullshit because they didn't want to be called pussies (which is probably how most gang-rapes happen).

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:48 / 30.05.06

Easy, there, Phex. As has been stated, we don't know whether such a thing happened. What we can perhaps say is that, whatever the investigation finds, the lacrosse team needs to spin like Hell right now. Even sportspeople who are cleared of rape rape often have revealed in the process of that clearing a lot of very unpleasant things about their behaviour turn up, which can often damage their public image - think Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant, whose legal innocence of the actual act nonetheless did not save their reputations from taking something of a savaging.

So, the PR management - the wristbands, the shows of support, the attempts to discredit the alleged victim - are now pretty much independent of the culpability or otherwise of the lacrosse team.

Phex: Dorset Doom

15:55 / 30.05.06

Sorry- that was meant to be in response to Flyboy's post on the previous page, it got a bit mixed up there.

Korso Jerusalem

17:39 / 30.05.06

Oh, no, no, I was referring to the way the blog posts were written, not the events they referenced. I just find the hijacking of an event to fuel an agenda to be infuriating.

How can you not find self-righteous feminist rhetoric to be funny?

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:57 / 30.05.06

Short version: writing things off as "self-righteous" or in some other way based around value judgement rather than assessment of content and context is usually a dim, knee-jerk response which people use to avoid thinking. It's the opposite of journalism, in effect.

For example, if we look at this blog post:

Now, I'd like to consider myself a gal with a good sense of humor. But this shit is so not funny.

This weekend was the Bay to Breakers race in San Francisco, where folks do a footrace while dressing up and doing some outdoor partying.

Apparently some guys thought this was a great opportunity to dress up like Duke lacrosse players and chant "No means yes!" I wish I was joking. I can't even fathom the level of stupidity that someone would need to do something like this.

Where exactly is the rhetoric there? I can see one clear rhetorical device - there's an aporetic statement at the end, but does that mean that it is rhetoric in the sense you are using it - that is, somehow dishonest or worthless? Where, for that matter, is the self-righteousness? I wasn't aware until now that not finding jokes about rape funny was necessarily self-righteous. Perhaps we mean different things by this term, as we clearly do with the term "rhetoric".

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:10 / 30.05.06

While we're here, what's the agenda? The rape-isn't-funny agenda? That's more of an agendum, I think...

Korso Jerusalem

18:13 / 30.05.06

Oh, I'll admit that was tasteless, sure. Typical college humor, but tasteless. It was the post about the women's lacrosse team that made me cringe.

"The university has no objection to this, but you know damn well if they were wearing armbands reading, "Kill those Nazi rapists," they would. But really, this is not only an example of how (white in this case) women are complicit in their own oppression but also involved in the silencing and vicitimization of women of color."

"Kill those Nazi rapists" being on par with "innocent"?
The oppression and victimization of women of color? That, my good friends, is the hijacking of an issue. So the alleged victim is a black woman. Who gives a flying fuck? If the Klan hunted down black women, sure, there's some victimization for you. But twisting this issue around to be a bit more feminist-friendly is just wrong.

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:18 / 30.05.06

Here's what I asked again, Phallicus, in case you had trouble reading it.

Where exactly is the rhetoric there? I can see one clear rhetorical device - there's an aporetic statement at the end, but does that mean that it is rhetoric in the sense you are using it - that is, somehow dishonest or worthless? Where, for that matter, is the self-righteousness? I wasn't aware until now that not finding jokes about rape funny was necessarily self-righteous. Perhaps we mean different things by this term, as we clearly do with the term "rhetoric".

I didn't ask whether the action was tasteless. I asked you to tell me in what way that blog post fitted your description. I'm waiting for an answer on that.

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:21 / 30.05.06

Further, you said that those two posts on feministing were stomach-turning. Please to explain, if by your own admission the post above is correct to find the chanting of "no means yes!" offensive, what exactly turned your stomach. Are you sure it wasn't something you ate?

Korso Jerusalem

18:27 / 30.05.06

I shouldn't have said the two. I admit that. I meant the second one.

Now that you can't keep clinging to that defense, what's the issue here? Did you read my post? It's only three posts above this one, it shouldn't take two much effort for you to read it.

