Poor taste, I guess. The guy was in the background somewhere and told the kid to stop and how would he feel if he had a daughter and this happened to her.Were they asking him to stop with the rape jokes because they were in poor taste, or did they ask him to stop talking about the rape because it might incriminate them?
I ask because I haven't seen the video, nor do I want to, but maybe they're all sociopaths, except one of them is a particularly dumb one.
Yeah I was trying to find a better phrase to describe it, but went with poor taste in the end.Poor taste, I guess. The guy was in the background somewhere and told the kid to stop and how would he feel if he had a daughter and this happened to her.
And poor taste are hardly the words to describe it.
I'm firmly convinced that all humans start out as sociopaths, and it is only through forceful, effective parenting that these tiny monsters ever hope to function in society without being let off the metaphorical choke chain of immediate negative consequences. Unfortunately, that's getting to be more and more rare as time goes on.I watched the video where these kids were joking about the event. I think the one kid is a sociopath. He showed absolutely no remorse for what he did, even when one of his own friends interjected and asked him to stop with the rape jokes.
As a native from California where no one gave a shit about football, I had to start pretending I knew what was going on half the time because some people can be downright insulted if you don't. When that guy in the burnt orange hummer wearing a jersey asks you if you were excited about the big game, just say "Yes! Totally! Hook'em!".I think I might be (well, and Charlie) the only person in Texas who isn't absolutely psychotic from my brain being cooked by football fever due to overdoses of direct intravenous pigskin injections. When I first heard about this story I thought "goddamn it, Texas, here we go again" but to my surprise it wasn't...
I live in Texas and I don't like footballI think I might be (well, and Charlie) the only person in Texas who isn't absolutely psychotic from my brain being cooked by football fever due to overdoses of direct intravenous pigskin injections. When I first heard about this story I thought "goddamn it, Texas, here we go again" but to my surprise it wasn't...
I'm firmly convinced that all humans start out as sociopaths, and it is only through forceful, effective parenting that these tiny monsters ever hope to function in society without being let off the metaphorical choke chain of immediate negative consequences. Unfortunately, that's getting to be more and more rare as time goes on.
View attachment 9585
"If I could smother you in your sleep and take what I want, I would, but I haven't developed the manual dexterity yet. The clock is ticking on teaching me right from wrong. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock."
I do love the shit out of my guns though, so there's still that stereotypeI live in Texas and I don't like football
Realistically, that's probably a safe bet for most Texans who happen to post here, but we can all attest to the phenomenon of which I speak.I live in Texas and I don't like football
a chemical castration, and 25 years of community services along with those star football players that did it (if they did, of course - I fully believe the sheriff and DA were hiding what happened, but I'll wait for a court to speak on this instead of just accepting and believing anything Anonymous says, too), whose castrations don't have to be chemical for all I care.
*yawn* and not being able to recognise hyperbole makes you an idiot who can easily "counter" any argument by thinking everyone is either an extreme hippie or an extreme fascist, and thus only fighting those extremes. I don't think people should be castrated; on the other hand, just last month a couple was convicted in Belgium for prostituting their 12 y/o twins. They got heavy prison time and fines....for not declaring the income on their tax returns. For child abuse, prostitution, inciting to abuse, and so on? Eh, 2 years. That not a just justice system makes.This is utterly barbaric and makes you look as bad as the rapists. This is why the US has a "cruel and unusual punishment" thing in the Constitution.
This is utterly barbaric and makes you look as bad as the rapists. This is why the US has a "cruel and unusual punishment" thing in the Constitution.
*yawn* and not being able to recognise hyperbole makes you an idiot who can easily "counter" any argument by thinking everyone is either an extreme hippie or an extreme fascist, and thus only fighting those extremes. I don't think people should be castrated; on the other hand, just last month a couple was convicted in Belgium for prostituting their 12 y/o twins. They got heavy prison time and fines....for not declaring the income on their tax returns. For child abuse, prostitution, inciting to abuse, and so on? Eh, 2 years. That not a just justice system makes.
let's try something new: rehabilitationTell us Charlie, what punishment is fitting for crimes of this nature? Pat on the back? Slap on the wrist? A stern lecture? Yeah, a stern lecture with lots of finger pointing and hand waving... that should do the trick.
As far as I'm concerned these little bastards should be locked up and have the key thrown away... and the adults protecting them can have the same damn thing.
