'Men's Rights' Trolls Spam Occidental College Online Rape Report Form

[geek tragedy]

The liberal arts college was flooded with 400 assault reports in 36 hours, according to an email to students and staff from Lauren Carella, the interim Title IX coordinator. The reports were the "result of an effort by off-campus Internet 'trolls,'" Carella wrote.

"Some of the reports we received, which named such respondents as 'Occidental College,' 'feminists' and 'Fatty McFatFat,' were clearly not made in good faith," Carella wrote. Some faculty, staff and student names also were listed as respondents on the reports, she said. "This abuse of our reporting system is unacceptable to all of us," Carella said. "This form is an important option for the Oxy community to use to address the serious issue of sexual assault."

The spamming of Occidental's complaint form follows a comment posted Tuesday on "Men's Rights" pages on the websites Reddit and 4chan (screenshot below) that blamed "feminists" at Occidental for creating the online form. "You just fill out a form and the person is called into the office on a rape charge," the post says, falsely. "The 'victim' never has to prove anything or reveal their identity."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4468236


What a loathsome, pitiful group of losers, wimps and cowards.

[catbyte]

1. "Men's Rights". Oh, puhleeze. More White, Christian males playing "victim." Arrgh!

I wish somebody would do a study on how the most privileged members of American society insist on viewing themselves as victims of those groups who have actuallybeen victims historically of White, Christian males--especially women & minorities. I suspect it has something to a perceived loss of their "privileged" status or something. It is so very tiresome listening to some well off White guy whine about how rough he has it. Sorry, I guess I got a little off track there. Not all of them are whiners, of course, but it's reached epidemic proportions. A good example is that incident involving the female African American professor attempting to demonstrate the insideousness of institutional racism & White male students filing complaints against her. Again you whiners--and you know who you are--GROW THE HELL UP.

[ismnotwasm]

2. Pigs

I just posted this on FB. I hope this story goes far and wide.

[alp227]

3. Total self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Bitches lie about rape."

"Hey let's troll this rape reporting form and get the results we get horny to see! Yippee!"

See what is going on here?

Oh, because Obama went to Occidental, I'm sure quite a few of the neanderthal MRA half-wits must have filled in "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" as the perp.

[freshwest]

4. Ah, didn't know about Barack attending there. Trolls gotta troll, mindless twits...

[sagat]

5. Men's Rights? I bet they also bemoan the lack of a White History Month.

[idwiyo]

6. K&r

[seabeyond]

7. whether du men defending rape porn, or these men, the underlining issue is the total dismissal of

the rape vcitim.

these men go onto a site for rape victims and totally dismiss their painful experience to promote their agenda.

the people defending the rape porn did it at the expense of every woman on du that experienced rape.

even when brought to their attention that the rape victim reads about men getting off on rape, rape that is made to look as real as rape, with the understanding all the rape victims experiences is an opportunity for these men to get off, and not ONE, not ONE took a minute to consider their argument from a rape victims perspective, listening to men say how grand "simulated" rape is for their entertainment.

a man has to totally dismiss the rape victim.

so when the same men tell us, that rape is a horrible thing and they have empathy, many of us will dismiss that statement cause we just do not believe these men have any desire or ability to understand the womans experience.

and for this subject to drop, the three threads i have seen in GD, lets us know that once agenda, the bottomline in dismissing the victim of rape is very very real, even here on du.

[geek tragedy]

9. it burns their asses that a woman might be believed over a man

when she accuses him of rape. Why it gives her power to negatively affect a man for life if they're behind closed doors together!

Welcome to the club, fellas.

[seabeyond]

10. and this post of mine was alerted on. just this morning, i have had three people send me three

alert results for three posts. and skinner says how effective his new rule is. prior to his rule i had NO hidden posts. after the rule, where repercussions are had for a hide, i got 6. quickly. and the alerts just keep on coming.

how hard is it for there to be merely four posters who do not like me?

[redqueen]

11. Something has to be done about alert stalking.

Not the imaginary kind or the projection we see displayed so often, but the real kind with which you and bains bane and geek tragedy (and others) are so obviously targeted.

[Orrex]

12. How might we identify/police such stalking?

And how might we reliably distinguish the "imaginary kind" from the "real kind," other than by the assertions of those who support the alerted-on posters in each case?

[redqueen]

15. Only the admins can see who's alerting

and determine if there is any pattern.

Everyone who sees the kinds of posts which are alerted, hidden, or left to stand can see the larger pattern, however.

[Orrex]

16. Makes sense, but it seems that there is already an impression of stalking

Assuming that some is indeed "real" while some is "imaginary," I suspect that the targets are sincere in their feeling that they're being stalked. And I suspect that a lot of alerts are likewise sent sincerely.


Incidentally, I had my first post hidden (4 to 2) the other day, and I was stunned at how (comparitively) non-volatile it was. I mean, I've posted some red-hot zingers in the past that didn't cause any fuss at all, but the post that got hidden wasn't remarkable even within the thread where it appeared.

Weird and wild stuff.

[redqueen]

18. In a general context I agree.

When it comes to discussion of feminist issues, however, there is a metric shit-ton of disingenuousness, underhandedness, and straight up malfeasance. This isn't just on DU, it's anywhere and everywhere those issues arise. From discussion boards to courtrooms.

[BainsBane]

83. Here's how I see it

If someone alerts on a post because they truly believe it violates community standards, that's legitimate. But if they target certain posters, follow them around the board looking for every and any opportunity to get rid of them, that's alert stalking.

[nomorenomore08]

94. Good way of explaining it...

[Orrex]

96. That's a possibility

Of course, you and I also end up on a lot of the same threads, and neither of us is stalking the other.
Might that not be true of people who alert on others' posts as well?

[BainsBane]

97. I don't believe I've ever alerted on you

but I know who my chief alert stalker is, and I'm sure Skinner does as well.
Since I have him on ignore, it cannot be the result of conversations we engage in.

[Orrex]

99. Yeah, I think I've alerted on just one or two posts during my time on DU3 (neither of them yours!)

And they were many months ago. Since then I've made it a point not to alert, even when I'm directly attacked.

I should disclaim that I didn't suspect you of alerting on mine, either.

[BainsBane]

101. Too many negatives in that sentence for me to decipher

You did or didn't suspect me of alerting on you? I'm not going to swear on a stack of bibles that I never have, but I don't recall doing so.

[Orrex]

124. LOL

I did not suspect you. I don't mind even if you did alert on me at some point, though. That's life in the big city.

[In_The_Wind]

227. That's the way it looks to me.

[img][/img]

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Alert stalking is a problem.

but you're not the only one targeted.

I get mail too. But so far, juries haven't found merit with any of those alerts. They have been, by definition, frivolous.

Alerts which result in a hide aren't frivolous. They are violative of community standards... and I know that you know how to use a jury blacklist.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. It would be interesting to see the demographic ratio of Male DUers to Female DUers. -

and take into account the female MRA sympathizers who probably skew the vote. Jury Blacklists also come into play, obviously.

[liberalhistorian]

75. Well, when you have well-known and longtime

male posters on here who claim that child support is "male enslavement" (and who then flat-out deny it when confronted on it) and a lot of male and self-hating women DUer's agreeing with them, it shouldn't be surprising that there are enough anti-women posters here to make a difference in jury results.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

109. Agree

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

123. Or posters who call women dogs because they don't agree with them....

....oh, wait, nevermind....

[seabeyond]

125. or posters say that a poster did something, and they didnt. it was an anology. at least

be honest about it while you all tear her up, continually, weeks later, and call her names, start threads to merely call her names, ect...

she did not call her a dog.

and that is as far as i am going into this one... as i have literally left it alone in the past. in the repeatedly OPs started just for this.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

130. LOL

The cognitive dissonance is mind numbing.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

178. Truly does boggle the mind to watch you

And others at work. Let DU draw its own conclusions given the evidence that you all so generously have supplied.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

231. I'm not going to link to your disgusting post

Part of me thinks you'd just get a big kick out of that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

177. Still having comprehension issues I see

[Agschmid]

191. Let's see what we get...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202705

[Tuesday Afternoon]

200. how kind of you -

you're alright, I don't care what they say.

[Agschmid]

202. Haha.

Thanks I do have my moments I am sure, but I'm here for the right reasons usually.

[seabeyond]

203. tuesday.... oh tuesday. what a day. did you see the picture in HOF. i luv it.

how about you? the power is in our youth. they give us hope.

rise.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

206. Rise UP!!

and with a slingshot no less

[seabeyond]

207. little girl with a sling shot. yes, indeed. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

210. this thread is cracking me up.

all the finesse being done here.

[seabeyond]

211. wink... done is done. nt

[Agschmid]

241. Turns out there are more men.

Always had figured it would be the other way...

Obviously it was a completely unscientific study.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

243. is that all you got out of that? really.

[Agschmid]

245. Yup.

My intentions were in the right place.

It seems it got taken somewhere else and now I am getting laughed at.

Sure is welcoming around here.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

246. not for nothing but, truly ... do you really expect me to believe that your intentions were in

the right place? and if you do expect me to believe it WHY do you expect me to believe it?

am I wrong to detect sarcasm in your posts?

I am really wanting honest answers from you, Agschmid because I Very Rarely see you and I intersecting on this board.

A couple of times long ago in The Lounge is all I recall ... and from what I remember (please correct me if I am wrong)

they were not very friendly. Seems I recall you took umbrage at something I said in there once a long time ago.

So, please excuse my doubt and allay my fears.

If there is something you want to say to me that you do not want to say publicly my DUmailbox is open to ALL.

This is also an open invitation to My Fan Club.

Have at me.

[Agschmid]

247. I don't expect anything anymore.

I have no memory of our interactions.