Are you defending the opportunistic angle the blogger is taking on this issue? If so, why?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

18:57 / 30.05.06

Hell, it's a liberal wet dream. Not only is she black, she's a woman! Victimized by a bunch of ignorant, racist good-old-boys who made it into college based on their sports skills!

Words fail me here. Are you actively trying to be offensive? Do you honestly picture this notional liberal Mafia all salivating with glee over an act of gang rape? Are they putting something in the water round your way, chum?

Also, I'd really like it if you could clarify just what it was about those blog posts--oh, sorry, it's just one now, isn't it--that has so upset your digestion? kthxbai.

Korso Jerusalem

19:02 / 30.05.06

Honestly, it isn't difficult to scroll up and read the damn post.

If you can do that for me, I think we may be able to clear a lot of things up.

Yes, by the way, I can most certainly picture the leftist masses jumping at a chance to protest some honest-to-goodness racism. Forcing employers to meet a racial quota regardless of employee skill can get so dull after a while.

19:06 / 30.05.06

As a mental exercise I do think it is important to look at how we as a culture slap a gender value on rape. For example, what has the reaction of schools/media/public been to accusations of male victims ?

Interestingly enough the old standby 'she-asked-for-it' as evidenced in the Duke case by the alleged victim's choice of career tends to teeter when addressing the question of male victims.

Question:
If a group of frat boys get drunk in a frat house, will there be a rape even if there are no women present?

If a group of sorority girls get drunk in a a sorority house, will there be a rape?

I'm often surprised when people overlook rape as an act of violence which can be acted upon on any other human being, regardless of the race, gender, or age of the victim or the assailant.

While this may seem to be a tangent I believe it is important to address the issue of 'permission' as codified in the 'no means yes' statement. Our culture glibly holds that by crossing certain lines of taboo we make ourselves victims to consequence rather than placing the emphasis on controlling ourselves as potential assailants.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

19:13 / 30.05.06

Yes, kitten, I read your posts. I would still like you to clarify things a bit more for me. Specifically: The oppression and victimization of women of color? That, my good friends, is the hijacking of an issue. So the alleged victim is a black woman. Who gives a flying fuck?

Well, apparently some of the frat boys gave a flying fuck--enough of a flying fuck to shout racist abuse at the woman, as attested by witnesses. Given this fact, it is no great stretch to surmise that if a crime took place that crime was motivated to a greater or lesser extent by the ethnicity of the victim. It's not a hijacking of the issue at all, it's part of the issue.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

19:13 / 30.05.06

Phallicus Are you defending the opportunistic angle the blogger is taking on this issue? If so, why?

What, you mean as opposed to the pure disinterested, unmotivated-by-personal-agenda reportage of someone like David Usher?

I must say I am concerned by your use of such sentences as So the alleged victim is a black woman. Who gives a flying fuck? and Forcing employers to meet a racial quota regardless of employee skill can get so dull after a while. which suggest you're tending towards being a Shadowsax for skin colour.

"Kill those Nazi rapists" being on par with "innocent"? In terms of this case? Due to the passions this case has raised they are probably of about equal offense in this setting only.

Korso Jerusalem

19:26 / 30.05.06

First off, that is bull and you know it. "Kill the Nazi rapists" is not on the same par as "innocent" no matter what the circumstance. "Guilty" is.

What did Shadowsax say in regards to skin color? I've been reading this thread but I apparently missed that. I'm saying that the more we focus on race, the more we support it. Hell, even the word is oppressive. "Race" sounds more like a whole different species rather than a mere ethnicity.

Secondly, who the hell said I supported that other biased blog? Both sides are bullshit, both the "evil feminist conspiracy" and the "crush the male oppressors" schools of thought.

Also, the eyewitness claiming that he heard some racist remarks does not mean that any crime committed was necessarily motivated by racism. It's the south we're talking about after all, where casual racism is sadly a part of life for many, but not a life-threatening issue like in the 60s (well, not everywhere. I'm sure there are some Deliverance-esque spots.). I for one know loads of casual racists, even people who associate with the "white power" movement. These people are jackasses, and will never commit a hate crime, but simply associate with the (bullshit) movement and use racist terms and statements in everday speech. While the witnesses statement should indeed raise some eyebrows, it should not form conclusions.

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:36 / 30.05.06

Now that you can't keep clinging to that defense, what's the issue here?