So, potentially, I can do anything I want so long as I repent afterwards?let's try something new: rehabilitation
Hell, according to some southern baptists I've talked to you don't even have to repent, just accept Jesus into your heart as your lord and savior. But that's an unrelated idiocy for another thread.So, potentially, I can do anything I want so long as I repent afterwards?
Huh? no. I don't think that word means what you think it means.So, potentially, I can do anything I want so long as I repent afterwards?
let's try something new: rehabilitation
Well that's kind of a given... we are only arguing hypothetically here.Or even a trial first.
Treat people like human beings, and they just might act like human beings. If you think the United States Criminal Justice System treats anyone involved with it like a human being, then I think you're a fucking idiot.
We can't go around protecting victims by keeping the confused, nice people off the streets. No matter how many people that they hurt.Maybe those animals should have given that girl the same consideration hmmmm?
Please leave "Eye for an eye" arguments back in third world countries and ancient religions where they belong, not in a civilized society in the year 2013. Thanks.Maybe those animals should have given that girl the same consideration hmmmm?
Please leave "Eye for an eye" arguments back in third world countries and ancient religions where they belong, not in a civilized society in the year 2013. Thanks.
I must say, if I get the chance, I'd prefer to live in a world where CharlieJustice is reality. Because I will fucking conquer the shit out of that world.
Yeah, it's like GTA - go on a supervillainous spree, mass mayhem murder and malfeasance... and if I fail, a few years vacation while I "rehabilitate" and then try again having learned what tripped me up last time. It's like the Konami Code of criminality.Well, I'm pretty sure you could fake your way out of Charlie rehab and back into society pretty easily.
That's kinda terrifying all around.A friend of mine is a vet, she lives in the middle of no where northern Canada. She was raped by a group of loggers, she then convinced them to go home with her, "for some more"
she may or may not have put sleeping pills in their beer and castrated them in their sleep. She lost her license to practice medicine, but other then that suffered no real punishment.
Does this make her a criminal?
In the middle of no where Canada, you might have one RCMP officer in a 100 km radius.
No, no, I meant Khan, in the way of just checking that we weren't repeating the circumstances that got Straub and Tastemaker to say "Fuck it!" and nuke HP.He probably means your friend.
She was in the Yukon wasn't she?A friend of mine is a vet, she lives in the middle of no where northern Canada. She was raped by a group of loggers, she then convinced them to go home with her, "for some more"
she may or may not have put sleeping pills in their beer and castrated them in their sleep. She lost her license to practice medicine, but other then that suffered no real punishment.
Does this make her a criminal?
In the middle of no where Canada, you might have one RCMP officer in a 100 km radius.
Actually, no.Oh, and it's better for humanity if rapists are put to death, mmmkay?
Actually, no.
No. They don't. We have this Constitution.Castrate them and lock them up. They lost their rights as a "human being" the moment they goddamn gang raped a girl.
That is a very salient point. I've read that generally crimes of passion offenders are extremely remorseful, and so restorative justice could very well work.Ya, and we've seen that these guys really feel bad and want to be forgiven.
I'm all for restorative justice, but the violent offenders need to actually want to be involved. The... individuals... involved in this case have shown no such inclination from what I've read.
Gas knows. He knows everything. The all powerful Gasbandit, towering over us mental midgets.You don't know if they're bad when they're 13.5 years old.
Did you really just say that while at the same time being vehemently anti gun?No. They don't. We have this Constitution.
The Constitution is as wrong on legalizing guns as it was wrong on Prohibition imoDid you really just say that while at the same time being vehemently anti gun?
That doesn't really address your argument there. In fact, it kind of undercuts it.The Constitution is as wrong on legalizing guns as it was wrong on Prohibition imo
I think his point was, you can't use the constitution, standing on its own, as an unassailable shield for your arguments on punishment when you've been poking holes in it for your other pet issues.The Constitution is as wrong on legalizing guns as it was wrong on Prohibition imo
If you talked more like this, I wouldn't think you're a raving lunatic.I'm not saying that every criminal can be rehabilitated. I don't think the Norway Massacre guy, almost any terrorist, should ever be released from prison. But saying stuff like all rapists (including young teenaged ones like in this story) should be castrated/murdered/imprisoned forever just is way too broad a stroke.
That's all fine and dandy, but your agreement with any part of it is inconsequential. Either you say "the Constitution is a historic document, that should be read and reinterpreted, allowing for changing cultural values", or you say "the Constitution is holy and untouchable, it's a text set forth by infallible superhumans" (guess which one I consider the correct way of dealing with the Constitution? Or the Bible or Quran, for that matter?). You can't claim the Constitution as an authority argument here, and dismiss the exact same argument over there.Alright, let me try again: I agree with the constitution on outlawing cruel and unusual punishment, and disagree on it with guns.
