Rape/Sexual Assault Culture

Clarence Page wasn't that bad ... not a revolutionary, to be sure, but he wasn't a Ben Carson/Clarence Thomas type of apologist.

 

Bad trolling. I've seen you do much better.

 

Link?

 

If you think I care enough to put in the effort required to source that claim, I'm deeply hurt.

 

Apparently, you've never seen the response a link to Thomas Sowell will incite. And to be honest your response was kind of lazy, I've seen better from you.

 

That's my memory of reading him in Chicago. It's possible that only a certain kind of article with a certain sort of tone got picked up by the (Southern) newspapers published in Auriaprottu's neck of the woods. Just a guess.

 

I don't much care. What was being discussed was an editorial from Walter Williams, a GMU professor, that was so poorly argued that it wouldn't have received a passing grade in a halfway-decent 101 class.

It's not laziness when a response isn't *worth* more effort.

 

The fact there is even a “White Privilege Conference” means he might have a point that should be discussed, but people like you ignore his points and go straight to ad hominem attacks. I mean when you read shit like “Teaching is a purely political act and that neutral people should ‘get the fuck out of education’” you don’t see a problem?

Williams has be preaching that blacks need to take more responsibility for their plight for decades, understandably not a popular stance on these boards, but perhaps you should address his points rather than simply calling him an Uncle Tom?

 

I am looking forward to your pointing out the post where I sent an ad hominem his way.

I am also looking forward to your pointing out the post where I called him an Uncle Tom.

Thanks in advance.

 

Bootsy, you responded to a flip comment I made to Auria, who has a history of dismissing these economists as race traitors. You called me a troll, so I could only assume you agreed with his position. If you don't believe Sowell and Williams are Uncle Toms then I apologize, but I guess you do agree with him. If not feel free to explain why “Teaching is a purely political act and that neutral people should ‘get the ******** out of education’”

 

So much celebrity raping going on it's getting hard to keep up.

Now model accusing half-asleep magician David Blaine of drugging and raping her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...avid-blaine-drugging-raping-article-1.3575176

 

A more accurate interpretation would be that I disagree with the assertion (and think it's trollish to assert) that because he thinks this particular economist is full of it, he necessarily thinks that all black economists are traitors to their race. I wouldn't call anyone a "race traitor", as you put it, myself -- I loathe that expression in so many ways -- and I wouldn't make any sweeping statement about that Williams, since I'm not that familiar with his work. But I certainly agree with him that that particular article was just awful. As I said before, it wouldn't pass muster in a 101 Argumentation & Debate course.

 

Not exactly how I thought the discussion would go. I more expected it to go towards the shoddy writing and how he wrote the article, talking about girls who "Get stoned, use foul language, dance suggestively". He is saying in a not-so subversive way that they are asking for it.

Now for a bit of levity. The KFC Twitter account follows exactly 16 people. Five are of the 16 are Spice Girls and six men named Herb....11 herbs and spices. https://twitter.com/kfc?lang=en

 

Or some form of victim-blaming, yes. But that's a specific example of something that seemed to me generally true about that screed, even the parts that weren't victim blaming: there was a lot of stuff simply presented as truth, without any justification, and then used as a basis for attack.

 

And in there lies the secret recipe.

 

An interesting piece in the grauniad...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/21/harvey-weinstein-liberal-world

What Harvey Weinstein tells us about the liberal world

Harvey Weinstein seemed to fit right in. This is a form of liberalism that routinely blends self-righteousness with upper-class entitlement

...

Let us now consider the peculiar politics of Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced movie producer. Today Weinstein is in the headlines for an astonishing array of alleged sexual harassment and assaults, but once upon a time he was renowned for something quite different: his generous patronage of liberal politicians and progressive causes.

This leading impresario of awful was an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He was a strong critic of racism, sexism and censorship. He hosted sumptuous parties to raise money for the fight against Aids.

In 2004 he was a prominent supporter of a women’s group called “Mothers Opposing Bush”. And in the aftermath of the terrorist attack against the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, he stood up boldly for freedom of the press. Taking to the pages of Variety, Weinstein announced that “No one can ever defeat the ability of great artists to show us our world.”
​

I must admit, it's to see HOW this scumbag could have inherited this world without ANYBODY on the left knowing about him and his antics... particularly top political figures. Apart from anything, the guy was a possible security hole waiting to be exploited, not to mention a possible political time-bomb waiting to go off.

 

Of course,they did.That's a festure,not a bug.
He can be disposed of with the appropriate hand wringing,and his successor will keep the money train running.As long whatever kink they have can kept under wraps,they will be the benevolent donor..

 

FFS!!!

That's the little woman blathering on while I'm trying to type

What I think I MEANT to say was, 'It's hard to see how this scumbag could have acted this way without...'.

 

Harvey Weinstein seemed to fit right in. This is a form of liberalism that routinely blends self-righteousness with upper-class entitlement

What
Bull
Shit

Tens of millions of people are self-righteous. That has jackall to do with being on the left, or being born rich. Tens of millions of people pressure women for sex. That also has jackall to do with politics or religion.

Jesus H. Christ, we have Donald Trump as President, and the Guardian is going to write some thing about how lefties are prone to being self-righteous and thinking they are entitled? How can any writer's head be that far up his posterior?

I like the Guardian, but come on.

 

I didn't see the Police thread in the first 3 pages, maybe I missed it, so I'm posting this here.

Teen arrested on drug charges claims police raped her. Police defense is that she consented.

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/20/brooklyn-teen-police-rape-consent/

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ps-raped-arrest-drug-charge-article-1.3530054

Good Lord.

 

Ha. I don't think "she consented" works as a defense for having a threeway while on the job, even if the girl actually did consent, which almost certainly she did not.

 

Being in the custody of armed men negates the concept of consent, I reckon.

 

Did the Daily News actually publish a picture of the victim?

I'm glad my provincial paper has a policy of NOT doing that. And here I am, some hick thinking that policy was universal by now.

 

I think you're missing the point.

The issue isn't about Weinstein or DTH. It's about the people surrounding him, some of whom MUST have known about the guy and, (leaving aside any rape allegations), how he was using his position to pressure women, often young and impressionable, into having sex with him.

That's the problem.

Also let's be honest, it's not like democratic politicians have distanced themselves from these people even when they DID know their stated positions on certain matters...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/harvey-weinstein-came-rescue-alleged-abusers-hollywood

I haven't checked but I'm pretty certain you'll find dems sucking up to these guys, including Weinstein, after that period.