If that is not quite what you expected, sorry.

That is all you will get out of me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

248. I want absolutely No More out of you than you Want to give. The end.

[lumberjack_jeff]

251. reporting bias

For a variety of reasons.

[seabeyond]

17. i think when told about three different posts, from three different people about alerts in a morning

then it is clear there is a problem. i post about a controversial subject. and because i call out the offensive, i offend others. i do not name call. i feel though blunt i am being civil. but, i had three alerts just this morning that i know about. how many alerts where someone did not say anything. and that is just this morning. thru out the threads i have been participating on, people have been putting up alerts on me.

not hard to figure it out.

can someone alert on the two other posts i made in this subthread? sure. one was probably already made for talking a "meta" issue. and then an alert on this one.

what does that do orrex? but make me not able to discuss anything controversial.

[Orrex]

24. Kind of depends on the subject, the posts, and the overall context

I'm not asking to see the specific posts in this case, but we're dealing with too many unknowns to form a good conclusion. As you note, you were advised of three alerted-on posts out of an unknown number of other alerts. Is this unusual for a given day? As far as I can guess, people alert on my posts 20 times per day. How would I know?

what does that do orrex? but make me not able to discuss anything controversial.

Maybe, maybe not. It might also mean that what you say or how you're saying it is offensive to some people, even if you don't intend or perceive it that way.

And let's be honest: you are highly visible and confident in posting on hot-button topics. That doesn't suggest that you should shut up by any means, but this likely subjects your posts to greater scrutiny than if you stuck to pictures of kittens and jokes about Facebook.


In short, and absent more specific data about who is alerting on what and how often, the mere fact that you're alerted-on doesn't necessarily indicate a campaign to silence you.

[seabeyond]

27. i admitted i am highly visible and well hated. also, i call out the offensive, which offends.

one of the alerts was a post in this subthread. i called out sexism on du. is a feminist to ignore the sexism in our immediate area? i called it out. i did not name call. i presented the issue. and did it civilly. and ya... it offended. because it is offensive. hence, me calling it out. 3-3. just needed one other person to be offended that i called out what i saw a comparison on du with the issue of rape porn, with what i see this hate group doing.

that only leaves me to believe that i was that close to being told i could not call out what i see as a comparable.

on a very real and damaging subject to women.

how much "nicer" do i have to state my position to not offend someone.

am i offending someone now, by bluntly stating what i believe?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. sea,

are you using your jury blacklist to its full potential iow, are all 15 slots taken?

[seabeyond]

44. no. i am not. i forget. and TOO many hate me anyway, lol. oh... i need to but meh... what 15,

30, 56. lol

[BainsBane]

85. Use it, NOW

block the 15 who are most antagonistic toward you and compare that to how often they serve on juries, which you can tell from their profile.

[seabeyond]

45. besides i am a different kinda gal. to me, it is so wrong to have such low expectations

of fellow man. i expect more out of duers. a sense of integrity, honor, honesty, character. if i put people on jury than karmically, i will get the other 30 posters that hate me sitting on the jury. lol

i luv you

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. I totally understand - I am the same. Zero on my blacklist for the very same reasoning.

Wonder if some of the other participants in this thread can make the same statement ...

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. use your blacklist

there are some posters who won't give a fair hearing. You're allowed 15.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

220. I suppose you have all fifteen slots filled ... amirite?

[lumberjack_jeff]

223. Now I do.

I had one open slot.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

224. Dudebro, you honor me! How quaint. May I just say that I never alert. I have no one on my jury

blacklist and I have no one on ignore. I have never been called to jury a post of yours. I very rarely vote to hide. Skinner has my permission to post all that info if need be.

Thanks for my fan club that you continue to host.

[lumberjack_jeff]

250. The key to an effective blacklist is maintenance.

As people on the list are banned, stop donating, collect hides, are ppr'd and thus become unlikely or ineligible to serve on a jury, remove them from your list. I experience a lot of churn on my list for those reasons. It would appear that there's a meaningful degree of correlation between my blacklist and general antisocial behavior.

I have reason to believe that my blacklist is largely the same as the people who are doing most of the alerting. Unfortunately, being considered unfit as jurors (mostly) does not diminish their ability to alert, but once they've alerted, they can't serve on the jury anyway, so one's list should be composed primarily of those who have a greater than 50% likelihood of serving.

And thanks. I like being a dudebro.

[Orrex]

52. Well...

The "offense" might have been equating the viewing of fictional rape porn with the outright attack on a system designed to facilitate the reporting of actual rape. I can see where some might perceive that as effectively accusing those who view porn of launching those attacks. Personally I don't see it that way, but at least four people (the alerter and the three "hide" voters) apparently do.

Comparing the two (viewing porn and attacking a support website) is one thing, but equating the two (i.e., stating that they are the same underlying issue) is very different. Perhaps this false (or at least unsubstantiated) equivalence is what generated the alert?

Consider a statement like this:
"Whether you're watching violent war movies or you're spamming a site intended to help wounded veterans, the underlying issue is the same: the total dismissal of the victim."

Structurally it's very similar to your statement, and the equivalence is asserted by fiat, rather than by logical support. It's possible that you can demonstrate the equivalence, but your post in this case didn't do so, and instead it simply equated a legally permissible activity with the willful vandalism of a resource for rape victims.


I don't now. I can tell you that I didn't alert on the post, and I wouldn't have voted to hide it anyway, but beyond that I can't say how the alerters or jury might have been seeing it.

[seabeyond]

53. OR, like what i would do, ASK. seabeyond, what in the world do you mean, that you see

those two as comparable. seeing that in ten years, we pretty much know you do not just pull shit out of your ass.

then i could reply... if the person showed any curiosity at all. thinking they MIGHT be open to further conversation and exploration and they MIGHT be fluid enough in thinking to know what i am talking about.

ya think?????

[Orrex]

55. In a perfect world, we would have that policy instead of the Alert system

But here we are.

if the person showed any curiosity at all. thinking they MIGHT be open to further conversation and exploration and they MIGHT be fluid enough in thinking to know what i am talking about.

On this subject, would you be receptive to further exploration, or are you pretty sure of your opinion?

What if the alerting poster is equally confident? Would anything be gained by a back-and-forth exchange in the thread, especially if one of the two parties feels that the initial post was hide-worthy to begin with?


Perhaps you have more faith in people than I do!

[seabeyond]

56. i am always asking. i am always thanking when i get clarification. and just this morning,

when i got clarification, acknowledge i had totally gotten it wrong, told the person i would delete, and i did.

my point is.... YOU assumed what i was saying, (and you would be wrong) and because of the assumption, you feel it is hide worthy.

and as a note not to diss, but give a little more, you have yet to show any curiosity what i am saying, but assuming the worst.... respectfully. and yes. i continually have faith in others. where would i be in life without.

[Orrex]

59. Eye of the beholder

Yesterday another DUer entirely misunderstood a point that I was making. The issue was resolved pleasantly enough, but did I state my point incorrectly, or did they read it incorrectly? Maybe a little of both?

It's not that I assumed your intent; it's that I inferred a different meaning from what you intended. I think that the current phrasing does imply equivalency ("the underlying issue is the same&quot and I honestly don't accept that premise.

I have since understood that this was not your meaning, but I still question the linking of two things that really aren't the same at all. For that matter, who gets to say what the underlying issue really is? Is it a question of agency? Might two people reasonably draw different conclusions about it?

I think that I get what you're getting at, ultimately. Is that the curiosity that you mentioned?


Incidentally, do you know the reason for the alert? I'm guessing that it's some kind of "this poster is accusing DU men blah blah blah." That suggests that someone drew a similar conclusion and responded by alerting, rather than discussing. But who knows?

[seabeyond]

60. when men state they want rape porn to get off on that looks like real rape and a woman that is raped

listens to a man saying he wants to get off on porn that looks like women are getting raped, and we women that have been raped knows that if our rape was videod and put on the net, that is what these men would be getting off on. our rape

do you follow that so far? can you place yourself in womens position here on du when we tell men that saying they want the real life looking like real rape porn to get off on, that we are saying to self .... he wants a video of my rape to get off to?

that leaves NO impression on you?

see, to me that is a huge revelation that a man will hear a woman say something that connects dots like this. telling men what our perception is, following these dots. and men ignore or say they do not agree. what do you not agree on? that when i hear men say they want to see rape that looks real, that i do not associate it with wanting to get off on my rape? that i shouldnt feel that way? gonna tell me i should not feel that way?

this would be one little step in discussion.

in my opinion, when men tell women that we should not associate the two, it tells me there is a huge lack of empathy, understanding, insight, willingness to address something not so pretty, denial.

so, when i see men that hate... women. men that want to dismiss rape as these men on reddit did. it tells me that they have no empathy for a rape victim.

i am not seeing a difference there.

i do see them as the same. exactly. refusing to actually think about... and on du refusal to even listen to a rape victim say what they think of the man watching a rape film. a refusal to have any empathy or thought toward understanding, whether a man gives up his rape porn or not.

[Orrex]

62. That's a bit deeper than I have time to engage just now, but here's a start:

in my opinion, when men tell women that we should not associate the two, it tells me there is a huge lack of empathy, understanding, insight, willingness to address something not so pretty, denial.

What do you think of my counter-example involving violent war fiction? Does empathy require that we reject a film because someone has been injured in a manner similar to what's portrayed onscreen? Or is it possible to distinguish fiction from fact?

Where, exactly, is the line drawn? Are we unable to view any portrayal that evokes someone else's real-world experience? Must we abandon empathy in order to do so? Or is it possible to distinguish fiction from fact? Is it possible to empathize with a person's real-world experience while also enjoying a fictional portrayal of a similar experience?

and we women that have been raped knows that if our rape was videod and put on the net, that is what these men would be getting off on. our rape

That's a very different prospect from your original assertion. No one in any of the threads on rape porn has argued that footage/pictures of actual rape should be protected, and in fact there was unanimous agreement that the production of such images is itself a crime.