FORTHEUPMPTEENTHTIME"WELLREGULATEDMILITIA"DOESNOTMEANSTRICTLYCONTROLLEDBYTHEGOVERNMENTITMEANSWELLRUNNINGANDWELLEQUIPPEDTO"REGULAR"STANDARDSI thinks it's constitutionally fair that if you own anything bigger than a handgun or hunting rifle you need to be a part of a well-regulated militia.
hmm.. this sounds like an activist judge trying to rewrite the Constitution for their own wants to me.....FORTHEUPMPTEENTHTIME"WELLREGULATEDMILITIA"DOESNOTMEANSTRICTLYCONTROLLEDBYTHEGOVERNMENTITMEANSWELLRUNNINGANDWELLEQUIPPEDTO"REGULAR"STANDARDS
It actually sounds more like a congressional scholar or languages professor remarking on what those words actually meant at the time as opposed to now.hmm.. this sounds like an activist judge trying to rewrite the Constitution for their own wants to me.....
Because everyone started jerking off to their sick and twisted revenge and castration penalties, and I said I supported the "cruel and unusual punishment" part of the Constitution.Also, wasn't this thread about some asshole rapists? Why are we discussing guns here when we already have a thread going about that?
What doesn't?hmm.. this sounds like an activist judge trying to rewrite the Constitution for their own wants to me.....
Because everyone started jerking off to their sick and twisted revenge and castration penalties, and I said I supported the "cruel and unusual punishment" part of the Constitution.
This part seems the most easily changeable to me.Not only that, but his point about "you should have to belong to a militia" is moot because according to 10 USC 311, if you're a male between 17 and 45, you ARE automatically in the militia.
According to the supreme court it means slightly more than you would like it to apparently:FORTHEUPMPTEENTHTIME"WELLREGULATEDMILITIA"DOESNOTMEANSTRICTLYCONTROLLEDBYTHEGOVERNMENTITMEANSWELLRUNNINGANDWELLEQUIPPEDTO"REGULAR"STANDARDS
I don't know any gun owners, myself included who are a part of anything resembling this. Personally I think it's safe to say both sides of the gun control argument have moved beyond the framers concept for the 2nd amendment and have both modernized it. I'm ok with that mind you, I don't think anti-gun control arguments are all bad nor do I think that guns should be banned. I do think there are some serious issues regarding how guns are bought and sold and regulated.Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[120] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[121]
In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[48]A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[48]"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48]
Well, there we're also running into the definition of militia - the applicable definition of militia here is any able bodied male civilian unconnected with the armed forces. There isn't a government body called "the militia," there isn't a place to go to join "the militia," militia is just a term for peasants with firearms acting in a militant manner.Like I said in my post, obviously it's moved beyond that. Both sides have modernized their take, and clearly the Supreme Court is dealing with that more modern take on it. I'm okay with this. But lets not pretend that the founders didn't think we needed a militia to protect from tyranny.
Oh, didn't you hear? She totally had it coming. She drank alcohol, and you know about those girls who drink alcohol: total sluts that deserve to be raped.As it should have been if everything we've heard is what really happened.
A nice start. I don't think justice will have been done until all those who tried to cover up the crimes are convicted and punished as well.
So would I, but don't you know that saying that teenagers shouldn't be getting drunk is blaming the victim?I'd like to see accessory to rape charges put against those adults who supplied the alcohol, personally.
Did you see the headline at Breitbart.com? "Guilty Verdict in Steubenville Rape Case that Saw Anonymous Terrorize a Town".Were it not for Anonymous getting involved, I rather doubt anything would have come of it.
Are you serious?!?[DOUBLEPOST=1363635172][/DOUBLEPOST]Jesus Christ I just read that article. I have no words. And the comments...oh dear and fluffy lord the comments....Did you see the headline at Breitbart.com? "Guilty Verdict in Steubenville Rape Case that Saw Anonymous Terrorize a Town".
Sadly, yes. I only skimmed the article, but it claims that Anonymous intimidated witnesses, humiliated the victim by forcing her into the spotlight, and is the result of a conspiracy to falsely portray the US as promoting rape culture. Generally the article seems to be centered around the idea that this sexual assault shouldn't have been national news.Are you serious?!?
You did catch the sarcasm, right?breitbart dot com owns.
