Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
It's irrelevant because a 12 year old cannot legally give consent and shouldn't be a part of a public statement. Also I'm pretty sure that a low quality security camera is not a great judge of what is and is not consent. We will not even get into how a 12 year old would potentially react to this situation.
I guess my issue is that the statement is extremely victim blamey and rape apologist.
I guess my issue is that the statement is extremely victim blamey and rape apologist.
Last edited:
I have to agree with @Dei here: Willing or not, you don't SAY that sort of thing to the news because it'll be used against the girl by people looking to blame her for this (instead of the creep wanting to have sex with a 12 year old). ESPECIALLY because she's a minor. It's just adding fuel to the fire and could convince some psycho they'd be justified in harming her if her name was ever released to the public. That's why it's usually illegal to reveal the identity of minor defendants to the public: it literally puts them in danger.
Halforums remembers.
And mocks.
I considered making an Alt named Icarus to post exactly that.
Some of us weren't pretending. We'd really just keep getting confused.[DOUBLEPOST=1446699654,1446699076][/DOUBLEPOST]
Of course, this has Icarus written all over it. Bleh.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...er-with-bush-rubio-b99611434z1-342004751.html
So, humanoid Koch puppet Scott Walker is asking his supporters to throw bad money after worse money, so they can pay off his debts accrued while pursuing a hopeless, delusional presidential bid. Note that he ran as a candidate for fiscal responsibility.
So, humanoid Koch puppet Scott Walker is asking his supporters to throw bad money after worse money, so they can pay off his debts accrued while pursuing a hopeless, delusional presidential bid. Note that he ran as a candidate for fiscal responsibility.
He is a pox on my otherwise wonderful state.
Dave
Staff member
The president of the University of Missouri is stepping down due to student pressure. Did he do anything wrong? Not really, but they think he acted too slowly to address some incidents of racism on campus. One of the incidents should probably be a criminal violation. And is just stupid.
Here are the incidents specifically named. Not names are the ones that were "just" racial slurs.
Here are the incidents specifically named. Not names are the ones that were "just" racial slurs.
- A swastika was made on a wall. And I say made because it was smeared feces. Which is just gross.
- A group of African-American students were having a meeting when it was interrupted by a drunk guy who yelled slurs at them. The students did not think the University took action quickly enough.
- A group of African-American students blockaded the homecoming parade and had to be removed by police.
#1 and #2 are dipshits, more than likely acting alone (certainly #2), being drunk on campus. #3...I....errr....fail to see how it's racist?
Anyway, in pretty much all of those cases....Campus security can launch an investigation, the perpetrator can be fined or banned or whatever, and the president might want to make acting against this sort of thing a priority or whatever....but how, exactly, was he supposed to stop someone from getting drunk and yelling offensive stuff? -_-
Anyway, in pretty much all of those cases....Campus security can launch an investigation, the perpetrator can be fined or banned or whatever, and the president might want to make acting against this sort of thing a priority or whatever....but how, exactly, was he supposed to stop someone from getting drunk and yelling offensive stuff? -_-
I don't think anyone is suggesting legal action?
If you are president of a university, it is kinda your duty to make sure that kind if shit isn't tolerated on your campus.
Dave
Staff member
Not racist, but definitely racial.
And the last is my point. I think changes could have been made and things could have been accomplished working with the affected students, but this is really scorched earth and I blame it on the fact that the football team joined in. I think if they hadn't nothing would have really been done. And I don't mean blame, really, because I get what they are doing, but a president folding like that to a student body is a bad thing, in my opinion.
How? In what way can the president of a university make sure that no racism ever happens? In what way did the university indicate that they would tolerate racism? The president stepping down is not going to make the jackass in the truck stop & rethink his racist ways. In fact it probably does more to solidify them.
I'm disappointed because I would have liked to see how the issue with the football team played out. There was already a rift between teammates forming. It sounded like the activist who started a hunger strike managed to charm about half the team to follow the cause. Would have been interesting to see if the athletic dept, despite their pledge of support, would have paid some repercussions if the players had in fact caused a game to be cancelled.
A Belgian judge has decided that tracking internet history through cookies is a breach of privacy. Facebook has 48 hours to completely stop following or tracking internet usage by any non-Facebook-user in Belgium or face a €250.000 per day fine. People with an active FB account are supposed to have given permission to gather their data. I'm really curious to see how this'll work out.