Since fictional portrayals of a crime are not equivalent to actual crime, I see no reason why I should defend the fiction as if it were a crime.

Let's say that I'm crippled in a violent, fiery car crash. Do I forever after have the authority to tell people that they can't enjoy fiction that entails the portrayal of similar injury? I am free to feel that way, but am I free to dictate to others what is the "correct" way for them to feel?



As I stated at least once in one of those other threads, I have no interest in rape porn, but I am very interested in the notion that fiction must be treated as if it were reality.

I accept that you see the viewing of rape porn as equivalent to the abuse of a rape-reporting service. I do not share your view, and I do not accept that it is the only justifiable view.

[seabeyond]

64. one section at a time, break it down more.

What do you think of my counter-example involving violent war fiction? Does empathy require that we reject a film because someone has been injured in a manner similar to what's portrayed onscreen? Or is it possible to distinguish fiction from fact?

Where, exactly, is the line drawn? Are we unable to view any portrayal that evokes someone else's real-world experience? Must we abandon empathy in order to do so? Or is it possible to distinguish fiction from fact? Is it possible to empathize with a person's real-world experience while also enjoying a fictional portrayal of a similar experience?

rape porn, even supposedly simulated rape porn as the title "real rape". your fictional film is not really killing people. we do not know if these women are really being raped. men NEED to believe a woman is really getting raped. there is a difference between the two. we KNOW in the war film no one is getting killed. and with real war film no one is getting off on it. sheeeit, fiction, no one is getting off on a death.

steubenville. we KNOW that real rape is put on line. we KNOW that men are getting off on real rape.

now, as a woman that has been raped, we hear men want it real. we KNOW that if our rape had been filmed, and titled real rape, there would be men getting off on our rape. we KNOW that they may or may not tell themselves it is not real. but that a real rape was used to get off on.

do we have a right to be disgusted by men that get off on porn that they know is rape, or porn that they think a woman is really being raped? does a man have to dismiss a victim of rape to get pleasure from it? to come?

[nomorenomore08]

112. That's exactly it. "Fictional" rape porn, at best, is meant to imitate the real thing, to the extent

that you can't tell one from the other. At worst, it really is a recording of an actual rape. And not being able to distinguish the two is a glaringly obvious problem.

[seabeyond]

65. this is where i feel we have to lie to ourselves to hold this position.

That's a very different prospect from your original assertion. No one in any of the threads on rape porn has argued that footage/pictures of actual rape should be protected, and in fact there was unanimous agreement that the production of such images is itself a crime.

men do not know if it is real or not. they are told it is. much of it is. they want it real or it does not do it. if in their mind they THINK it is, then they really are getting off one real. fake or not

falt out talk about steubenville where boys were getting off on the rape of an unconscious girl? hell ya everyone will say it is wrong. who wouldnt? what kind of a person would that make.

reality

boys and men were getting off on the rape of the steubenville girl. men on du stated that real rape, advertised as real rape, was needed for men to fill the famtasy.

[seabeyond]

69. one more thing. i am not here to redebate this or convince you. i believe my argument though is as

Last edited Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)

valid as yours, or the next guy. and i should be able to state what i think about this area. even if it is uncomfortable for men on du.

that would be the point of this whole subthread. i should have made it clear.

[Orrex]

77. I'll start with this one and work on the rest a bit later.

It is a mistake to conflate "hide this post" with "suppress this opinion," and it is speculative at best to infer political motive where other explanations might suffice. Do you know that your posts are alerted-on because they're uncomfortable for men, or do you infer this? On what basis?

A quick glance at your transparency page reveals a number of IMO no-brainer "hides." If people are alerting on your posts, it need not mean that you are being denied the right to state your arguments; it may just as readily mean that the manner in which you state them is deemed unacceptable.

It's not necessarily about message; it can also be about format.


More will follow later, though I can't guarantee that my answers will be comprehensive.

[seabeyond]

78. ok. i give. i am the ultimate worst of worst and alert, hide, whatever. nothing to see here. nt

[Orrex]

98. Well, that was simple enough.

[seabeyond]

100. ya. nto so much. i do not think it cute, or funny. i think

that it is an example of what i talk about. to me... it is offensive. and tiring. but... yea, you.

[Orrex]

131. I don't understand anything of what you posted there

What I find tiresome is the pretense of opening a discussion when in fact only one inrerpretation is permitted. I respond to your posts in a polite, calm manner, and you throw up your hands and call it quits while (apparently) suggesting that I'm trying to be "cute" or "funny." How would you respond if a man dismissed your postigns as cute and funny?

I don't get it. Do you want me to respond to your posts or not?

Do you simply want me to acquiesce and adopt your perspective, even if I don't actually share it?

[nomorenomore08]

108. Honestly I don't see the "war movie" analogy. We're not talking about "Irreversible" or

"I Spit on Your Grave" - i.e. feature films that, while graphically depicting rape, are clearly fictional. What we're talking about is "simulated" rape/torture footage which is usually intended to be indistinguishable from the real thing. Because the viewer, presumably, is "getting off" on the illusion that they're watching a real rape. I can't say that of all possible cases, but the phenomenon I speak of is certainly not non-existent.

So while I might agree that sea's conflation there is a bit of a stretch, I don't think it's so simple as "fiction" versus "reality." Not when the fiction is designed to mimic the reality so closely, that you literally can't tell one from the other.

[Orrex]

126. Well, we can't dismiss fiction just because it's realistic, either

I don't want to belabor the war movie analogy, but I can easily imagine an amateur production on YouTube or the like that looks real. Must we regulate that portrayal of, say, a mugging more strictly than a Hollywood film?

What you're saying, it seems, is that a convincing production is a subject to stricter control,, even if it is likewise fiction. I still can't agree.

If you see a film of a rape that seems real, then report it. If it's real, then the owners/producers should be prosecuted fully.

[nomorenomore08]

128. I don't advocate "controlling" anything except *real* videos of rape and torture.

But when you have material that is literally indistinguishable from same, isn't that an obvious problem?

[Orrex]

134. If it might be the real thing then it should be reported

If it turns out to be fiction, then that's how it goes. If it turns out to be real, then the owners/producers should be arrested and tried.

Am I missing something? This seems pretty straightforward to me.

[nomorenomore08]

138. You're not missing anything. That's exactly how I feel as well.

I was just pointing out that separating "fiction" from "reality" isn't always as simple as "It's just a movie." If it is just a movie, and is clearly marked (and marketed) as fictional, then we don't really have a problem.

[Orrex]

141. Glad we sorted that out.

As I said, I'm not an aficionado of the genre, but I understand that professional films typically include the assertion that the actors are of legal age and have signed contracts indicating assent. For amateur productions, I'm sure that this is harder to ascertain, and these are the ones that I think should be reported if they appear to depict actual crimes.

[seabeyond]

142. do you see, even a little, either of you, how casually you ride over a woman being raped for mens

entertainment that it merely needs to be reported. who is going to report it? the men that want to see a live rape, that are getting off on that rape? are they really gonna get off on it and then think... man, that seemed a little too real. ya, that is the ticket. i am gonna report it.

the issue is, ... you really are not looking at this from a victims position. you are looking at it from a mans perspective.

merely call the police. that is the ticket. t hat is what surely will be done.

now both of you can feel more comfortable with the issue and you no longer have to be concerned. you solved the problem. in the meantime, men are still getting off on rapes. and women who have been raped are still seeing men get off on rape. and we GET that these men get off on rape. and we will be continued to be disgusted by these men. and we will make a comparison to what reddit did, dismissing the victims, and conversations like this, with a rape victim really not part of the conversation, thought, or empathy.

[Orrex]

149. It troubles me that you are unable to distinguish fiction from reality, even a little

What would you do if you stumbled upon a video of an actual rape?

Would you run to HoF to rail against the patriarchy?
Would you accuse male DU members of being rape enablers?
Would you attack female DU members who don't agree with your authoritarian mandates?
Or would you report the video?

I've seen this for years: you attack people with your presumption of impunity, and then when you're called out for it, or your posts are hidden, you complain that you're being silenced because people don't understand your righteous campaign. That's a mighty convenient way to mount a revolution.


It must suck to be unable to accept that fiction exists and that some fiction is a mirror for reality. It must also suck to be unable to dictate exactly which forms of entertainment are acceptable to other people. And it must especially suck to have to realize that people do, indeed, understand what you're getting at and still disagree with you.


Do you agree that those six posts or yours should have been hidden in the past 90 days? Or do you think you should get to say "fuck you" to people, to tell them that they're "fucking prudes," that they're "darlin'?" Or is it really because a cadre of alert-stalkers are keeping you silent?

[seabeyond]

155. do you know how many people tell me daily i am a man hater, a prude, a dworkinite, anti sex,

emotionally damaged and on and on and on. and no hides. repeatedly. daily.

i did not tell polly to fuck off.

i saw one rape porn. i do not hunt rape porn cause i do not get off rape porn. that would be another point you simply glassed over and ignored. who is actually seen the rape porn. and wtf are they going to do. report something that is getting them off? be real.

i saw one rape porn, and it was to actively work on getting it off facebook and yes, reporting it to the police. 8 minutes of disgusting rape. not a minute to suggest it was simulated. from teh girl picked up off the streets, out in the middle of nowhere, continually raped by two men while another filmed. 8 fuckin internally shaking nauseating fuckin rape of another human being. the mens faces blurred. 8 fuckin disgusting minutes of those women abused clear to the end shot of her in a fetal position..... laying there, in the dirt, curled up tight, while they filmed her like an abused animal.

and THIS is what men are jerking off to. not one bit suggested it was simulated. it took DAYS to get it off facebook and who the fuck knows if the police even took a look. it was a concerted effort just to get face book to do anything.

ya. your fuckin fiction.

oh. and the men on du that were asked to step up and do something. they said, meh... dont worry. simulated. not that any of them could point out anywhere where the rape was .... fiction.

and that tells me that men are seeing enough of these videos to ASSUME with no merit at all, that the rape they get off on are fiction. ya. disgusts me.