ALSO I disagree with nearly everything Steinman has said above
I agree with you. Living in Kingwood, Texas I've heard far too many stories about the bad things that can happen when adults supply alcohol (and drugs) to minors. I don't even want to think about how many rapes have occurred because of it, and been covered up because the "bubble city" has to maintain it's reputation as a safe place to raise children. I don't doubt that there are stories that would make Steubenville pale in comparison.Oh rats, I forgot.
I'm sure this would have happened even if none of these teenagers were drinking, thus making the adult who provided the alcohol free of blame. He or she was just providing a little mood lightening drink to help these troubled teens relax a little bit.
Of course, there are all these cases where wrongfull death suits are brought against people who supplied alcohol to minors that ended up having a car wreck due to their drinking. Quite frankly the victim, and possibly her attackers, have a case against them.
And if more such cases were brought up and adults found out that they might be responsible for the behavior of drunk teens, they might more frequently reconsider supplying the alcohol in the future.
From the amount of bad things that I've heard about happening at drinking parties, yeah it is the same thing. It's not always rape, but it's often enough something bad that it is reckless to be supplying teenagers with alcohol.I don't see the parents (or whoever provided alcohol) as particularly bad. Late night drinking parties are fairly common in high school. The vast majority of them do not end up in rape. Giving high schoolers alcohol is not the same as helping rape happen.
While we do need to teach men that rape is unacceptable, and how to define rape accurately... and there's a good argument to make for promoting a balanced view of alcohol... It's still not good for teenagers to be getting drunk, especially not en masse. We teach that theft and destruction of public property is unacceptable, but drunk kids still go out and destroy mailboxes or, more spectacularly, drive a front-loader though the wall of a middle school. The problem here is not simply that these kids may not have been told "don't rape"; it's that they've been told that they can do whatever they want, even if they've been told not to do that very thing, and that it'll get covered up because football is more important than anything else.[DOUBLEPOST=1363638066][/DOUBLEPOST]The solution isn't to stigmatize alcohol even further to young people; the solution is to continue teaching men to not rape women.
This is a very sad truth, and it goes even further. Many girls that age feel they can't even come forward if they weren't drunk, because no one would believe them. Especially when it comes to Football players. I wouldn't be surprised if, in high school, had I been the victim of robbery, had my wallet stolen by some jock, that they would have been the ones given the benefit of the doubt. I would have had to prove that I didn't willingly hand over my belongings to the star athlete. It would have been possible for me to prove that, since I was a goody two-shoes and well known at my church, but it wouldn't have been a foregone conclusion. Thankfully, I never had such a run-in, but I can't imagine what it's like for women to have to try to convince people of something far more serious, and far more damaging to her reputation. Having your wallet stolen doesn't carry the stigma of being a rape victim.One of the real problems is that many minors who are raped while drunk don't come forward because they blame themselves for getting drunk in the first place. They often don't even count it as a rape and worry that if they admit to drinking they'll get in worse trouble, and that people won't believe them when they say it wasn't consensual.
It is all the fault of white menNow that you've so easily resolved the rape problem in a way that completely eliminates all other surrounding factors, I hope you will consider solving the Middle East problem.
I don't disagree on any of that. I'm just tired of the lopsidedness of it.The fact that stealing is illegal and morally wrong does not mean I accuse people who lock their doors and windows to be blaming the victims, or perpetuating "theft culture." Yes, we should be making it crystal clear that rape is unacceptable. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be encouraging potential victims to be smart and safe - there are bad people out there, and even if they go to jail for ruining your life, your life is still ruined.
That, and as others said in the thread, we need to deal with our problem of celebrity worship - that celebrities, be they high school football stars or hollywood directors, are often let off the hook because of their celebrity status. How good a player is should not factor into what laws he is allowed to break.
Did anyone else see this and think "Wow. Charlie Brown really took a wrong turn somewhere in his life."?
And I don't think most people who tell girls to be careful of who they are with/where they are/what kind of attention they may get from "those clothes" are always victim blaming, but there are many who are and participate in a culture that says, "Men can't control themselves around women, especially if those women wear sexy clothes".The fact that stealing is illegal and morally wrong does not mean I accuse people who lock their doors and windows to be blaming the victims, or perpetuating "theft culture." Yes, we should be making it crystal clear that rape is unacceptable. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be encouraging potential victims to be smart and safe - there are bad people out there, and even if they go to jail for ruining your life, your life is still ruined.
That, and as others said in the thread, we need to deal with our problem of celebrity worship - that celebrities, be they high school football stars or hollywood directors, are often let off the hook because of their celebrity status. How good a player is should not factor into what laws he is allowed to break.
