RabbleRouser2k wrote: » Well, as RAINN note-it's so unhelpful it's actually doing more harm than good. Plus, as it notes, the blame is instantly on men-like, guilty until proven innocent becomes the norm. When Lon's book wrote 'I am a liar until I prove myself honest'-I just felt it was incredibly blinkered. You get into court, accusing someone of a crime, no matter what, you have to prove yourself to be telling the truth. It's cruel when one is the victim, it's even crueller when one is a rape victim. But what if the person accused is completely innocent? Men are viewed as guilty without ever going to trial. When Michael Flatley was accused or rape, judgement was already made about him. Then when the case went to court, the Judge found the person accusing him so untrustworthy, and her case so flimsy, he was acquitted. (As far as what happened Flatley stated it was consensual, even if he admitted cheating on his then fiance, Lisa Murphy). Remember the priest who was accused, by RTE, of being a rapist who impregnated his victim, out in Africa? Most would have been ready to torture him and hang him-yet he was completely innocent. People in RTE lost their jobs for making such accusations. And he was given quite a huge payout for the accusations. But imagine if, just one person, had said 'oh, yeah, the RTE claims are totally true', people would jump to conclusions, and dear God, LoN and her crew would have been carrying torches outside his church. No, it is not a punishment-but that label will stay with him for life. I would argue even a killer would be forgiven far quicker-look how the late late invited John Gilligan on their show. Would they invite Larry Murphy so quickly? Both have served their sentences, both are unrepentant. But one crime carries far more public disgust, than the other. A rapist will carry a label for life-that is a punishment he should carry for life. A rapist is irredeemable. Someone who takes a life-there could be a number of circumstances surrounding it-a fight that got out of hand, drunk drive, heat of the moment, trying to stop them hurting a loved one etc-things that will be forgiven. There are no circumstances where one can say 'oh, I accidentally raped her/ him'. A thief, a violent assault-those are all forgiven far quicker. I know some friends of mine who fell off the wayward path in their lives. One got into vandalism (luckily avoided drink and drugs. Never touched either, mainly because everyone in his school did them. And a brother got heavy into drugs) but he was lucky, turned his life around. He was in secondary school at the time, did his LC, did a Fetac after it, and then got a degree in college. He was lucky too, because even in court, folks saw he wasn't a bad apple. Just a bit lost. I am none too fond of NB, but he seems a decent, if misguided at times fellow. The unfortunate thing is, the SJW's don't allow a mistake. And you really need to look at twitter to see how he gets hammered some times by SJW's-some of whom follow LoN. He's had to block a few of em (They tweet the image as a badge of honour). Yeah, and even got a 'LoN tweet saying she loves the 'pickle'' cos objectifying men is not a problem in a third waver's eyes. I'm glad many women are seeing through her crud.Tho may I ask, without sounding like a creep, and just wishing to gauge ages, how old is your mom and sister? (I just ask because I have encountered some girls with the 'feminist' mentality-and yeah, they are like late teens, early 20s-hopefully they grow out of it). I am glad to see that-I've had a debate with someone about 'rape culture' saying she believed it was 'kind of true'...but she hangs around Tumblr a lot...tumblr is just a mess of negativity towards humanity. I tried to explain that these issues affect both genders, it's not just a woman thing.
neonsofa wrote: » Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what your point is? It's a horrible crime, and those who commit it are treated accordingly. They should also serve the time for it. They are two different things- the label and the punishment. If he doesn't want to be labelled or serve the time then it is very simple to avoid.
ivytwine wrote: » I agree. I don't think it should be treated like theft or similar. It's more like murder. A murderer also has that label hanging over them for the rest of their lives. It's up there as one of the more horrific things you can do. Has a fairly high rate of reoffending too. Also... on John Gilligan... I hadn't heard he had been invited on the LLS. If he had appeared they would have been flooded out of it with complaints. People haven't forgotten what he did- and he was never convicted of murder. Murderers don't get forgiven. Look at Malcolm mccarthur for example.
ivytwine wrote: » I agree. I don't think it should be treated like theft or similar. It's more like murder. A murderer also has that label hanging over them for the rest of their lives. It's up there as one of the more horrific things you can do. Has a fairly high rate of reoffending too.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » I was saying that if one is a convicted rapist, they will always be serving time for the crime. And rightfully so too. Even if he now 'walks free' he's never free-people will know who he is and what he did. He's always gonna serve his sentence-so essentially his crime will not be forgotten. That's what I've been trying to say. I see it as a murder too-but I am just saying some circumstances, a murder will be forgiven (imagine if it was a case of someone killing to protect a friend, etc-that would be forgiven. OR a few years ago, in Ireland, a father had to kill his son because he was going to kill the family. He, the son, was mentally unstable, stopped taking his meds, and believed he was getting messages through the radio. He was self medicating with alcohol. The family had suffered for close to a decade from his issues, and eventually, he threatened to kill them all by driving a digger into the house. His father had to shoot him, to save the rest of the family. The son was boarding the digger when the father fired the fatal shot. The dad was given a manslaughter charge, but he essentially had suffered a sentence for all that time, and should have been cleared ). On the other hand, there is no circumstance when rape was 'the only option'. Sadly, the John Gilligan thing only happened this week-the news emerged Friday or Saturday morning, as Gilligan uploaded the image to a facebook page/ wordpress blog. The disturbing element of it also is that RTE wrote a handwritten letter to him-clearly not wanting any records on their email server. It's disgusting they would so disrespect so many of their colleagues by doing so-but this is RTE. Gay Byrne could have done this, and made it a coup (as he did with Terry KEane or Eamon Casey's mistress, who's name slips my mind) but this is Tubridy, he doesn't do hard line interviews.