[xulamaude]

164. +1

and that's a really GIANT understatement.

[Orrex]

168. I am not defending people who have called you those names

Those posts should have been hidden, and I would certainly vote to do so if I'd been on those juries.

Were your six posts hidden because you were called those ugly names?

i saw one rape porn. i do not hunt rape porn cause i do not get off rape porn. that would be another point you simply glassed over and ignored. who is actually seen the rape porn. and wtf are they going to do. report something that is getting them off? be real.

So you know that it's out there, and you know that it's epidemic, and you know that men jerk off to it, but you've only actually seen one example? How have you avoided this omnipresent scourge of the internet while somehow becoming an expert on it?

i saw one rape porn, and it was to actively work on getting it off facebook and yes, reporting it to the police. 8 minutes of disgusting rape. not a minute to suggest it was simulated. from teh girl picked up off the streets, out in the middle of nowhere, continually raped by two men while another filmed. 8 fuckin internally shaking nauseating fuckin rape of another human being. the mens faces blurred. 8 fuckin disgusting minutes of those women abused clear to the end shot of her in a fetal position..... laying there, in the dirt, curled up tight, while they filmed her like an abused animal.

How did that example turn out when you reported it? Did the police act on it? What else might have been done? What else might someone do upon encountering a similar video in the future, if such a noble advocate as yourself was unable to effect its speedy removal?


In all of these "rape porn" threads, you have insisted that the fictional portrayal is as bad as the real thing, a notion that I find absurd and offensive. You are unable to attack the fiction because it is a protected form of expression, so you instead try to equate the fiction to the actual crime. That's a fallacy, and it's a failure of basic critical analysis.

We're not talking about the (relative) few cases in which actual rape is portrayed, because everyone here agrees that these crimes must be prosecuted. We are instead talking about fictional portrayals, and you have not convincingly argued that these fictions should be prosecuted as crimes. You have appealed to emotionalism (i.e., a lack of empathy for rape victims) but you haven't actually articulated a logical argument as to why a work of fiction should be banned.


You've asked for my curiosity, and I'm curious: if not simply to ban a form of fiction that you find aesthetically objectionable, what exactly do you hope to accomplish?

[xulamaude]

174. "these fictions should be prosecuted as crimes" - "why a work of fiction should be banned"

In case you've forgotten, this thread is about MRAs spamming a rape reporting site with false reports of rape.

You are now, and have been, talking about a discussion that occurred days ago.

You do not get to pull the 'she started it' card on this.

[Orrex]

176. She declared rape porn and spamming a rape reporting site to be the "same underlying issue"

This subthread followed from her post.

[xulamaude]

182. I read the 'she started it first' post earlier today

and I agree with her. There IS an underlying issue and that is that men have no feelings/empathy/understanding for the victims of rape.

If they did they would not be interested in any kind of rape anything, fictional or otherwise (not just what is considered 'illegal' yet not adequately pursued legally...) and would be out in the streets in HUGE NUMBERS DEMANDING men stop rape.

Simple.

[Orrex]

183. So... You have the ability to dictate to people what they think and feel? Interesting.

Do other people have this ability? Could I, for example, tell you why you are motivated in one way or another? Would you contest my assertion, or would you summarily accept it, as you seem comfortable requiring others to do?

If they did they would not be interested in any kind of rape anything, fictional or otherwise (not just what is considered 'illegal' yet not adequately pursued legally...) and would be out in the streets in HUGE NUMBERS DEMANDING men stop rape.

Nope. That is a double fallacy: argument from aesthetics and argument from appeal to emotion.

Try again.

[xulamaude]

186. Wow. Just wow.

It is more obvious than ever that you just. do. not. get. it.

[Orrex]

187. Ah, yes. I disagree with you, therefore I must. not. get. it.

Narcissistic much?


Well, thanks for your contribution.

[xulamaude]

188. It was .undoubtedly. my greatest pleasure, sir... nt

[Orrex]

189. More's the pity.

[seabeyond]

190. lol X. dontcha love the picture in HOF. i LUV that picture.

i stepped away and had another awesome conversation with my almost 19 yr old son. what a man he is growing into. it is awe inspiring. it gives me hope. i feel hope. the magnitude of his ability to comprehend and articulate. our youth X. it is all in our youth.

[redqueen]

214. This.

People who fantasize about being raped are not fantasizing about torturing another person and getting off on it. They are not fantasizing about ACTUALLY being raped. They are creating a fantasy, in which THEY are fully in control (of course) because it's THEIR FANTASY.

People who fantasize ABOUT RAPING are fantasizing about torturing another person and getting off on it... and pornographers advertise it as REAL RAPE for a fucking REASON.

I'm not sure how such a blindingly obvious and painfully revealing difference escapes so many people, but it sure as shit does.


And I love the blithe "just report it" advice. Yes, rapes are so easily prosecuted. And people in video clips are so easy to identify and track down.

Such rank bullshit is beyond insulting. They couldn't demonstrate how little they cared any more clearly if they came out and fucking admitted it.

[Orrex]

217. Another righteous crusader dictating how and why people think and feel. Terrific.

On what authority do you presume to analyze the basis and nature of rape fantasies?

You take it upon yourself to instruct us on the origin and meaning of someone else's fantasy, from the perspective of both parties. Is it possible that the fantasy manifests in other forms, or is your version the only correct interpretation?


See, there's that pesky narcissism again. Funny how the people quickest to accuse a lack of empathy are also the quickest to ignore other people's perspectives.

[redqueen]

219. Do you somehow miss the significance of marketing the porn as REAL RAPE?

Do you not understand the way fantasizing works?

Women fantasize about rape porn in their heads, they don't watch that brutal, sickening shit.

Even "regular" non-abusive porn is only watched by a tiny minority of women. You want to try to assert that women are the target audience for REAL RAPE porn?

Go ahead and call me names, if that makes you feel better. I'll be a righteous crusader if it makes ONE FUCKING PERSON think for ONE FUCKING SECOND about the fact they DO NOT FUCKING KNOW if that rape is real or simulated.

I will be a righteous crusader if it makes ONE FUCKING PERSON think for ONE FUCKING SECOND that the idea of being aroused at the idea of someone else being in pain IS FUCKING FUCKED UP, FULL STOP.

Go ahead and slap some more labels on me if it makes you feel better.

I could not fucking care less.

[Orrex]

221. In other words, you also lack the capacity to distinguish fiction from fact.

And yet you want to instruct me on the nature of fantasy, the essence of fiction. You're a laugh riot!

Identifying your behavior as narcissistic is not name-calling, nor is it "slapping a label" on you. And it's amazing that you see fit to accuse me of name-calling after you accuse me of "rank bullshit." I have seen you and others in this thread deploy this tactic many times before, and it never fails to delight. As always, you feel free to lash out however you see fit, and when someone responds in kind, you cry foul.

It must be amazing to live in a world where you are constantly the blameless victim.

[redqueen]

222. You blithely instruct people to report rapes that might be real, yet you sit there and tell me

that I can't tell fiction from fact.

At least I'm not jacking off to images of women being raped, while not knowing for sure if they're real or simulated.

You do know women are raped on porn sets all the fucking time, right? Or are you in denial about that fact?

I labeled WORDS. You labeled ME.

And you play the victim.

Classic projection.

Do some fucking reading why don't you

http://gawker.com/former-porn-star-recalls-her-horror-story-of-a-career-1450244388

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/porn-star-assaulted-on-set/

http://thisisrapeculture.tumblr.com/post/54852823056/ex-pornstars-on-the-porn-industry

I'd get more but I sincerely doubt you'll even bother reading those (cognitive dissonance and all), so I'd rather not waste my time.

Then again maybe you'll take the other way out, like so many prefer to do, and just focus on one person and ignore every other shred of evidence: "Oh that Shelley Lubben, she's just making it all up!"

Denial is a hell of a thing.

Sad that so many women are being tortured and raped for the sexual jollies of the sickeningly entitled masses.

[nomorenomore08]

102. She's also not the only one who's received this kind of treatment, for similar reasons. Just saying.

There seems to be a small number of posters on DU who really have it in for the HoF members. I can't imagine why, other than perhaps that they've built up some "straw-feminist" image in their minds which bears little resemblance to reality.

This isn't a unique case either, necessarily. For instance I personally feel that some of the Men's Group members have been unfairly labeled as "MRA's" or some such thing. And it doesn't help that a few participants actually have fit that label, though most of those have been banned fairly quickly.

[Orrex]

129. I have no way to speculate on who is hitting Alert on them

Nor can I guess as to why, without seeing the posts in question. I have seen some that were hidden, and they generally appear to have been hidden with good reason.

If posts are routinely hidden, then that's not really the fault of the alerters, is it? Not even if they alert quite frequently, I would say. If the posts aren't hidden, then I'm sure that the admins can handle the behavior if indeed it amounts to alert-stalking.

[Orrex]

140. Are you asking how I would have voted, if I'd been on the jury?

I would have voted to Leave your post in the Assange thread. Though I think I see why they alerted on it, I don't agree that your statements "if you want to stand behind an accused rapist," etc. rise to the level of personal attack.

