Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Tanoomba · Feb 17, 2016

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Maybe all of that is separate from your point. It's more in response to the general sentiment I'm seeing. I even had a woman on a job last week tell me and the other guy we were working with that the whole trial made her "kind of hate all men" even though she didn't want to feel that way. Imagine if someone thought it would be okay to tell coworkers a trial made them "kind of hate all black people". It's pure hysteria

It is all separate from my point, but it's a valid point of view nonetheless. I totally get why this is a hot-button issue on all sides. I just strognly disagree with the tactic of pushing a polarizing "us vs them" narrative.

Lithose_sl said:
Except they've been retweeting and making political statements to that effect for weeks, which is the reason people asked them to offer proof of their claims that Gomeshi is innocent, and then their response was the above sentiment.

Yeah, asking for evidence is something for and by 'old white men' (Of course it is hillarious that Gomeshi is neither old or white, but why the fuck would any of these idiots be concerned about facts when they are busy spitting out ideological sound bytes to signal they are part of the righteous group). The irony is that these principles are the foundation by which full suffrage (For the poor), feminism, racial equality and LBGT equal rights were slowly built. Everyone can trace equality back to the thing these idiots are attempting to destroy.

In any case, I wish you'd take 5 minutes to research something before responding.

None of those Tweets are about Gomeshi (or even written by Feminist Canada, but I digress). They are all about being supportive of victims of sexual assault, which supports my point. You're right that they're not concerned about facts. Their area of concern is providing what they feel is needed support for a specific group of people they feel have been fighting an uphill battle: victims of sexual assault. Lynch mob mentality is about attacking your enemy over made up bullshit in order to satisfy your bloodlust. That's not what's happening here.

I responded to the Tweet you linked, which I would have to assume best illustrates the point you were trying to make. It didn't, and neither did the follow-ups, so you'll forgive me if I didn't treat your post as a homework assignment.

Adebisi · Feb 17, 2016

Everyone agrees Tanoomba was just raped.

No due process needed.

Tanoomba · Feb 17, 2016

Once again, Bisi, you are exceptionally adept at missing the point completely.

Adebisi · Feb 17, 2016

Didn't read

fanaskin · Feb 17, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Once again, Bisi, you are exceptionally adept at missing the point completely.

You don't actually make "points" you're a sophist and a salesman who argues in bad faith a lot.

Tanoomba · Feb 17, 2016

fanaskin_sl said:
You don't actually make "points" you're a sophist and a salesman who argues in bad faith a lot.

Let me spell it out for you: Feminists offering emotional support to victims of sexual assault are not demonstrating the mindset that led to lynchings.

fanaskin · Feb 17, 2016

Justice is blind Tanoomba, emotion is at the core of mob mentality, both love and hate. Between love and hate, love is probably the more crucial prerequisite ingredient.

"Listen and Believe" is the wrong mentality for a neutral interpretation.

Quaid · Feb 17, 2016

Tanoomba's right. None of those tweets are 'about Ghomeshi', but they were certainly made specifically in reference to the Ghomeshi trial, and I'm going to guess the retweeter knew this. These are the links that the tweeter twatted before and after the twerts in question:

Dos and dont: Mallick | Toronto Star

Jian Ghomeshi trial could deter women from reporting sexual assault - Toronto - CBC News

As always, context matters. Tanoomba has a history of handwaving context away when it suits his argument.

Haast · Feb 17, 2016

And so it begins:

Seattle man in women's locker room cites gender rule

The legal handling of gender specific facilities is actually very difficult. Right now, it is definitely not figured out. If you are too permissive, the separation of facilities is fundamentally undermined. If you are too restrictive, you are being unnecessarily cruel to people who are already in an awkward spot.

At least we have smart lawmakers driven to do the right thin..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahHAHAHAHAHA. I couldn't even type it out with a straight face. Guess we get to sit back and enjoy the shitshow.

Cad · Feb 17, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
Tanoomba's right. None of those tweets are 'about Ghomeshi', but they were certainly made specifically in reference to the Ghomeshi trial, and I'm going to guess the retweeter knew this. These are the links that the tweeter twatted before and after the twerts in question:

Dos and dont: Mallick | Toronto Star

Jian Ghomeshi trial could deter women from reporting sexual assault - Toronto - CBC News

As always, context matters. Tanoomba has a history of handwaving context away when it suits his argument.

