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

Kriptini · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Completely irrelevant to my point, but it's because what they're rallying against is people jumping to conclusions about them "lying" based on subjective, narrative-pushing interpretation. Sulkowicz is a great example. It's still entirely possible she actually was raped, but people who like to believe there is an epidemic of false rape accusations flying around fell for their own confirmation bias and saw what they wanted to see. Can you understand why, seeing that, a sexual assault victim might be hesitant to come forward?

Sulkowicz carried around a mattress with her 24/7. It's one thing to take a case to court, it's another thing to parade around with a fucking mattress trying to make yourself relevant in as many newspapers as possible. SHE's the one making it harder for real victims to come forward by turning rape accusations into sitcoms.

Lejina · Feb 18, 2016

If you get raped and you spend the following days/weeks/months asking your rapist for more sex, it's pretty safe to assume you're full of shit and were not raped in the first place.

Mario Speedwagon · Feb 18, 2016

Lejina_sl said:
If you get raped and you spend the following days/weeks/months asking your rapist for more sex, it's pretty safe to assume you're full of shit and were not raped in the first place.

There's no such thing as a perfect victim SHITLORD!

Chanur · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
No, it doesn't. Their whole fucking narrative is about encouraging victims to come forward. Their whole schtick is supporting victims of sexual assault.

Have you considered that the actual victim might be the accused and by this listen and believe bullshit they might actually be further abusing him or her?

Tanoomba_sl said:
No, I'm saying YOU absolutely suck at judging people's intentions. You're seeing what you want to see to suit the narrative you want to push. You're ignoring context, nuance and reason in favor of absolutes. That's a foolish way to argue.

The irony here is off the charts.

Cad · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Completely irrelevant to my point, but it's because what they're rallying against is people jumping to conclusions about them "lying" based on subjective, narrative-pushing interpretation. Sulkowicz is a great example. It's still entirely possible she actually was raped, but people who like to believe there is an epidemic of false rape accusations flying around fell for their own confirmation bias and saw what they wanted to see. Can you understand why, seeing that, a sexual assault victim might be hesitant to come forward? Your assessment that these are "obvious liars" is subjective. It's not self-evident. You seem to be under the impression that if a victim is telling the truth, YOU'RE going to know it, but it's very often not that simple. Feminists Canada is saying "People are going to look for reasons to doubt you, they're going to accuse you of lying. It's going to suck, but we believe you." No lynch mob mentality there.

So, anytime people do things completely contrary to the story they are attempting to get us to believe, we shouldn't "jump to conclusions" by questioning their story. We should just #believeallwomen ?

And we should do that in the context of someone accusing someone else of a crime, where the person who is doing the accusing bears the burden of proof and puts their credibility at issue?

I mean if thats your stance, we're just never going to agree. And unlike you, I've actually been to court and worked criminal prosecutions. One of us has been there and done that, and the other hasn't.

Tanoomba_sl said:
All of this is bullshit "discredit the messenger and not the message" rhetoric. All of it. I mean, you're right that I use your labels against you, but it fits every fucking time and I dare you to show otherwise. I just showed how YOU come closer to lynch mob mentality than any of the Tweets Lith linked, and I didn't do it to thumb my nose at you, I did it because the facts support it.

I'm sorry if you think judging people by their actual words and not your projected meaning is a radical idea for you. It's the most logical and reasonable thing in the world to me, but then I don't have a narrative to push.

We are judging them by their actual words, actions, and context. I'm sorry you don't accept that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Is that how I'm supposed to do it?

Tanoomba_sl said:
And this "semantics" narrative is tired as hell and also bullshit. I don't argue semantics any more or less than anybody else here, including you. Grow the fuck up and make a point if you have one. Enough with the lazy copouts.

Umm... we've been making points. All day. And all you say is "you can't draw that conclusion from these blazingly obvious pieces of data. You don't know what they're thinking. You can't know that."

So. Fuck you.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Here, watch this: The problem is that Cad doesn't understand that he's not the arbiter of what people mean. The problem is that Lithose is too cocky for his own good and has no intention of ever looking at his own stance critically. The problem is that Jive Turkey oversimplifies in order to avoid addressing what's actually being said. The problem is thatall of youhave drunk the "us vs them" Kool Aid. We can play this game all day, it's not going to get us anywhere.