Probably wouldn't have hidden your post with the Celebration vid, though it seems clear that you knew you were pushing the limit with the unsubtle suggestion that Harmony Blue is a woman hater.

I can't seem to find NYC_Skp's post in that thread. Link?

[Orrex]

157. I think that Skinner gave a pretty solid answer to this already

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594348

Posting in ATA to second- and third- guess the jury system is similar to what closed down the Meta forum, if memory serves.


I've disagreed with every decision by juries on which I've cast a minority vote. That doesn't mean that the system is broken; it means that others did not concur with my assessment. It would be the height of vanity for me to assume that all jurors (i.e., readers) must agree with me, or that my own posts are impervious to hiding.

[seabeyond]

167. yup. nt

[Orrex]

172. Again, disagreement is interpreted as oppression

And rather than leaving posts in place and risk that others might also disagree, they're deleted.


I imagine that this must be my fault somehow.

[seabeyond]

192. because none of this was about a battle. winner or loser. from the start, in agreement or

disagreement it was only an exercise in understanding... understanding. that is all. and it was a fail. that can be discouraging. fortunately i stepped right into a conversation where the ability to perceive another position, again in agreement or disagreement, was possible. it isnt that hard. it is all that was hope for her in this subthread. and it was another fail. on a very strong, a very powerful, issue.

now...

i think most are done with this. take care.

[Orrex]

195. You seem not to accept that people can understand and still disagree

That's the narcissistic part, and it likewise displays a lack of empathy. Curious.

If most are done with this, so be it. I doubt that you and I will interact on this subject again.

[seabeyond]

197. no. i know you did not even begin to understand. because at no point did you perceive the issue

from a rape victims position. at no time was there any feeling, emotion, the words to show that the rape victim was much of a consideration. disconnect. the whole conversation was in disconnect mode.

no

there was not understanding. it was clear. and that is why three women walked. because, we saw there will not be.

[Orrex]

204. Ah. So the "women who walked" have the power to tell me what i perceive

As well as to tell me what I feel. That is indeed quite an ability.

My empathy for rape victims (a subject on which, by the way, you have no fucking authority to instruct me) is none of your fucking business. I will comment no further on that, because it's none of your fucking business.

I am capable of separating fiction from reality, even as I empathize with someone who has in reality endured a trauma. This is the part that you seem unwilling or unable to grasp, that a person can understand a thing while still reasonably responding in a way that differs from your preferred response.

That failure is your narcissism. That failure is your lack of empathy. That failure is not my problem.

[seabeyond]

14. if feminists cannot point out sexism in our immediate area, the board. how effective are we at being

feminists

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. If you're temp-banned you can't do it at all.

I think you know that I enjoy discussing (and arguing) things with you, and find you to be one of the better DU'ers. But dialing it back a notch wouldn't compromise your ability to make your point.

I get frustrated (and even angry) too.

There are posters who will take an enforced vacation next week that I won't miss. You are NOT one of them.

[seabeyond]

29. we are being called "emotionally damaged" had another tells us that today. and i am not suppose

to be angry... when some man on du takes what i say and makes me into emotionally damaged? i am suppose to dial back, but you do not address you, warren, and rc calling the women in hof emotionally damaged.

and ya... i like you too. i do. shoot me. just went off on your post below, lol

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. I didn't call you anything.

When DU'ers go off on MRA's, I know they're talking about me, but unless they direct it explicitly at me, it plays into their hands to take the bait.

You'll have to take my word that I wasn't trying to bait you and you weren't someone I had in mind.

[seabeyond]

36. k. cause i came this.....

close

to never talking to you again.

but, i let things go easily. just that kinda gal. that was the height of offensive, and hit me hard. as in another thread, it just comes off as "damaged goods" and we women hear that way too often from men.

lumberjack jeff.... now that we are all kissy in nice, and i have to go wrap presents....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. sea,

haha ... dial it back a notch ... as if.

that was funny considering the source.

lmao over here.

[seabeyond]

50. "dial it back a notch ... as if." as if as in.... i wouldnt even know how. ya,

like that can happen. but then, that will go in all directions too. dial back the laughter, love, joy.... meh. i am getting all christmassy, one here. gotta get off. lol. later woman. glad you jumped in this thread. i was pretty hot this morning with three different people giving me post alerts as skinner says all is working well.

[mercuryblues]

54. I guess

dial it back a nothch is the new, be nicer?

[seabeyond]

57. there ya go. yes. that is when i hear it....

stfu. lol. good point. ya. ... no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. No. One can navigate the course without being nice at all.

But it requires that your arguments employ some finesse.

[LittleBlue]

136. You wouldn't have more than 4 hides if you didn't tell people to "f*** off"

I am sympathetic to people being alert-stalked but most of your hides are well deserved. You can't have 2 hides telling people to go f- themselves, one where you admit the post will get hidden, and simultaneously claim that your hides are a result of stalking. Most of those hides are abusive.

Under the new rules you're going to have to learn how to control your emotions in a debate or spend long periods under ban, even if you find offensive what someone else has said.

FWIW I have not alerted on you.

[seabeyond]

139. fitman sent women in hof abusive, vulgar pms... from day one an obvious misogynist troll. an hour

later he was tos'ed after i said fuck off. but, first he sent women crude, vulgar, misogynist pms. thnak you for letting me know that was unacceptable and you support that behavior. how long was he here with those misogynist posts? and allowed to stay?

the second. obvious i told no one to fuck off. this was a pretend i said fuck off to get a hide. if jury is not paying attention, and comment lies, it is easy to get a hide.

you know. a lie. in comment

she said screw off. twice i said screw off = fuck off. that is against rules.

you know what happened. and you are playing a game in this thread. there are two addressed. and you are absolutely one that participates in the game.

[LittleBlue]

143. It sucks

that you can be hidden even when responding to an obvious troll and/or dupe. Unfortunately the new DU rules in essence have dictated that courtesy be used at all times, even with people we know are trolls or disruptors. Them's the breaks.

the second. obvious i told no one to fuck off. this was a pretend i said that to get a hide.

You didn't? What's this I find in your Transparency page?

Are you going to have a heart attack seabeyond? lol... fuck you. and i will take my hide.

you come in here, and write a post excusing the blatant misogyny and then take a jab at me.

fuck you

Here's another

screw off? = fuck you, darlin'. nt

You don't think these deserve to be hidden? It's absolutely ridiculous to believe you've been persecuted when you post like this.

[seabeyond]

144. the first was to fitman as i said. the second was telling the poster that said screw off....

screw off = fuck off.

got the equal sign? do you see that = sign? that is me saying, screw off EQUALS fuck off.

is that really so hard? my god. really? think a person told me to screw off. i told the poster screw off is the same as saying fuck off.

taht is not telling a poster to fuck off.

[LittleBlue]

150. Polly's post was hidden

and no, retaliating is not okay. This isn't kindergarten where you can use the defense "she did it first!"

If you had just avoided those two situations of using the f- word toward others, you wouldn't be looking at a vacation in January.

[seabeyond]

152. i did NOT tell her to fuck off. can you not read? i told her, saying screw off is the same as

saying fuck off.

that is NOT telling someone to fuck off. geeez.

[polly7]

173. I know, right?

Even though I told no one to 'screw off'. But am I crying about it .......... nooooooo. Win some, lose some.

[LittleBlue]

175. I reread what you wrote

and you're right. That's a crappy hide.

I had one hidden for posting about animal treatment with a warning in the body but not the title. Like you say, shit happens.

Luckily we're in no danger as we both have 1 hide over 90 days, we can laugh it off.

[polly7]

225. Exactly!

[seabeyond]

145. and an obvious troll that sat in your group dissing us, and you all welcoming him. yes.

he fit right in.

[LittleBlue]

158. My group?

[seabeyond]

160. right.

[LittleBlue]

162. Right... er

What right? If you're afraid I'll alert, I won't. Say what's on your mind.

[seabeyond]

151. now, when you want to talk the other tow. you know, the one about soiled schoolgirl undies

being sold out of vending machines bought by grown me.

another of your buddies told us that we were not suppose to feel ick about a GROWN MAN buying soiled undies of schoolgirls out of vending machines. oh, we arent to shame these men. and we are not to hold any value judgment about these grown men buy soiled undies out of a vending machine.

i didnt start this subject. but surely i have a responsibility to call out someone telling us not to be offended by a grown man buying schoolgirls soiled undies.

what would a man be doing with these undies as he is sniffing away.... fantasizing about????? having a conversation with this child? helping this child with her homework? or fantasizing about.... well fuck, here is the issue. how do i clearly state what the purpose of a grown man buying a childs soiled undies. right? this is the issue i am being lecture on, to say nothing. how do i get across the wrong, the ick, the shame with fantasizing about school girl undies.

he is fantasizing about making love to the child? having sex with the child? both pretty damn offensive since we are talking about a child. raping the child? well... ok, that is accurate but would be a hide. so i say fucking the child. the only way i could depersonalize rape from sex, without calling it rape so i would NOT offend men on du.

or... because it was a horribly offensive, vulgar, disgusting subject that a poster was telling us we had to accept, was i suppose to just shut the fuck up because i could not say it in any other way... but offensively?

cause it surely was offensive.

[LittleBlue]

154. You cannot rationalize this

Saying that they said something offensive first, therefore you can say something offensive, that isn't a valid defense. You can call someone out on being offensive without using offensive language and/or hostility yourself. Many on this forum manage to do it without directing f-words toward others.

I guarantee if you carry on this way it will just result in more time served.

[seabeyond]

159. i cannot tell a poster that... saying screw off is the same as saying fuck off.

you are really saying, i cannot tell a person that tells me to screw off that it is the same as telling someone to fuck off.

really?

am i allowed to say, that is bullshit.