Is that a rape joke? [DOUBLEPOST=1363680143][/DOUBLEPOST]In conclusion - fuck the patriarchy.
This, so much this. Of course alcohol is a factor, but the ingrained thought that when they have less self control is alright to do this kind of thing is the real problem.I'm on Charlie's side for once.
Men make choices. The availability of alcohol, the sight of a girl in revealing clothing--these things do not change the fact that we make choices. I'm disgusted by the whole "she was asking for it" thing not only because it's victim-blaming, but I don't think any man here wants it to be believed that when you see a girl in revealing clothes, your first thought is "RAPE HER MUST RAPE HER NOW". I'm tired of the female gender being beat down, but I'm also tired of my gender being viewed as a bunch of rutting neanderthals. So yes, it is absolutely important that young men are taught not to rape, not that to rape is the expectation and that it's up to women to avoid getting caught in it.
I certainly agree. I think Espy's post is spot on, actually. What I meat to say is that in this case the bigger problem is that one, and the (ir)responsible adults surrounding this have responsibility for: 1-Bringing up the kids with these 'she had it coming' ideas, 2-Having the football players think that they can't be held accountable for anything short of killing someone or whatever, 3-Allowing them to drink and go wild, in this order.[...]
But we also need to question our ready dismissal of those that provided the environment where such a crime could be committed. I believe we can condemn their actions without in any way lessening or absolving the criminals of their responsibility for their act. They did not cause the crime to occur, but they certainly provided an unsupervised place, a time, and tools that made it easier to perpetrate.
most of the time the "bad people" are friends and family. Same goes for a lot of stuff.The fact that stealing is illegal and morally wrong does not mean I accuse people who lock their doors and windows to be blaming the victims, or perpetuating "theft culture." Yes, we should be making it crystal clear that rape is unacceptable. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be encouraging potential victims to be smart and safe - there are bad people out there, and even if they go to jail for ruining your life, your life is still ruined.
That, and as others said in the thread, we need to deal with our problem of celebrity worship - that celebrities, be they high school football stars or hollywood directors, are often let off the hook because of their celebrity status. How good a player is should not factor into what laws he is allowed to break.
See, this reads slightly to me like "girls and women are responsible for getting raped if they drink too much"Does that,mean that you, QP, and Charlie are against discussing how alcohol is also a problem?
I agree that we need to teach everyone, both boys and girls, men and women, that each individual are responsible for their own actions, regardless of outside factors.
.
Back when I was in high school there was a fad, of sorts, for kids to try to reach 100mph on Kingwood Drive, they called it "The 100 Club". The highest speed limit on that road is 45mph, and that's pretty close to sane limits in some places. It's a heavily wooded drive with a lot of limited visibility and traffic lights that are visible just outside of stopping distance. There is no way to travel even 60 safely, let alone 100. The reckless endangerment involved in reaching 100mph on that road is very real, even in wee hours of the night when few people are on the road. Yet teenagers did it, or at least claimed to. I know kids who definitely got tickets for going over 80mph on the same road.*What I mean is, in a car accident due to alcohol the problem can purely be irresponsible alcohol consumption, underestimating the effect of alcohol on your reflexes etc. In this case it's not as simple as that, there's an underlying problem.
But yeah, those people should be held accountable.
I can't speak for "most of the time," but I can definitely tell you there are still gangs of men in dark alleys even in today's day and age, as I know someone who did literally get dragged into an alley, despite certain people's assurances that such things don't happen any more. And there are always men trying to ply away women's inhibitions with alcohol and/or drugs. Men still ambush women in parking lots. The perpetrators should be punished of course, but it's still a good idea to teach situational awareness and caution to potential victims... in the hope that it may prevent them from becoming actual victims.most of the time the "bad people" are friends and family. Same goes for a lot of stuff.
According to RAINN, who I'm guessing probably has good figures on this sort of thing, it's 2/3rds. I suppose that could constitute "vast," but it doesn't cover methodry.I don't have the stat in front of me, but the VAST majority of sexual assaults are from people the victim knows.
The problem is that men don't have to be careful in the same ways. We get less blame, and to be honest, it is fucking scary out there to be a woman. I had no idea until it was outright explained to me, but the shit women have to worry about, that is upon them and is their responsibility to worry about and evade, is stuff I would never think about. My wife will come home sometimes and tell me about things that are said or done around her--never happens when I'm around. It's not because I'm big or tough or scary. I'm not. It's because I'm a man and that alone changes things.Of course, Steinman is also saying men should be careful in the same ways, and that all people should take responsibility for their own actions/safety. I don't see any victim blaming in that.