If facebook decides to just block belgium, I wonder how long that law would last.
Illegal due to European law - they'd have to block all of the EU. Which wouldn't last, either...But it's not about facebook itself, but about their cookiemachines on other sites.
...and g+, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc, etc.
This is going to be hard to enforce, especially with any sites which depend on things like the referral header or shopping carts. It would probably even kill the ability to pay for anything with PayPal.
--Patrick
External cookies, for the purpose of makign ap rofile. Neither shopping carts, nor Paypal, does either. As said, those who have an account are also supposed to have accepted this. It's more likely to result in the basic "this site requires cookies" message to be slightly modified into "this site requires cookies and may include off-site cookies for partners for marketing purposes blahblahblah".
The EU law doesn't ban cookies, it bans cookies that aren't opt-in. The theory is that signing up for services automatically opts you in to cookies provided by that service, so e-retail and social networks shouldn't be affected. And if sites warn people to opt-in in order to use them before serving any content, then people can choose to do so.
In other words, it is legally obliging sites to put those old "xyz.com domain uses cookies, will you accept them?" browser warnings on the sites themselves, regardless of the browser setting.
In principle, it doesn't seem like a bad idea. In practice, it will be a giant mess. If you're a small business and you partner with a larger service to enhance your site (say, using Google analytics), can you reasonably expect your users to understand that they're opting in to the analytics tracking cookies, but not Google's social media cookies?
And where the hell does that leave ad networks?
In other words, it is legally obliging sites to put those old "xyz.com domain uses cookies, will you accept them?" browser warnings on the sites themselves, regardless of the browser setting.
In principle, it doesn't seem like a bad idea. In practice, it will be a giant mess. If you're a small business and you partner with a larger service to enhance your site (say, using Google analytics), can you reasonably expect your users to understand that they're opting in to the analytics tracking cookies, but not Google's social media cookies?
And where the hell does that leave ad networks?
There has been a history of racial incidents as well as implicit segregation at Mizzou for a long time (basically from the moment explicit segregation ended). There have also been other issues that aren't racial as to why there were calls for the president to step down (the school cut all grad student health insurance with literally 0 notice). When I was at school someone spraypainted "happy n-word month" on a statue on campus. The year before I got there, people covered the outside of the black culture center with cotton balls. There are two non-black sororities that let black people join outside of tokens (though for whatever reason there doesn't seem to be an issue with frats). When the protestors asked the president what systematic racism was he said "Its when you believe you don't have the same opportunities as everyone else." While he might not have meant it the way it sounded, he has to know better than that.
I'm glad that the protesters were noticed and I'm proud of our football team for standing up for what they believe in. I do believe that you're correct that the football team killed any chance of keeping his job, but football players get exploited enough that I like seeing them use their leverage for change.
GasBandit
Staff member
Turns out , a non trivial amount of it might just be completely fabricated.
In a day and age when every college student has a camera on their phone, there is ZERO evidence of the poop swastika.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...cly-available-proof-press-treats-mizzou-feces
The student body president has admitted that he is spreading false rumors about KKK activity.
http://twitchy.com/2015/11/11/mizzo...dy-with-false-kkk-on-campus-rumor-screenshot/
Everybody just takes every claim at face value apparently, and doesn't do any actual checking up on it. Who knows how much of the rest of the story is manufactured out of whole cloth.
Yeah the protestors have lost a lot of credibility when it comes to the threats in my eyes. The threat to shoot up the school was real (as in that it happened, not that someone had plans to shoot up the school) and in response, the police stationed extra officers on campus and offered to escort anyone who did not feel safe around campus. They ended up catching the person who made the threat as well. However, the protesters are still claiming that the school does not care at all because they said that they (correctly) did not believe that there was imminent danger on campus, comparing it to when there was a bomb threat at our student center a few months ago, which was promptly evacuated. To me, these are very different scenarios, as it is easy to clear out a building, and nigh-impossible to clear out a campus as large as Mizzou.
I don't think this invalidates the original protests, or their original cause, but these complaints seem to be grasping at straws.
I don't think this invalidates the original protests, or their original cause, but these complaints seem to be grasping at straws.