[polly7]

170. The bullshit is that anyone told you to screw off. nt.

[polly7]

163. lmao!!!

Once again, I said you were no better than a man who's accosted you on the street and keeps continuing to do so after you've told HIM to screw off. Someone's lying ....... and - oops!, once again, it's you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4079878

Strange how you claimed the right to do that there, when if it was from a man he'd have had at least three posts hidden for it in that thread, and earlier you'd even accused another woman of being a hypocrite for not welcoming your sexist term after being asked to stop.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4081603
I guess that kind of thing is ok if it's you doing it. Cause you're just special that way.

[seabeyond]

165. and once again, i say i did not read your post cause of your attacks, saw screw off

and thought you had told me to screw off. obvious by my post that saying screw off is telling someone to fuck off and it is against the rules. right/ not like you have not heard this before. oh, a couple days ago. gonna go into a bunch more name calling to see if you can get a hide?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4079871

i dont think you are allowed to say fuck you, and basically screw off (as much as you tried to switch it around) is the same thing. you might want to consider that.

right? it is clear i am not telling you to fuck off. it is clear i had thought you told me to screw off. right?

[polly7]

171. riiiiigggggghht.

[seabeyond]

193. thank you. yes. the words really clarify. i appreciate it. nt

[polly7]

194. And I still don't appreciate your sexist treament and ramping it up after being

asked to stop. But let's ignore that, eh? It's all poor seabeyond and the bad, nasty people who just don't clarify!

[seabeyond]

198. sexist treatment? lol. and here you start immediately and i stop reading

absolutely.

[polly7]

199. As was completely expected.

[seabeyond]

201. should be, woman. (am i allowed to call you woman without being sexist?). i stop reading

about all your posts when they start out with namecalling and hyperbole. i would think i have done it enough for you to expect.

nite... polly.

[polly7]

205. The mental gymnastics it takes

to switch attention from your demeaning, insulting, sexist behaviour against other women to being the victim (once again!!!) when called on it, must get tiring.

[seabeyond]

209. i am agile, flexible and fluid. yes, indeed. thank you. nt

[polly7]

213. And so (not at all) funny, too!

Last edited Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Other women's boundary wishes are just a joke and you can damned well treat people as you please. Because you're just entitled that way. Sorry, I don't take authoritarian, thick-minded bullying from anyone, ... including you, without saying something about it.

[seabeyond]

215. see, first sentence, .... no readie. right? we have done this drill before. too many times

[polly7]

218. Yes, actually I have seen you do this same thing many, many times. nt.

[Capt. Obvious]

236. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:46 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

lmao!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4202394

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling another DUer a liar is over the top. Personal attacks like this make DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:59 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: whole thing is a mess - no cherry picking, now!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Healthy debate. Proceed.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's like hard you know what ails I see nothing more than what gives onto low roads say all and then you know I like should say this place makes wail of knot and I come to real ize if this has to give more until you don't get lol sure okay
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Drahthaardogs]

228. Just as observation here. It is not a matter of the jury not paying attention...

Having been on one of your juries, I had a horrible time trying figure out what you were saying. I had never really read your posts until a jury selection kind of tuned me into your posts. I actually agree with most of what you say (I am pretty sheltered and had never heard of rape porn, but the concept makes me shudder). However, I find (and found) your writing style to be very very difficult to understand. I suspect that you are typing from a phone, and you post as you typically text. Is that correct?

Anyway, it appears to me that a fair portion of your "hides" are a result of people misconstruing your statements due a an overall lack of clarity in your writing style.

To be painfully honest, your ideas are fragmented. Your punctuation is mostly non-existent, and when used, it is mostly used incorrectly. In addition, you rarely use a sentence that contains both a subject and a verb and the tense is almost never appropriate. Please do not think I am trying to be the grammar police, I am simply saying many of your sentences are written so poorly, they are very difficult to read let alone glean the finer points of your arguments. If you slowed down a little bit, and maybe made your statements a bit clearer, I think you will receive less alerts overall.

[seabeyond]

229. having served 600 juries, if i am not clear what a person is talking about, i look at the post that

was replied to. if that does not do it for me, i peruse the subthread to get the gest of what is being said in the thread.

the point. i am throwing off a number of posts in a quick amount of time in a continuing, flowing conversation. i am not going to make each one of my posts have everything from post one in each reply in a fluid conversation, so that if jury is looking they have a total grasp, following the conversation.

yes. some posts are more messier than others. shooting out a number of posts quickly, staying up with a number of conversations is challenging.

and ya. my speak is different than a lot of people.

but

screw off = fuck off

is not too challenging, too many words, not mixed up in position.

i try. i do not always succeed. so little time. so many responses.

i do hear this often, but generally it is the same old crowd after a whole conversation where they invaribly lost the argument and resort to a personal attack. never at the beginning of the conversation where they are getting what i say, perfectly well. the thing, so many people absolutely understand what i say in the numerous replies i get exactly addressing what i say. meh....

will take your criticism to heart and try. that is the best that can be done. not gonna take a refresher course in english though,

now. no more effort put forth in this post, than others. what is not clear to you?

[Drahthaardogs]

230. Yeah that was actually pretty clear.

However, I think you are being just UN PO' dishonest here. You put a little more effort into that last post. It was pretty obvious

[seabeyond]

232. "UN PO' "?? help me out. not really. the thing, it is just you and i. back and forth.

i do not have a fast flowing conversation going with a number of people. in this thread you popped into, i was replying to 3, 4, 5, even 6 at times. that is a lot of going on. my wrists hurt late last night, and my fingers were stiff.

so meh... some of this and a little of that.

depends on the time and circumstances. here. not even going to re read and fix/clarify. and i almost always re read, unlesss in a huge hurry. those would be the really messy ones.

[Drahthaardogs]

235. Un po' = a little

I did not really "pop" into the thread. I was selected by the wonderful DU jury system and I as noted, had a hell of a time making heads or tails of some of your posts. As such, I went on a bit of an expedition trying to gather as much information as possible, and kind of wound up here as I was searching your posts.

I am more of a labor (i.e. pro-union) democrat so while I certainly am aware of the feminist movement, it is not a particular hot button issue for me. As such, I found reading your posts kind of interesting.

I am also not into porn, so the whole idea of a "rape-porn" genre kind of shocked me. I had never heard of it let alone witnessed it. As a father, I would hope my sons (daughter as well) are never exposed to that. I find the whole idea of that disgusting.

[seabeyond]

237. isnt that interesting drahth, thank you for striking up this conversation

and sharing this information. honestly... i admit, all that subthread and subsubthread is a bit of a mess. i totally agree. it is not the norm, but there was lots going on. i also had a couple other threads elsewhere and pms going, lol. and it was getting late.

interesting.

i have learned so much. that i was not aware of, also. i have teenage sons. i want to know what is happening in the world so i know how to address the boys, to help them be authentic to themselves and walk all this in a healthy and grounded manner. it really would be much more peaceful to not know this shit.

[seabeyond]

238. oh. and what in the world was i alerted on? i didnt say or do anything wrong, lol...

thanks. if you pm me or post, doesnt matter, just curious. if you dont mind.

[Drahthaardogs]

242. It was not an alert on this post, it was on another

and I read your arguments, it piqued my interest. So I started searching your posts out because I found it interesting.

[seabeyond]

244. i see thanks. that is cool to hear. i like people exploring thought, agree or not. nt

[nomorenomore08]

118. I suppose we could all stand to "dial it back a notch" when it comes to putting words

in others' mouths. And this has nothing specifically to do with gender issues, it can be applied to anything.

[DonCoquixote]

33. not to get too far off the subject

But the alert abuse you described is something I have seen coming. We know that there are people ready to lie in wait and make sure people get the magic number of alerts to get them banned, who doubtless will go off and chuckle and plan more mayhem.

Bottom line is: we need Meta back. Yes it is ugly, but the alternative is to let snakes and worms hide in the shade. We also need a revamped Jury system by 2014 and 2016, especially 2016, or else the alter sytem will be little more than an organized progrom of thuggery.

[Demo_Chris]

208. Both systems are subject to abuse, but Meta was downright sinister. nt

[xmas74]

147. I'm not surprised.

Talk about rape on DU and the alerts will fly. Get on someone's radar and they'll never leave you alone.

I don't know how many times I've alerted on someone making comments about rape that would never fly in the old days but now are dismissed by juries with a 6-0 decision to "leave it" and some comment about getting a thicker skin or "growing a sack", as one actually put it. Right after the results I'll find the same person I alerted on following me from thread to thread.

Here's a deal: if I ever serve on a jury about one of your posts I will forward the results to you ASAP, if you'll do the same for me. I don't much care who sees this because it's not against the rules to make these type of agreements.

[seabeyond]

161. got a deal xmas. lol. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. What makes you think that the users of the anonymous reporting tool are women?

It's anonymous. People might want their fellow students expelled for a variety of reasons, and the tool enables this to happen without any personal consequences.

[geek tragedy]

38. No, the form does not allow that to happen.

The form itself states:

If a perpetrator is named, a member of the Dean of Students Office will meet with that person to share that the person was named in anonymous report, review the Sexual Misconduct Policy, and inform the person that if the allegations are true, the behavior needs to cease immediately. Information shared in this form alone will not result in anyone going through the grievance process.

(emphasis added)

That would require an actual investigation, something that usually doesn't happen because universities are known to discourage reporting and try to sweep such incidents under the rug.

[Niceguy1]

80. you can't investigate

Or even prosecute an anonymous allegation anyways

[Arkana]

240. MRAs are among the lowest of the scum trawling the basement

of the Internet. Seriously, they give all men a bad name.