There was no "mindset that led to lynchings" in any of the Tweets Lithose linked. They were missing essential elements (anger, hatred, malice, need to see one's "enemies" punished) required for such a mindset. You want to say they're ignorant? You want to say they're doing harm? Fine. But to say they share the mindset of people who strung up and killed people is wrong. the facts just don't support that.

I know, I know, it's EVERYONE ELSE thats stupid, not you.

If only EVERYONE ELSE wasn't as dumb as you, the world would be a better place, right?

Jive Turkey · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Bullshit. I'm not pretending anything.

Ok then, the problem is Tanoomba doesn't realize these comments weren't made in a vacuum.

moonarchia · Feb 18, 2016

Cuckwheat needs to be launched into the vacuum without a space suit for the safety of the species.

Jive Turkey · Feb 18, 2016

Lejina_sl said:
If you get raped and you spend the following days/weeks/months asking your rapist for more sex, it's pretty safe to assume you're full of shit and were not raped in the first place.

In a long term relationship, I wouldn't find it unusual or suspect for an assault victim to continue a sexual relationship with her assaulter. But in this case we're talking about first or second dates (as pointed out by the defense). It's a little dishonest for anyone to imply that there was some sort of psychological damage causing these ladies to pursue Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults.

Cad · Feb 18, 2016

This compromised the quest explicitly expressed in messages between two of the witnesses, texts they should not have been exchanging, read aloud for effect by defence lawyer Marie Henein: "I want him f-king decimated," said one. "Let's sink the prick," read another.

Yea, there's no lynch mob, AT ALL. These women are totally honest. Lol.

We should definitely #believeallwomen

fanaskin · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba's all about inclusiveness except including the context before, after and during statements, then he's like "stay as narrow minded as possible! god."

Tanoomba · Feb 18, 2016

Kriptini_sl said:
Sulkowicz carried around a mattress with her 24/7. It's one thing to take a case to court, it's another thing to parade around with a fucking mattress trying to make yourself relevant in as many newspapers as possible. SHE's the one making it harder for real victims to come forward by turning rape accusations into sitcoms.

Yeah, we're not doing this again. Has nothing to do with my point anyway.

Lejina_sl said:
If you get raped and you spend the following days/weeks/months asking your rapist for more sex, it's pretty safe to assume you're full of shit and were not raped in the first place.

No, it's not safe to assume anything. You don't have magical white guy powers that allow to know how people are supposed to react after sexual assault. Has nothing to do with my point anyway.

Chanur_sl said:
Have you considered that the actual victim might be the accused and by this listen and believe bullshit they might actually be further abusing him or her?

Yes, I have. That's been addressed repeatedly. Has nothing to do with my point anyway.

Cad_sl said:
So, anytime people do things completely contrary to the story they are attempting to get us to believe, we shouldn't "jump to conclusions" by questioning their story. We should just #believeallwomen ?

You can believe anything you want. Barring conclusive evidence, you're still going off of feels. Has nothing to do with my point anyway.

Cad_sl said:
And unlike you, I've actually been to court and worked criminal prosecutions. One of us has been there and done that, and the other hasn't.

Well, there was that time you were sorely misinformed about rape law. Has nothing to do with my point anyway.

Cad_sl said:
We are judging them by their actual words, actions, and context. I'm sorry you don't accept that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Is that how I'm supposed to do it?

It would be, if you could back it up. There's nothing in their words that demonstrates lynch mob mentality, therefore you are not judging them by their words.

Cad_sl said:
Umm... we've been making points. All day. And all you say is "you can't draw that conclusion from these blazingly obvious pieces of data. You don't know what they're thinking. You can't know that."

Why is it that "feels data" is just fine when YOU use it? I've always wondered that.

Cad_sl said:
I know, I know, it's EVERYONE ELSE thats stupid, not you.

If only EVERYONE ELSE wasn't as dumb as you, the world would be a better place, right?

Been addressed already. Has nothing to do with my point anyway.

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Ok then, the problem is Tanoomba doesn't realize these comments weren't made in a vacuum.

Of course I realize that. Has nothing to do with my point anyway.

Cad_sl said:
Yea, there's no lynch mob, AT ALL. These women are totally honest. Lol.