Depends on the culture of the area. In some places codes of silence like this are considered your civic duty, messed up as that may be.I am amazed at the morals that the coaching staff had when I came through school. They literally wanted to keep us off of drugs and out of trouble with the law. Not hop us up and make excuses/cover up for anything we did.
I just don't get corrupting kids, to win games.
Ah-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Th-THAT IS AWFUL! What is wrong with younglings? I remember seeing a show where the girls did this to a rape victim and thought "Oh come on, that wouldn't happen!" WELL NOW I KNOW IT DID HAPPEN! Fuckin' terrible this world.And the town kids are still stupid...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...threats-against-steubenville-rape-victim?lite
I know, its just a horrible thing to accept about our world. Its like those Japanese videos games that I don't want to describe in detail because they are terrible.It's hard to argue that we don't have a "rape culture" when you see girls doing this kind of stuff.
You don't have to accept it.I know, its just a horrible thing to accept about our world. Its like those Japanese videos games that I don't want to describe in detail because they are terrible.
And then just the fact that someone would treat a person who went through such torture so terribly, I want to believe in the good of humanity but people like this make me question it to many million degrees.
The reason people do this is somehow tied to when people make jokes about prisoners getting raped repeatedly.Ah-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Th-THAT IS AWFUL! What is wrong with younglings? I remember seeing a show where the girls did this to a rape victim and thought "Oh come on, that wouldn't happen!" WELL NOW I KNOW IT DID HAPPEN! Fuckin' terrible this world.
I hate those kinds of places. My wife grew up in places like that. Not too happy to see what they consider outsiders.Depends on the culture of the area. In some places codes of silence like this are considered your civic duty, messed up as that may be.
That's because you're not a member of the ruling class. In DC, that's government workers. In Texas, it's high school football programs.Really I don't see why Hacking is considered one of the worst crimes on the books. Especially, web page vandalism and hactivism.[DOUBLEPOST=1370899694][/DOUBLEPOST]If he stole my credit card number, he would have never been investigated.
Exactly. Plus, in order to get the message out there, he engaged with Anonymous. That makes him a hacker and a terrorist. He deserves no less than to be locked in Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his life.He deserves it. He questioned the police and is a whistle-blower. And you know how we treat whistle-blowers in this part of the world. He should have known better than to make the football program look bad.
Yes, this is all sarcasm.
What the what?!? Child pornography? Is that what they are calling the video of the young girl? Dude, that's thin as shit. Had he not done this, the video in question would have been disappeared, just as all the others mysteriously did. And since the cops were actively trying to suppress the case, including evidence, what else was he supposed to do.He posted child pornography to a website he had no legal right to hack.
There are ways to blow the whistle, and ways not to blow the whistle.
He chose the wrong way to do it.
Girl gets raped in flyover country and nobody there gives a crap? Yeah I'm sure that the news networks were going to fall over themselves to break that story. I'm sure that the same networks that mourned how the two rapists lives were over would have loved to pressure the local government to take that case to court.So you are saying that if he passed the video on to tv stations around the state and nation, and activist groups, etc, then nothing would have happened?
He put it on their website to make a big splash. He most certainly had other options that weren't illegal.
I say you take it on a case by case basis. In this case the guy hacked a website harming nobody to bring two boys who raped a girl to justice.So as long as a whistleblower says they had to break a law in order to stop the criminal activity they are reporting, then they should get off without being prosecuted?
What laws should a whistleblower still have to follow? Should they be allowed to break traffic laws, in order to tell their story? Commit robbery? If necessary to gather evidence, should they be allowed to use a handgun to threaten a board member to get information? Will they be acquitted of murder if they can show that the death of someone helped them to blow the whistle and expose corruption?
The law does not permit whistleblowers to break the law. It has a very limited set of protections that prevent retaliation (such as firing and lawsuits) on whistleblowers from the organizations they reported, but it DOES NOT permit the whistleblower to conduct criminal activity.
If you think that the ONLY way that this particular corruption could have been released is using CLEARLY ILLEGAL means, then I can't change your opinion. It just seems extraordinarily narrow minded. Out of all the methods, only illegal methods would have worked? Give me a break.
Besides which, this is not "whistleblowing" - though that's a convenient term people like using these days. There's not much point in debating definitions, though. Legally this isn't whistleblowing, and allowing someone to conduct criminal activity and break the law while reporting that someone else broke the law is pretty silly.