[NuclearDem]

8. That'll show those feminists!

I'm not sure what exactly, but it'll show them!

[Blue_Tires]

13. Am I the only one who thinks an open-access online form is a bad idea?

There has to be some way that it can just be used by students without compromising anonymity....

[politichew]

20. Are SOME rape reports false? Of course.

SOME being the keyword, but rape largely goes underreported TOO OFTEN and rape victims are TOO OFTEN put on trial for what was done to them.

Fuck these guys for thinking of themselves as victims and fuck them for hiding behind 'rights' as an excuse to be misogynistic pricks.

[seabeyond]

21. few false rape. not a mere some. but, few. the propaganda being pushed by the mens groups are

that it is a large number. 45-75%. that is not the reality. the reality is 2-3%. some will say up to 8% but that included no foundation reports which is not the same as false claim. it only means there is nothing they can see that will validate the report.

the purpose of this action from this hatefilled group was to reinforce that the majority of rapes reported are false.

[politichew]

22. Yeah, I assumed it was in the single digits.

Just like the rare cases of voter fraud that conservatives push to justify their voting restrictions.

Or the rare cases of fraud in social programs.

[seabeyond]

23. exactly. thank you... nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. I think they are also showing that anonymous online crime reporting is an invitation to abuse. n/t

[seabeyond]

28. oh bullshit. like isnt that considerate of them to protect women so. fuck. that is offensive, ...

now i am laughing cause of my post above.

a bunch of men that hate women, ignore very real pain of rape victims playing a damn game they can giggle about. this is about human beings, being abused that they disregarded for their own personal agenda. but hey, ... lets make up excusing for their vulgar, uncaring, mean spirited behavior.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. I find it ironic...

That in the same thread in which people are complaining about the impact of anonymous alerts infringing on your ability for effective communication, to read a full-throated defense of an online form where people can accuse their fellow students of felonies for which the targets will be subject to very real consequences without evidence or legitimate due process.

DU's alert function has two advantages; A DU alert convenes a jury and that jury reviews actual evidence.

The guys posting on the stupidly-conceived "expel a fellow student" website functionality may very well be assholes, but it was a stupid asshole who designed the function in the first place.

[seabeyond]

31. how many men have been charged, expelled, convicted from that site? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Now that the limitations of the tool have been exposed, I imagine that few will be. n/t

[seabeyond]

37. that did not answer the question. i imagine they had safe guards up and were not expelling right

and left. further, i imagine not one has been expelled merely by an anonymous form

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. a) Then what's it good for?

b) Given the liability issues that the school would face for expelling someone arbitrarily, I suspect that those "counseled" after an anonymous accusation moved to other schools voluntarily. Those students fall into two groups; 1) the guilty and 2) the innocent.

Both are bad outcomes. Encouraging the guilty to quietly move to a new school isn't good either.

[seabeyond]

42. see. i was too lazy to get the actual info about the purpose. i was clever enough to know it could

not own these men, with a drop of the hat. geek posted the actual info

now off. have things to do

[geek tragedy]

39. Your argument is based on facts you are making up.

full-throated defense of an online form where people can accuse their fellow students of felonies for which the targets will be subject to very real consequences without evidence or legitimate due process.

not true:

If a perpetrator is named, a member of the Dean of Students Office will meet with that person to share that the person was named in anonymous report, review the Sexual Misconduct Policy, and inform the person that if the allegations are true, the behavior needs to cease immediately. Information shared in this form alone will not result in anyone going through the grievance process.

Sorry, but your efforts to defend the actions of woman-hating cheerleaders for rape is not based on accurate information. You should retract.

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Then what's it good for?

I asked SB, now I'm asking you.

If you were called into a meeting with the Dean to be informed that you have been anonymously accused of a felony;
a) Would you stay at the school, regardless of your guilt or innocence?
b) Without an accuser or evidence, by what mechanism would your crime be punished?

It sucks because it is a get out of jail free card for the guilty and an unearned stigma for the innocent.

[geek tragedy]

51. Well, the school would be able to start an investigation based on such

complaints if they passed the smell test.

Would I stay at the school if I were innocent? Yes.

A vastly bigger problem is the # of women who leave colleges because they get sexually assaulted and have no redress. I'll expend my efforts worrying about them.

And let us not pretend that the reddit trolls had any agenda other than helping make it easier to rape women.

[phil89]

181. Wow

"And let us not pretend that the reddit trolls had any agenda other than helping make it easier to rape women."
Do you think that's something people really support?

[geek tragedy]

184. The Men's Rights pigs on Reddit combine sexual frustration

with a desire to put women in their place.

So, yes.

[11 Bravo]

61. Shit like this makes me re-think that whole "violence is never the answer" thing.

Those dipshits NEED to be kicked in the balls.

[Nye Bevan]

63. This kind of online anonymous reporting system is too open to abuse and is a bad idea.

I'm not at all opposed to the college's goals here but obviously there must be a better way of achieving them.

[seabeyond]

66. are the men that did this pathetic bottom feeding assholes? nt

[geek tragedy]

71. Some of those MRA redditors may be participating in this very thread. nt

[seabeyond]

79. who noes!11!!!!11!! nt

[Nye Bevan]

180. Yes. But the existence of this kind of asshole is one of the reasons this is a bad idea. (nt)

[JVS]

169. Thinking about the Sandusky scandal at Penn State, I think Occidental has instituted a bad idea.

First of all, the whole anonymous denunciation format lends itself to witch hunts and disruption.

Secondly, it has the university gathering information that is useless for preventing a crime but could very well create a conflict of interests when it comes to student confidentiality laws and maintaining a safe learning environment. If generic student Mike Jones gets reported for sexual assault every weekend but there is never any verifiable complaint, the university is left in the position of knowing that Mike Jones might be a problem, but not having adequate justification to act on it. Furthermore, universities aren't allowed to divulge information of students regarding all kinds of things. If these records they're keeping on Mike slip out, there could be a costly lawsuit. The Sandusky scandal demonstrated that crimes are best taken up with the police and that universities cannot and should no act as an intermediary between crime reporters and law enforcement. In Occidental's position, I'd advise victims to contact the police directly.

[Nye Bevan]

179. Excellent points. Thank you (nt)

[Upton]

67. Hey, too bad this woman didn't attend good old Oxy..

she would have had a field day..

Woman is finally jailed after FIVE false rape allegations against her ex-boyfriends in eight years

[geek tragedy]

68. For every one (1) man falsely accused of rape, there are about sixty (60) men who get away it

And about sixty-two (62) women who actually do get raped.



I question the priorities of those who think that 1 man being falsely accused is of greater concern and outrage than 100 women being raped, and with 98 rapists going free so they can rape again. I don't think such men really give a shit about women.

(above assumed roughly 4% false accusation rate)

edited to correct math

[seabeyond]

70. what? and another 50 women raped but said nothing? nt

[geek tragedy]

73. I was going off that chart's numbers.

I may be butchering the numbers though.

60% never get reported.


The 4% of false accusations would represent approximately 1.6% of the universe of cases.

60% rape never get reported
35.4% rape reported not punished
3% rape punished
1.6% falsely accused.

If one wants to multiply it out further, about .12% of all incidents of rape or alleged rape will result in an innocent man being imprisoned.

[seabeyond]

76. better man than i am with all the math, lol. thanks. nt

[redqueen]

72. Did you see the thread where it was asserted that it's better that all rapists go unpunished

rather than punish 1 innocent man for rape?

Interestingly (...) I've never heard a guy set this standard for any orbs kind of crime.

[geek tragedy]

74. There's a really offensive phrase

"bros before hos" and I think that's what's behind all of these men who are constantly angry about rape accusations against men but pretty much indifferent to rape itself.

[Comrade Grumpy]

82. I've heard the reverse used as well: hos before bros.

Both are dumb attempts at gender solidarity.

[geek tragedy]

84. cool story, bro.

Yeah, nothing says women's solidarity like describing themselves as 'hoes'

[Comrade Grumpy]

86. Yeah, your's too.

Shockingly, not every women or teenage girl is as enlightened as you are.

[geek tragedy]

89. the phrase 'hoes before bros' is usually used thusly

"Don't put hoes before bros."

The phrase was invented by misogynists.

False equivalencies are false.

[Comrade Grumpy]

92. Got a cite for that?

I would be especially interested in the frequency of usage of the various phrases.

[geek tragedy]

107. check out urban dictionary.

Bros before hoes entry dated 2004. First definition of hoes before bros you're claiming was introduced in 2011.

[FrodosPet]

104. At Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post

I've heard the reverse used as well: hos before bros.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4201459

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

referring to women as "hos" is a repulsive violation of community standards.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 19, 2013, 04:02 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This post is in reply to an earlier comment which also used the word "ho". It is used in the context of the ongoing discussion, not as a slur or derogatory attack on women. It's not in any way a "repulsive violation" but rather, it is a reasoned response, so I vote to leave it alone.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Jesus.....
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If an alert is necessary for "hos" why not alert on the post where it was first used? At any rate the poster was expressing his/her opinion of that phrase not advocating for its use.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is a common saying, the poster makes it clear that s/he does not agree with it. Alerter is either totally clueless or on a vendetta.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster was not condoning the use, just making a point about the unfortunate way it is used. Aren't we supposed to be AGAINST ignorance and doing the "LA LA LA I can't hear you" dance?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Comrade Grumpy]

117. You've got to be kidding! I think maybe alerts shouldn't be anonymous.

That would cut down on bullshit alerts.

[geek tragedy]

185. Bad alert. Should have been 0-6. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

196. Why... yes! This would be a perfect example of alert trolling.

Bypass the first usage of the "repulsive" use of a word and skip to the response it solicited.

Successful alerts aren't alert trolling. Unsuccessful ones often (like this one) are.