Looking at the CBC News link.

"I believe that women deserve better questioning when it comes to whether or not consent was obtained. I don't think we need to use these tactics. I think there's room for a full and fair defence, but I also think that there's room for respecting women's bodies."

What does respecting women's bodies mean in the context of questioning a witness in court?

I don't understand what they want to happen. Not allowed to cross examine witnesses?

Lithose · Feb 17, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
None of those Tweets are about Gomeshi (or even written by Feminist Canada, but I digress).

They were about the trial, Tan. And that twitter account has been tweeting and rewteeting that kind of rhetoric since it began. Which is why the recent tweet about not needing proof is interpreted the way it is. What I find fascinating though is the tweets pictures are literally talking about the trial of Gomeshi, and you're saying they aren't about Gomeshi. It is a ridiculous syntax argument I'd expect a five year old to make who thinks they are being clever.

Why is it so hard to admit you're wrong? Or at least not argue in bad faith like this. Like I get you're a troll, Tan. But I hope you see I went back to treating like you a person rather than an obsequious cuckold caricature to make fun of, and what I got was this line--a disregard for the obvious empirical reality, in order to argue the syntax of how something is expressed, and worse, you're even wrong about that.

Cad · Feb 17, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
But I hope you see I went back to treating like you a person rather than a cuckold caricature to make fun of, and what I got was this line--a disregard for the obvious empirical reality, in order to argue the syntax of how something is expressed, and worse, you're even wrong about that.

Anytime we go back to treating him like a normal poster he shits on us like this. We need to learn.

Quaid · Feb 17, 2016

This is exactly what he did with the whole 'Hitman' argument. It's annoying as fuck.

Tanoomba · Feb 17, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
Tanoomba's right. None of those tweets are 'about Ghomeshi', but they were certainly made specifically in reference to the Ghomeshi trial, and I'm going to guess the retweeter knew this. These are the links that the tweeter twatted before and after the twerts in question:

Dos and dont: Mallick | Toronto Star

Jian Ghomeshi trial could deter women from reporting sexual assault - Toronto - CBC News

As always, context matters. Tanoomba has a history of handwaving context away when it suits his argument.

I'm not handwaving anything. If anything, those links further support what I said about the goal of these feminists being to support the victims victims of sexual assault as a counter to what they see as a punishing environment for those willing to come forward. There's no vitriol for Ghomeshi there, there's no aggression or insistence that he be found guilty, evidence be damned. It's not about him, even if his trial is what sparked this discussion.

You don't have to agree with their goals or their tactics. I'm not defending either. My problem is with people trying to paint them as modern-day lynch mobs when their attitudes, words and mindsets don't reflect that.
I repeat: Feminists offering emotional support to victims of sexual assault are not demonstrating the mindset that led to lynchings.

Cad · Feb 17, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
I'm not handwaving anything. If anything, those links further support what I said about the goal of these feminists being to support the victims victims of sexual assault as a counter to what they see as a punishing environment for those willing to come forward. There's no vitriol for Ghomeshi there, there's no aggression or insistence that he be found guilty, evidence be damned. It's not about him, even if his trial is what sparked this discussion.

You don't have to agree with their goals or their tactics. I'm not defending either. My problem is with people trying to paint them as modern-day lynch mobs when their attitudes, words and mindsets don't reflect that.
I repeat: Feminists offering emotional support to victims of sexual assault are not demonstrating the mindset that led to lynchings.

We don't have to 'prove' that #JianGhomeshi assaulted women, because we #BelieveWomen.

We don't have to 'prove' that black guy raped that white woman, because we #BelieveWhitePeople.

GET A ROPE.

Quaid · Feb 17, 2016

Lithose's post was not only about the goddamn lynchings, and you know it. That was just a little piece of history that serves to highlight the dangers of sidestepping due process, especially with regards to female sexuality. I don't think anyone reasonable thought Lithose was claiming these feminists are advocating that black men should be hung in the streets without trial.

Make no mistake, many of these women ARE attacking due process in the name of protecting the emotions of accusers. To claim this is all just about 'emotional support for victims' is either uniformed or disingenuous.

Lithose · Feb 17, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
Lithose's post was not only about the goddamn lynchings, and you know it. That was just a little piece of history that serves to highlight the dangers of sidestepping due process, especially with regards to female sexuality. I don't think anyone reasonable thought Lithose was claiming these feminists are advocating that black men should be hung in the streets without trial.