You should read this article, its a much better source (really the last one shouldn't even be called a source)The only thing he did was organize some protests.
The X-Files have taught me that the FBI is requested by local authorities to assist when the situation is bigger than the available resources to handle it. Usually this involves some kind of genetic mutant and/or possible extra-terrestrial lifeforms.I'm usually not either, but this situation was inexcusably poorly handled across the board by officials. There's simply no denying that.
Anyways, you want to know the part that really confuses me about this? The FBI was involved in the raid. How does a lcoal jurisdiction pressure the FBI to do something like this. I was always under the impression that the FBI doesn't take orders from some rural sheriff or PTA or football team or whatever.
I don't think it's so much rape culture as "golden child/celebrities/sports figures can do whatever they want" culture. I mean, after all, they probably would have done the same no matter what the crime was. There have been plenty of instances of high school, collegiate and even professional athletes trying (and sometimes succeeding) to duck the rap for everything from robbery to murder. I even remember posting a story about how a high school football program was trying to get the date of one of their players' murder trial moved so it wouldn't impact his ability to play that season.The next time someone asks me what "rape culture" is, or argues it doesn't exist, I am going to point this shit out.
This is true. Imagine if it'd been for something like underage drinking, or doing lines of coke at a party, or showing off stuff they'd shoplifted from the local Wal-Mart. The same thing would probably still happen.I don't think it's so much rape culture as "golden child/celebrities/sports figures can do whatever they want" culture. I mean, after all, they probably would have done the same no matter what the crime was. There have been plenty of instances of high school, collegiate and even professional athletes trying (and sometimes succeeding) to duck the rap for everything from robbery to murder.
When someone is robbed, they are robbed, everyone acknowledges their goods were stolen. It's not like. "So... you left that computer in your room, right on a desk? You were kind of asking for it with that TV in the living room mounted right on the wall....""Rape culture"is about a society in which rape and sexual violence are linked to attitudes within the culture. So yes, this example is a perfect representation of something that is disturbingly prevalent in our society. It's about a society "in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape". It's one where the victims are blamed for the rape. The military is 20x worse than our society at large, but no doubt about it, our culture has fostered these kinds of things for a looooooong time.
Except they totally do. "Your neighbors saw you carrying in that 50 inch plasma, what did you think was going to happen? Do you know what part of town you live in?"When someone is robbed, they are robbed, everyone acknowledges their goods were stolen. It's not like. "So... you left that computer in your room, right on a desk? You were kind of asking for it with that TV in the living room mounted right on the wall...."
If this happens I will start believing in God. I could get behind this.These inhuman scum and anyone that covered it up or watched and didn't report should be locked up for the rest of their ride on this planet. It sounds like a lot of kids, but I don't want them in my society.
I hate this story. I hope a meteor hits that town. I want some Biblical wraith jacking that place up. Sink hole to the Earth's core. Something.
Not really. I was just trying to agree that jocks do get differential treatment (in some places). I was also trying to give a rebuttal to Charlie's post, but it wasn't very well constructed. I'm not interested in debating this topic anyway. There's nothing to debate.Heh, man, I feel like I missed an epic post.
No, which is what I said in my post above. That's called common sense. However when all the focus is on telling women how to avoid rape but never on telling men to stop raping thats where the idea of "rape culture" comes in to play.Is telling people how to decrease their chance of victimization really an act of promoting those crimes and giving those criminals an excuse for their behavior?
I don't think its fair to apply this to "jocks".Not really. I was just trying to agree that jocks do get differential treatment (in some places). I was also trying to give a rebuttal to Charlie's post, but it wasn't very well constructed. I'm not interested in debating this topic anyway. There's nothing to debate.
I agree that I should not paint with such a broad brush, and it differs from sport-to-sport. The soccer and track folks don't get the same level of treatment as the big money football and basketball kids. And, I agree it's not just jocks.I don't think its fair to apply this to "jocks".
Let me tell you a story. There are three boys. One is the captain of the football team (which went to state). The second is the son of the mayor. And the third is an heir to a fortune who is a generous benefactor to the school. One day, all three of them comitted a crime together. A teacher believes that some of them did it, but isn't sure which one. Each of the boys and their parents/boosters makes pleas to the teacher about why the child wasn't responsible. Which ones walk away?
The point is that power resides where one thinks it resides.
Edit: ok yeah you did say "in some places", but I've been without Game of Thrones for too long.