TheDavester wrote: » Mothers Mid 50;s and the sisters are both late 20's - they feel she's the type like Una Mullaley and others hinders feminism
ivytwine wrote: » I do understand what you're trying to say but... in some cases, self defence as you mention, murder or manslaughter can be justified. I cannot think of any instance where rape can be. Rape could never be self defence etc. RTE have gone to the dogs completely. Disgusting thing to do.
alan partridge aha wrote: » Close this thread immediately
mzungu wrote: » Taking the usual "rape culture" hysterics out of the equation, I would like to know the exact reasons why he was released a day early. The article implies it was because there are no services at weekends, so would being released a day or two earlier apply to somebody who was in for robbery or assault if their sentences finished on a weekend?
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » That's what I said-there is no justification for rape. It's one of my earlier posts. A murder/ manslaughter could be justified based on circumstances-a rape, never. Even the way it was done, by RTE-I was absolutely disgusted. But then again, wasn't Gilligan involved in the hard drugs trade? Must have supplied Gerry Ryan and co-we know Brendan O'Connor has admitted to using coke, wonder how many more within RTE have a problem. Hell, Baz Ashmawy made a major career for himself as a presenter, on sky. Despite his drink driving charge where he had been bragging on twitter about all he had been drinking the night he was drink driving (ended up crashing his expensive car). Some crimes get forgotten, far too quickly. Ya wha?
orubiru wrote: » Trying to get this right in my head... This guy commits a crime (I suppose you argue that "Rape Culture" influenced him) The crime is reported to the police. The police investigate. He is arrested and charged.He pleads guilty. (guilty plea probably affected sentencing) He gets sent to prison. He is released a day early... OMG IT'S RAPE CULTURE IN ACTION!!!! What a joke. It's not like they were giving the guy a high five and letting him out one day early as some kind of special treat. If anything the disgraceful part here is that he was only jailed for 15 months but I think we could point out that other serious crimes have punishments that are too lenient so this issue is not only applicable to rape cases. There is a good reason why he was released early, the situation with flights. There is no defensible reason why he only got 15 months in prison. Why would anyone choose to focus outrage on the former?
py2006 wrote: » By that logic, as women generally get more lenient sentences (if any at all) does that mean we have a female culture??
red ears wrote: » Louise shouldn't be given a platform to spout her misandry anymore, it wouldn't be acceptable for a man to be given a platform to spout misogynist nonsense.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a43259/milo-yiannopolous-cancelled-book-deal/ LoN shared this horrific article on her feed...dear sweet God, it attacks free speech, literally attacks free speech, for saying or having an opinion-even the 'if you defended a rape joke, you let Milo happen'... Seriously? Also LoN's been complaining that people are critiquing a movie (Elle) that's Oscar nominated, and she liked--so even when the movie is getting award nods, she finds something to complain about. Can we add professional victim to her CV? (Thought she'd quietened down a bit-she's been going on about the 'straight white male' persecution crap too).
Grayson wrote: » How does that article attack free speech? All it says is that if someone says something horrible it isn't special because of free speech. It never says people shouldn't be allowed say stuff it just says that claiming they're allowed to because of free speech doesn't make the content acceptable.
In a culture where the ability to say whatever you want, and hurt whomever you please, is valued over and above anything else, canny manipulators like Milo will always persist. Milo's pedophilia comments and "jokes" are no more shocking than any other "joke" he's made about rape culture—unless you subscribe to the idea that rapes can be quantified, or that teenage boys are inherently less worthy of being victimized than teenage or twenty-something girls, which you shouldn't.
Bambi985 wrote: » jeez what a long and bizarre thread. anyways, I follow yer wan on a few social media platforms and her posts are either of a completely narcissistic, self-obsessed and self-promotional nature ("thank you *obscure publication* for nominating me as best author ever" shyte and thousands of filtered selfies) or just spouting nonsense or bullsheet quotes about men being evil and woman being victims. She seems to be just another old attention-seeker who has found her audience really. I can't relate at all to this idea of women being perpetually oppressed by the system and all men being potential rapists. Sure it's a bit shyte that there's an over-focus on beauty, image and youth when it comes to the perception of women in the media, and I'm certain the treatment of the crimes of rape and sexual assault could be reviewed from a societal and legal perspective. But what favours are you doing yourself as a woman by telling yourself that you're a victim simply because you're a woman? Get on with it like. the rest of us are busy building careers and lives and treating others equally and respectfully and not engaging in gender wars and dramatic rhetoric to attract a bit more attention to ourselves. i honestly think that's what she's doing. she's found her market and it's quite a lucrative one with a chorus of Yes voices saluting her every move. must feel great alright. will be interesting to see if she ever finds a man to put up with her, seeing as she hates them so much.
jameorahiely wrote: » You follow her on social media, why? You are her audience!
Sweetemotion wrote: » I wonder. Why men aren't attracted to a woman, in her 30's? Who is still living off Daddy, and sleeps in a bear costume :eek:
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » I guess you missed the last paragraph-that's attacking free speech right there. There are more examples, but I cannot copy and paste the entire article. That's not culture, however, that's free speech-governed by law. And one doesn't have 'free reign', you can be prosecuted for things like libel, slander, and other inconveniences if you say something, without proof. Her previous attack on jokes in the article is another one-like, jokes are jokes. They are words-words only hurt if you let them. IF you start doing the 'you cannot say that, sir' angle, then slowly but surely you let horrible things build up. Milo didn't emerge from people saying nasty things, he emerged from people saying 'you cannot say that'. And gradually you get the 'I find that offensive' angle-well, be offended, and be grateful you can be.
