Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Cancel Culture


aRdja
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Well, exactly. Who's saying it was rape? How could it possibly diminish rape?

I think what Strontz meant was that if you equate what he did what sexual assault as defined by law or with rape, it trivializes rape as a crime, which in turn "diminishes" its victims, or the trauma they suffered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pidge said:

So we can diminish the victims of Louis CK's abuse, because it's all one big zero sum game?

 

What bollocks.

Where do you see elements of zero sum game here?

 

If you sexually assault someone, you go to prison. If I am not mistaken, C.K wasn't prosecuted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Where do you see elements of zero sum game here?

 

If you sexually assault someone, you go to prison. If I am not mistaken, C.K wasn't prosecuted.

Very very few people do, unfortunately, and I'm unclear of the definition of SA in NY (or whichever state is was in), or whether a statute of limitations applied. I'm not looking to talk about what he did or didn't do, I just think the notion that one person's abuse invalidates or diminishes the abuse of others is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Very very few people do, unfortunately, and I'm unclear of the definition of SA in NY (or whichever state is was in), or whether a statute of limitations applied. I'm not looking to talk about what he did or didn't do, I just think the notion that one person's abuse invalidates or diminishes the abuse of others is wrong.

I think what he did is seen as less serious than actual rape, because he asked and obtained permission. So the case was centered around whether qualified consent could have been given - he was the boss and as far as I recall one of the victims said they were looking up to him as a figure in the comedy world so they said yes because they idolized him. In a sense, they could have left the room or said no. So that "victimhood" for a lack of a better word, in staying in the room while he masturbated, would be seen as less traumatic than the actual rape, where you have no choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SasaS said:

I think what he did is seen as less serious than actual rape, because he asked and obtained permission. So the case was centered around whether qualified consent could have been given - he was the boss and as far as I recall one of the victims said they were looking up to him as a figure in the comedy world so they said yes because they idolized him. In a sense, they could have left the room or said no. So that "victimhood" for a lack of a better word, in staying in the room while he masturbated, would be seen as less traumatic than the actual rape, where you have no choice.

It definitely wasn't rape, but not all of it was consensual, from what I know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Washington Post suspends reporter for a month for retweeting "sexist" joke.

 

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/washington-post-suspends-reporter-retweeted-213512452.html

 

Quote

The Washington Post suspended political reporter Dave Weigel without pay for 30 days after he retweeted a sexist joke last week and touched off a public fight on Twitter among staffers at the Jeff Bezos-owned paper.


A spokesperson for the Post declined to comment. Weigel did not respond to emails seeking comment. An autoreply from his Washington Post address said, “I am out of the office and will return on July 5.” Weigel’s suspension was previously reported by CNN.

On Friday, June 3, Weigel had retweeted a post by Cam Harless — a YouTube creator whose Twitter bio says he is a “well-respected shitposter” — which said, “Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 20/12/2020 at 01:39, AngryOfTuebrook said:

And while we're at it, all the talk of "Muslamic" grooming gangs was every bit the groundless, racist horseshit that it always appeared.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/19/home-office-report-grooming-gangs-not-muslim?fbclid=IwAR0dGirmBhxHcURYJTVZp0-9msDRlgdvXVWsng5mtns2Y_Pj8Ncu4iYr18k

 

 

Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, VERBAL DIARRHEA said:

Disgusting and cowardly both the abusers and the Police involved. indefensible.

Spot on.

 

I love forward to the police enquiry doing absolutely fuck all & any reasonable debate about this issue (which has affected thousands upon thousands of children) being shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mook said:

Spot on.

 

I love forward to the police enquiry doing absolutely fuck all & any reasonable debate about this issue (which has affected thousands upon thousands of children) being shut down.

When you think what those poor kids went through and those bastards going back to their families like nothing is happening, again the abusers and the police. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Agencies blamed children for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and exploitation was not investigated because of "nervousness about race".

Do you believe that the cunts who abused children did so because they were Muslims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Do you believe that the cunts who abused children did so because they were Muslims?

Nope.  I believe culturally they saw the British kids as ‘less’ than Muslim kids but that goes across most religions.  Non-believers aren’t worth the same.  But the gangs weren’t investigated thoroughly for fear of upsetting them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...