We should definitely #believeallwomen

You're going beyond the scope of what we were discussing. We were talking about Feminists Canada, not the supposed victims. Also, I never said you should #believeallwomen. I never endorsed or defended that attitude. All I've ever been saying is that Feminists Canada didn't demonstrate "the mindset that led to lynchings".

Are we done, or would you like to keep dodging the point some more?

Cad · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
All I've ever been saying is that Feminists Canada didn't demonstrate "the mindset that led to lynchings".

Well, I think they are, for reasons that have already been given.

Tanoomba · Feb 18, 2016

Cad_sl said:
Well, I think they are, for reasons that have already been given.

Then we're done. I provided facts, you provided feels, and we've reached a standstill. I highly doubt there's anything more to be gained by pursuing this further. Thank you for (mostly) treating this like an actual discussion.

Chanur · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Then we're done. I provided facts, you provided feels, and we've reached a standstill. I highly doubt there's anything more to be gained by pursuing this further. Thank you for (mostly) treating this like an actual discussion.

You provided no facts just drool you call opinion stated as if fact. That's your problem. You are to stupid to realize what you think is not fact.

Cad · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Then we're done. I provided facts, you provided feels, and we've reached a standstill. I highly doubt there's anything more to be gained by pursuing this further. Thank you for (mostly) treating this like an actual discussion.

I provided facts in terms of what the people actually said, and conclusions drawn from those facts.

You provided "nuh uh thats not what it means"

And here we are.

Lithose · Feb 18, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
You're going beyond the scope of what we were discussing. We were talking about Feminists Canada, not the supposed victims. Also, I never said you should #believeallwomen. I never endorsed or defended that attitude. All I've ever been saying is that Feminists Canada didn't demonstrate "the mindset that led to lynchings".

Are we done, or would you like to keep dodging the point some more?

So lets do a summary.

Feminist Canada was involved in multiple conversations about supporting Gomeshi's victims, and wanting Gomeshi to get 'justice'. Someone asked them to prove Gomeshi was guilty. Feminist Canada stated 'we don't need to offer proof, because we believe all women' (Then, on the link, they specifically say 'not guilty' isn't the same as innocent, further reinforcing they were talking about the trial). I stated that this kind of blind belief is what lead to lynch mobs. Tan disagreed and said lynch mob mentality is ACTUALLY caused by hatred, and the /belief thing is just an excuse.

Cad then postedmessages announced in court where the women said they hated him and wanted to see him burn and conspired toward that end, proving that even Tan's component in what makes a lynch mob was present. (Forget the fact that hatred is only allowed to prosper and harm people IF we, as a society, abandon due process to blindly believe X or Y accuser, like #believeallwomen, that in fact due process IS the check against hatred ruling our justice system and making it essentially a tool for revenge, not justice. Which was my point, and Tan's addition of hatred still requires my point to achieve lynch mob status--already making him wrong.)

So now Tan is saying the entire conversation isn't Gomeshi trial, and rather only what Feminist Canada said and even though all of their tweets illustrate they are talking about the Gomeshi trial and using it as a back drop to a apply their broader principles, because Tan is psychic he 'feels' their intent wasn't talking about Gomeshi at all! Anita wasn't talking about Hitman, guys, just her ideological view of what happened to be contained in HItman, totally different! (And then he goes on to say everyone else is using feels).

Cad · Feb 18, 2016

Ghomeshi defence lawyer Marie Henein was legal counsel to the Feminist Coalition I formed in 2012 to seek intervenor status at the Supreme Court of Canada in support of the full decriminalization of sex work and the human and labour rights of sex workers. She was feminist, brilliant and pro bono. I admired her greatly, and her shoes and I am in her debt.

But I cannot countenance the moral code by which she and other defence lawyers in rape cases believe that it's acceptable to support the full rights of the accused while ignoring the rights, dignity and humanity of women who testify against them - even though our law allows it.

But let one woman contradict or fail to recall her initial account of her sexual assault, let her forget or hide something she knows will harm her, and all legal hell flames up around her.

During the cross-examination of complainant Mandi Gray, defence lawyer Lisa Bristow attacked the York PhD student and activist with every rape myth in the book and trotted out a few of her own.

They really don't want us to cross-examine rape accusers. In a case with no proof other than testimony, we really have to just take their word for it. If we examine their credibility, we are "trotting out rape myths". And they'll revoke the previously-given feminism-credentials of female lawyers for doing it!!