Which defence, exactly? The defence where you said something wrong? You made a stupid mistake, and in doing so accidentally misled the people you were talking to?

Well, here's a thing. You just said something stupid. And you got pwned. Everybody here knows that apart from you, and you don't need to. However, I don't imagine that you're going to accept from that mistaken piece of language misuse that we all get to ignore everything that you and anyone who agrees with you says, now, are you? So, it seems that you may be expecting for yourself a privilege that you are not according to feminism, since you have demonstrated that you only have to be mentioned in the same post as something you don't like to be grouped in with it.

There. A useful lesson. Now, lesson two - because I already know that you would not be able to come up with one example of anyone forcing employers to meet a racial quota regardless of employee skill and it's not even worth listening to you bluster. Let's leave aside the Godwin for a moment and look at a school sports team deciding to use a school sports event to comment on a case currently under investigation. Is that "tacky"?

Regrettable Juvenilia

19:39 / 30.05.06

19:52 / 30.05.06

Woo! Equal treatment for the feminists and the misogynists, the anti-racists and the racists!

Korso Jerusalem

19:53 / 30.05.06

Haus:

First off, I'm going to be honest here. I have no idea what the fuck you said in that third paragraph. Can you possibly translate it for those of us who speak and read in English?

Second, "tacky"? Huh? I was just appalled that no one blinked at the blatant bullshit in that linked post.
It seems that most people here are eager to pounce on anyone who doesn't sob for the poor, exploited black women and mutter threateningly about the %clearly% guilty sports team.

Also, I thought we cleared up that last topic. Miscommunication was what it was. This, though, this is just sad. I point out some glaring bullshit and all the good little liberal boys and girls shit themselves.

Korso Jerusalem

19:57 / 30.05.06

Haus-

Sorry for the double post, but have you heard of the NAACP?

Yes? Oh my. An example. Deary me.

20:06 / 30.05.06

Phallicus....

The Godwin was a little cringeworthy, but there is a more interesting point about that second entry on Feministing.

But really, this is not only an example of how (white in this case) women are complicit in their own oppression but also involved in the silencing and vicitimization of women of color. I mean they are making themselves look so stupid to stand in solidarity with accused rapists.

Because this strikes me as complex, in that it is somewhat dismissive of the opinions of a group of women, who are possibly in a rather good position to be informed about what happened (or, on the flip side, biased), and in the name of feminism. There is certainly a tension in this kind of condemnation, and while the appeal to race as the crucial separator does make sense, it also fractures the concept of feminism in doing so. Unless I'm missing something about the obvious guilt of the accused, then standing up for these men isn't automatically stupid is it? Then again, the piece is an emotional reaction to a situation in which it is hard to deny that sexism plays a large part. The degree to which I've spent time criticising this blog entry is actually rather out of proportion with its importance.

...and if you make posts with a little less wild generalising Phallicus, you'll find they will be slightly better received.

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:07 / 30.05.06

That's not an example of anyone forcing employers to meet a racial quota regardless of employee skill. Provide an example of a case in which an employer has been forced to meet a racial quota regardless of employee skills, or just accept that you have a surprisingly low threshold at which you will uncritically accept racist statements.

Elsewhere, if you do not understand what I am saying, which is not very surprising, why not try harder to understand? As you have demonstrated in this thread and during your hate-on for Cindy Sheehan (only the ladies, I notice - see also here), you have some trouble with words and how they fit together to form sentences.

Honestly, you're not smart enough to be in this discussion. You're not interested enough in doing the research and you're not capable of coping with people pointing up your lamentable ignorance. If you carry on this way, you will get yourself baned from Barbelith. That's your choice. However, if you could get yourself banned in a thread where you are less likely to derail a serious discussion, that would be nice.

So, one more time, or get out of this thread:

Let's leave aside the Godwin for a moment and look at a school sports team deciding to use a school sports event to comment on a case currently under investigation. Is that "tacky"?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

20:07 / 30.05.06

Phallicus First off, that is bull and you know it. "Kill the Nazi rapists" is not on the same par as "innocent" no matter what the circumstance. "Guilty" is.

In a situation exascerbated by race, class and sex, which you seem to be awfully keen on minimising or ignoring, 'innocent' could be considered inflamatory. 'Kill the Nazi rapists' can also be considered inflamatory.