Make no mistake, many of these women ARE attacking due process in the name of protecting the emotions of accusers. To claim this is all just about 'emotional support for victims' is either uniformed or disingenuous.

He's still upset people called him on his hyperbole about mean things on twitter being 'absolutely like' lynch mobs. And he tried to make the comparison that the line 'this mentality lead to lynch mobs in the past' is the same as making an absolute statement about a modern phenomenon being the same thing.

But yeah, due process is there for a reason. The irony is the people who will be shit on the most after its removal are the most vulnerable populations of minorities, since in the absence of due process, the tyranny of the majority tends to run wild. It's why I always say, if these supposedly 'devout leftists' had been born fifty years ago, when Religion was in style, they'd be hyper conservative religious racists. Look at what they want. No culture mixing, safe spaces (Separate but equal), no due process (Rule by majority, which most of them belong).

In the end, 'protecting the women' has been second only to 'protecting the children' throughout history for justifying horrific acts of mob violence. We should all become more dubious when someone bludgeons you with purely emotional appeals for protection without making a logical argument as to why its needed. Especially if they vigorously spurn a reasonable debate about it, and regard 'proof' as being antithetical to being a 'good' (Insert social title. Citizen for anti Communists, Real Man for pro-feminists ect.) It's pure social exclusion for taking a position against the mob. (Which is where Tan got his super duper smart idea to say he was 'neutral' and that's what we're actually doing to him!)

Tanoomba · Feb 17, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
They were about the trial, Tan. And that twitter account has been tweeting and rewteeting that kind of rhetoric since it began. Which is why the recent tweet about not needing proof is interpreted the way it is. What I find fascinating though is the tweets pictures are literally talking about the trial of Gomeshi, and you're saying they aren't about Gomeshi. It is a ridiculous syntax argument I'd expect a five year old to make who thinks they are being clever.

Why is it so hard to admit you're wrong? Or at least not argue in bad faith like this. Like I get you're a troll, Tan. But I hope you see I went back to treating like you a person rather than an obsequious cuckold caricature to make fun of, and what I got was this line--a disregard for the obvious empirical reality, in order to argue the syntax of how something is expressed, and worse, you're even wrong about that.

First of all, a hearty and sincere "Thank you" for arguing like a rational human being. I would give you a cookie for this delightful accomplishment if I could.

You're missing the point, though. Your argument was that "most feminists" (whatever that means) demonstrate "the mind set that lead to lynchings". That's wrong. You're now trying to change this into a symantics argument about whether or not the Tweet is "about" (tm) Ghomeshi rather that actually address what I'm saying: That anger, hatred, and the desire to see someone punished (often with a healthy dose of racism mixed in) are what make that lynch mob mindset. Identifying a failing in the system and addressing it (even if it's misguided or carried out wrong) is not lynch mob mentality. This is not a radical or ridiculous idea, but if you disagree I welcome a (relevant) counterargument.

Quaid_sl said:
Lithose's post was not only about the goddamn lynchings, and you know it.

I never said it was. I simply took issue with his very real equating of Feminists taking a supportive stance of sexual assault victims with lynch mob mentality.

Lithose_sl said:
But it is pretty obvious most feminists want to do away with due process all together. Once more this is the mind set that lead to lynchings, which were sometimes propagated due to false accusations of sexual misconduct against 'white women' by black men.

It was a stupid, inflammatory and polarizing statement that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. Why am I not allowed to point that out?

moonarchia · Feb 17, 2016

Cad_sl said:
Anytime we go back to treating him like a normal poster he shits on us like this. We need to learn.

Get a rope?

Quaid · Feb 17, 2016

We should really stop calling these women sexual assault victims until somebody is found guilty.

Sexual assault accuser would be more accurate, and would respect the possible innocence of the defendant.

#ShitLord

Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

ジョーディーすれいやー

Clump of Cells

ジョーディーすれいやー

Clump of Cells

Well known agitator

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Trump's Staff

Lord Nagafen Raider

scientia potentia est

Buzzfeed Editor

scientia potentia est

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

scientia potentia est

Trump's Staff

Buzzfeed Editor

ジョーディーすれいやー

The Scientific Shitlord

Trump's Staff