#believeallwomen

#presentedToYouByCadsFeels

Is Jian Ghomeshi guilty or innocent? Sadly, it may not matter - NOW Toronto Magazine - Think Free

moonarchia · Feb 18, 2016

Cad_sl said:
They really don't want us to cross-examine rape accusers. In a case with no proof other than testimony, we really have to just take their word for it. If we examine their credibility, we are "trotting out rape myths". And they'll revoke the previously-given feminism-credentials of female lawyers for doing it!!

#believeallwomen

#presentedToYouByCadsFeels

Is Jian Ghomeshi guilty or innocent? Sadly, it may not matter - NOW Toronto Magazine - Think Free

Shush you! Cuckwheat's feels are hurting now and it's all your fault! Why can't you just listen and believe like a good person should?

Cad · Feb 18, 2016

Moonarchia_sl said:
Shush you! Cuckwheat's feels are hurting now and it's all your fault! Why can't you just listen and believe like a good person should?

We're not just cross examining the accuser, who is trying to send our client to jail for life.

We'reIGNORING THEIR HUMANITY.

Really

Tanoomba · Feb 19, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
So lets do a summary.

Feminist Canada was involved in multiple conversations about supporting Gomeshi's victims, and wanting Gomeshi to get 'justice'. Someone asked them to prove Gomeshi was guilty. Feminist Canada stated 'we don't need to offer proof, because we believe all women' (Then, on the link, they specifically say 'not guilty' isn't the same as innocent, further reinforcing they were talking about the trial). I stated that this kind of blind belief is what lead to lynch mobs. Tan disagreed and said lynch mob mentality is ACTUALLY caused by hatred, and the /belief thing is just an excuse.

Cad then postedmessages announced in court where the women said they hated him and wanted to see him burn and conspired toward that end, proving that even Tan's component in what makes a lynch mob was present. (Forget the fact that hatred is only allowed to prosper and harm people IF we, as a society, abandon due process to blindly believe X or Y accuser, like #believeallwomen, that in fact due process IS the check against hatred ruling our justice system and making it essentially a tool for revenge, not justice. Which was my point, and Tan's addition of hatred still requires my point to achieve lynch mob status--already making him wrong.)

So now Tan is saying the entire conversation isn't Gomeshi trial, and rather only what Feminist Canada said and even though all of their tweets illustrate they are talking about the Gomeshi trial and using it as a back drop to a apply their broader principles, because Tan is psychic he 'feels' their intent wasn't talking about Gomeshi at all! Anita wasn't talking about Hitman, guys, just her ideological view of what happened to be contained in HItman, totally different! (And then he goes on to say everyone else is using feels).

*sigh*

That's pretty dishonest of you, Lith.

Whether Feminists Canada was talking "about" (tm) Ghomeshi's trial is a red herring and completely irrelevant. So is what the accusers said to each other, since we weren't talking about them. The Tweets you linked contain none of the elements necessary for lynch mob mentality, and that's a FACT. That's not my subjective interpretation. There is no hatred, no call for blood, no taking the law into their own hands (you understand THAT'S what lynch mob mentality is, right?). Again, with a lynch mob whatever supposed crime has been committed is simply a means to an end, an excuse to punish one's enemy. Feminists Canada isn't supporting sexual assault victims so they have an excuse to punish men. They're taking a stance that they believe will help victims come forward. Again, that's not lynch mob mentality. The "feels" come in when you and Cad claim YOU can judge the implicit hidden meaning in their Tweets. "They didn't say it, but it'sobviousthat's what they mean!" No, no it isn't. That's feels data right there. The FACT is that none of the Tweets you linked demonstrate "the mindset that led to lynchings", and if you're going to look at me with a straight face and say that's not the case you're a liar, plain and simple.

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

Vyemm Raider

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Gold Recognition

Shit Posting Professional

scientia potentia est

Karen

The Scientific Shitlord

Karen

scientia potentia est

Well known agitator

ジョーディーすれいやー

scientia potentia est

ジョーディーすれいやー

Shit Posting Professional

scientia potentia est

Buzzfeed Editor

scientia potentia est

The Scientific Shitlord

scientia potentia est

ジョーディーすれいやー