[Comrade Grumpy]

81. You've been missing out. It's an ancient concept about innocence.

I haven't seen the post where someone supposedly said ALL rapists should go unpunished, but it's an example of what's known as Blackstone's ratio, and it is applied to crime in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", ...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

It is worthwhile to note that the actual numbers are not generally seen as important, so much as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case". Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.

The principle is much older than Blackstone's formulation, being closely tied to the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. An early example of the principle appears in the Bible (Genesis 18:23-32),[1][2] as: Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?[3] ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."[4]

The 12th-century legal theorist Maimonides, expounding on this passage as well as Exodus 23 ("the innocent and righteous slay thou not&quot argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would progressively lead to convictions merely "according to the judge's caprice. Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" against the use of presumptive evidence, for "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."[1][5][6]

Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally."

Similarly, on 3 October 1692, while decrying the Salem witch trials, Increase Mather adapted Fortescue's statement and wrote, "It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned."[7]

[geek tragedy]

87. the mansplanation is greatly appreciated, to be sure nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

90. Gratuitous crap is all you've got?

[geek tragedy]

110. perhaps if you had not struck the "of course you probably don't know this but" tone . . .

. mansplaining
The tendency of some men to mistakenly believe that they automatically know more about any given topic than does a woman and who, consequently, proceed to explain to her- correctly or not- things that she already knows.

instead of citing Blackstone etc, you could have written "I believe that's a variation on "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent be convicted'"

It's something men should consciously avoid in discussions with women, especially in discussions regarding gender-related issues.

[Comrade Grumpy]

111. You're whining about tone? That's funny.

[geek tragedy]

113. In this case, what you failed to address is the idea that the rights of the accused

are not the only rights that need to be protected. Among others, the right of women to not be raped.

As it turns out, it's really damn hard for a man to get convicted of rape. Even if the woman knows who he is and files a police report, etc etc.

The more difficult it is to convict a man for rape, the easier it is for him to rape, on a repeated basis, and the more women that will be raped.

And this is not only as applied to women. Prison rape is an epidemic because there's virtually no chance of negative consequences for the rapists.

[Comrade Grumpy]

120. What I addressed was Redqueen's apparent lack of familiarity with Blackstone's ratio.

She said she wasn't aware of it being used in any other criminal context.

I don't think a woman's right not to be raped is controversial, at least not in civilized societies. I guess how we achieve that, though, may be.

[xulamaude]

122. "civilized societies"

Well, thank heavens we live in one of those where we only have to disagree about how we stop rape.

[countryjake]

119. How is anyone to know...

during a discussion which involves participants bearing monikers such as geek tragedy, Comrade Grumpy, or any other totally anonymous user name, whether or not a person is addressing someone of the opposite sex?

When I read this sub-thread, I did not get the impression that there was any "mansplaining" going on.

Warning people of discourse which they should "consciously avoid" will ultimately result in nothing but an echo chamber, especially when comments are unfairly labeled as offensive.

[BainsBane]

135. People get to know one another on this site

and know what their gender is. It is often indicated on profiles.

In some cases, the most basic understanding of human behavior can tell you whether the poster is male or female. Typically, those who turn up in every single rape thread to talk about false accusations when FBI statistics in fact show them to be very rare have a clear agenda.

[xulamaude]

121. That was 100% mansplaining.

I know it doesn't seem like it to you (or possibly you can't believe it) but some women do actually know quite a bit more about feminism - and all of its related issues, such as rape - than pretty much any man we've ever known both online and irl.

[BainsBane]

95. It takes a concerted effort

To read this story and turn it into a whine about poor men. I think everyone here can see exactly what is going on. People have a way of displaying exactly who they are in these threads.

Of course this principal is never brought up in other contexts except rape. People don't post this when talking about allegations of Bush or Cheney as war criminals, or about pedophile priests. Instead, each and every time the rape of a mere woman is discussed, people turn up to champion the "innocent" and attack the victims. The message is crystal clear.

[Comrade Grumpy]

103. You're laboring under a misapprehension.

Redqueen appeared unfamiliar with the concept that it's better that X guilty go free than one innocent be unjustly convicted. I helped her out.

I can't speak for other posters, but I believe strongly in the presumption of innocence in all cases. That's what trials are for.

I don't have much to say about MRA types harassing Occidental College, except it's pretty fucking stupid and nasty.

[BainsBane]

114. Yet why is it that this presumption is raised in every single rape thread

and not in those about other crimes?

Also a presumption of innocence doesn't mean no rapist should be punished. Conviction rates in rape cases are so incredibly low that false accusations resulting in convictions are EXCEEDINGlY rare, particularly since the advent of DNA testing which does away with relying on eye witness testimony in stranger rape cases.

Moreover, none of that legitimates this bullshit by the women haters at Occidental. Clearly if their concern was false rape allegations, they wouldn't flood the system with them. They are angry that women think they can choose who to have sex with.

[Comrade Grumpy]

115. I can't speak for other posters. Carry on.

[BainsBane]

133. I observe threads

and I observe what you and other members do in those threads. Why is it you can't speak for yourself?

[davidpdx]

226. Which is why I don't reply to these types of threads

Nothing good can come of them. It's 100% ugly.

Whoops, I just broke my rule.

[redqueen]

233. "People have a way of displaying exactly who they are in these threads."

Spot fucking on.

It takes a concerted effort

To read this story and turn it into a whine about poor men. I think everyone here can see exactly what is going on. People have a way of displaying exactly who they are in these threads.

Of course this principal is never brought up in other contexts except rape. People don't post this when talking about allegations of Bush or Cheney as war criminals, or about pedophile priests. Instead, each and every time the rape of a mere woman is discussed, people turn up to champion the "innocent" and attack the victims. The message is crystal clear.

[redqueen]

216. Duh. Do you seriously think I haven't heard that?

Did you somehow miss the difference?

Ten / all.

Do I need to spell it out?

[nomorenomore08]

116. Classic self-centeredness right there. As if it were an "either/or" matter anyway.

Like I've said before, as a guy I "get" the fear of false accusations, I just think it's way, way overblown. The average man is astronomically less likely to be falsely accused of rape in his lifetime, than the average woman is likely to be raped or otherwise physically abused.

[redqueen]

234. This is one reason it's so revolting.

The average man is astronomically less likely to be falsely accused of rape in his lifetime, than the average woman is likely to be raped or otherwise physically abused.

For men to push the idea that false accusations more common that they are... let alone than they're worse than rape itself... seriously, WTF.

People who do that leave absolutely no doubt what they think of women. The lack of empathy is stomach-turning.

[BainsBane]

249. I really don't think most men have any trouble telling if a woman wants to have sex with him

Enthusiastic consent is the key. I think most know that.

[nomorenomore08]

252. Oh, absolutely. Mutual participation is always best, by far. n/t

[mythology]

93. Out of curiosity, this seems to assume that each rape is committed by a different rapist

But I would imagine that in general rape, like most crimes, aren't committed by individuals who have never before committed the same crime.

The study I linked below says that half of the men who admitted to raping committed multiple attacks. Granted it's from Asian countries and not the U.S., but I can't imagine why it would be different here.

I don't think it's a semantic argument. I think it does a disservice to assume that only 3% of rapists go to jail because it creates a false idea of how prevalent rapists are. Which in turn impacts how we as a society should consider working to prevent rape. Recent statistics I've seen from the New York Times estimate that about 20% of women will be the victim of rape. I think different approaches would be used if roughly 20% of men have committed rape as compared to say 5% with each committing on average 4 attacks. If it's 20% each committing one attack then we have a more societal problem were as 5% we have a small enough subset that we could probably use a more targeted approach to those most likely to become rapists.

Of course that presumes we have enough data about who commits rapes, which we probably don't for a host of reasons ranging from under reporting, police ineptitude (not investigating or not having rape kits analyzed timely, etc), the difficulty of getting convictions and that it's hard to get honest answers if you ask men if they have raped in even anonymous surveys.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/10/2597861/united-nations-rape-study-asia/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html?_r=0

[geek tragedy]

106. Not really disagreeing with anything you're writing,

but I think the real point I was trying to make is that the problem of rape is a much larger problem--exponentially so-- for society than the rare instances where men get wrongfully accused.

[BainsBane]

91. Yes, because women are by nature evil

so that validates a relentless effort to punish rape victims. Why not just make rape legal? It's not like women actually matter or anything.

Actually it is essentially legal, since only 3% of rapists ever see jail time. That 3% if obviously too high for the MRA types such as those presented in this article who work relentlessly to make the world safe for rapists.

[Vashta Nerada]

105. Those guys need to get a fucking life.

Isn't it against the law to file fake rape charges? I would hope so. I know it's not with the authorities, but still. They're abusing a system that's intended to be for actual rape victims to report rape.

[LeftyMom]

127. Well I'm sure that will fix family courts and open men's shelters and fix the economy.

That's always what they're swearing they're all about, not hating women. At least if you can get them to stop shouting about how hot bitches won't fuck them and their exes stole all their money to feed their children.

[Kurska]

146. I wouldn't call 4chan MRA trolls

They are just trolls period. I don't think people on 4chan need a reason per-say for cyber vandalism.

[cemaphonic]

212. good point, but I'd say there's a fair bit of overlap, and a lot of total creeps on 4chan and reddit

They may not need a reason, but being able to claim victory against their notion of feminism gives the trolling that extra spice.

Reddit is the only webforum that I know about that had make a "you know, you're not really supposed to be posting child pornography here. Please stop." rule.

[Arkana]

239. These people are subhuman slime.

They know they can't compete in a world where women are allowed to do things like (gasp) vote and work, so they snivel about it on the Internet with other slimy, subhuman social degenerates.