What did Shadowsax say in regards to skin color? I've been reading this thread but I apparently missed that.

Okay. Let's try again. You appear to be treating skin colour in your most recent threads, to me, in a similar way to how Shadowsax treated the sex of the people involved in the situations he was arguing against. Is that better? Of course, you're no racist, it's just that someone has to stand up here for those good old Duke boys.

Secondly, who the hell said I supported that other biased blog? Both sides are bullshit, both the "evil feminist conspiracy" and the "crush the male oppressors" schools of thought.

It's funny that you're putting much more effort into attacking one and not the other. I've checked back through the thread, the first time you show up is to complain about those Feministing links and with such vehemence (and nothing to say about the other side) that if I did indeed jump to a conclusion I don't believe it was an unreasonable step to take.

Also, the eyewitness claiming that he heard some racist remarks does not mean that any crime committed was necessarily motivated by racism.

Yes, because all crime is always motivated by one thing and one thing only, CSI dusted and found out that in this case that one thing was sexism.

I point out some glaring bullshit and all the good little liberal boys and girls shit themselves.

I'm not speaking for anyone else on this board on this but please don't toss liberal around as though you think it's a clever non-sweary insult.

Regrettable Juvenilia

20:08 / 30.05.06

Yeah, that's right. You're the taboo-breaking teller of truths, the calls-it-like-it-is impartial straight talker, free from ideology, pointing out the harsh truths that the herd of wet, weak, emasculated, conformist, do-gooder liberals can't handle.

You're Bill fucking Hicks, that's who you are.

Like I said: deja vu. Have you any IDEA how many times we've been here before?

Regrettable Juvenilia

20:11 / 30.05.06

Haus - to be fair that seems to be Phallicus' fellow author of that blog who indulged in that wildly misogynistic Pussycay Dolls rant. We probably shouldn't assume he shares those opinions until it's been demonstrated otherwise.

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:16 / 30.05.06

I'm sorry. I had no idea he had a chum. That is nice. A mutual love of Bill Hicks, Hunter S Thompson, Warren Ellis and missing the point of all of the above completely?

Korso Jerusalem

20:16 / 30.05.06

I'll bet you ban them all, eh?

Haus- that post was by my other blog poster. Read, man, read.

Also, if you won't even clarify and claim I'm "not smart enough to be here", what's the point of the forum? Do people come here to wank each other's political egos and toss around in-jokes, or do they actually discuss events?

You've gone out of your way to be a pissy twat so far. Are you done sulking or will you actually try discussing matters? You've done your best to thread rot this almost to the point of no return. I bring up some arguments, and you've already accused me of attacking women.

Korso Jerusalem

20:20 / 30.05.06

Also, A bit on NAACP intimidation.

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:25 / 30.05.06

Source other than the Ayn Rand incident would help, idiot.

Regrettable Juvenilia

20:25 / 30.05.06

Oh well if the fucking Ayn Rand Institute says so... Nobody who reveres Ayn Rand could commit a right-wing smear attack!

Our Lady Has Left the Building

20:26 / 30.05.06

Well, calling someone a 'pissy twat' was probably not the best move on your part.

You might find it useful to briefly scan through this thread and this one for examples of the two different ways difference is dealt with on Barbelith.

There is no problem with arguing your case. Lurid gives an example of a way to argue against the Feministing articles without appearing to be like, well, you, in doing so. Talk of banning is not a threat to try and shut you up, it's a suggestion you might want to consider raising your game.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:26 / 30.05.06

Phallicus, you are doing yourself absolutely no favours whatsoever by characterising your interlocutors as 'pissy,' 'sulking,' shitting themselves and so forth. It makes you look like someone who can't defend whatever point he might be trying to make without resorting to petty insults.

Korso Jerusalem

20:30 / 30.05.06

There are a million cases of intimidation in regards to the hiring of minority workers, but you're not really listening, are you?

Well then, pardon me. Excuse me while I go inherit the guilt of white chauvinistic men I never met, and howl venom toward an as of yet undecided court case.

Because, I, ladies and gentlemen, am an IMMACULATE, UNBIASED, PROGRESSIVE THINKING BISEXUAL CHAOS MAGICKIAN PETA ENROLLED SOCIALIST! VIVA LA FUCKING REVOLUTION!

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6 7 8 9 10... 11