None of them are punished. That's how it currently works.I don't think its fair to apply this to "jocks".
Let me tell you a story. There are three boys. One is the captain of the football team (which went to state). The second is the son of the mayor. And the third is an heir to a fortune who is a generous benefactor to the school. One day, all three of them comitted a crime together. A teacher believes that some of them did it, but isn't sure which one. Each of the boys and their parents/boosters makes pleas to the teacher about why the child wasn't responsible. Which ones walk away?
The point is that power resides where one thinks it resides.
Edit: ok yeah you did say "in some places", but I've been without Game of Thrones for too long.
Unless there's a girl involved that they raped. She will probably be shunned and shamed.None of them are punished. That's how it currently works.
Well, clearly she's a slut and a troublemaker, just trying to ruin the lives of these up and coming stars. How dare she.Unless there's a girl involved that they raped. She will probably be shunned and shamed.
Was trying to put my ideas together to respond when I saw this post. You put it far better than I could and with a picture perfect example.No, which is what I said in my post above. That's called common sense. However when all the focus is on telling women how to avoid rape but never on telling men to stop raping thats where the idea of "rape culture" comes in to play.
Here's a great example from the military: Until very, very recently the majority of their focus on stopping rape was training for women to avoid rape. Because 'guys are gonna be guys, just rapin' it up!' was basically the idea. Theres nothing wrong with telling someone how to avoid problems, but we as a society tend to put the majority of the problem on the woman, rather than on the rapist, which is pretty unique to that particular crime. It happens with other crimes but not as often.
Also, in regards to who does and doesn't condone rape: If someone says, "I don't condone rape, BUT I mean, just look at how that girl was dressed/flirted/drank, she was totally asking to be raped" then yes, you are condoning rape. Sorry.
Yep! That was the -ism I was looking for. Despot, Nepot, Pol Pot - they're all bad.You mean nepotism?
Good thing you didn't say Crock Pot, the NSA might have kicked in your door.Yep! That was the -ism I was looking for. Despot, Nepot, Pol Pot - they're all bad.
A crock pot isn't a pressure cooker. Here let me go look up some product comparisons so you can see why they'rGood thing you didn't say Crock Pot, the NSA might have kicked in your door.
Hang on, somebody's at the door, BRB.
If you are convicted of a violent physical assault against another person, your punishment should be worse than someone who does drugs or drinks. Like, you know, be allowed to play on a school's football team. And what do *I* think would have happened that would make justice served? How about actual jail time that is more than the guy who broke the story and blew the whistle? This little fucker raped a girl multiple times and is out less than a year later? Bullshit.Given your obvious disagreement with the result, what do you think should have occurred to this young man for you to believe that justice was satisfied?
None of that matters, they've got games to win!If that team a shred of decency they would have thrown him off the team. Of course they also should have expelled him. That said he should still be in jail....
Yeah, he needs to earn a football scholarship so he can go to college and rape college girls!None of that matters, they've got games to win!
What happened here is not on par with a single knife stab or a gun shot. This was hours of violation. If a 16 year old tied someone up and cut and stabbed them many times over an entire evening, would you be arguing that they didn't understand what they were doing was wrong? Would you argue that someone who committed such torture could be ignorant of the amount of trauma that they were causing?A sixteen year old knows that stabbing or shooting is bad. Yet we treat them differently than a 26 year old who stabs or shoots someone else.
Damn it Charlie, why do you have to always get people riled up... Wait... Steinman? Huh...I agree.
So, in essence, you are arguing that there's no possible way a 16 year old could not understand the magnitude of the crime he was committing. You assert that a 16 year old is mentally and socially fully formed and understands the ramifications of their the decision to rape another human over a period of several hours.
I question the validity of your beliefs. I'd like to see research that shows that every human being of an arbitrary age and up is fully cognizant of the effects of their actions, and thus eligible for the most severe punishments for the crime.
Please prove your point.
Actually I could get behind both of those. In fact, I'll go you one further. Instead of a draft, just have 2 years compulsory military service from 18-20.I'm for corporal punishment in schools and bringing back the draft.
We all have weird beliefs.
You wanna know the REALLY scary thing?
I agree with Gas.
DEE-dooo-DEE-dooo-DEE-dooo
Having discussed the matter at length with my father, who is an avid Heinlein fan, the consensus is that basically Heinlein got nastier as he got older. Starship Troopers in 1959 had some though provoking unconventional ideas about the nature of man, politics, and society. Stranger in a Strange Land in 61 pushed the envelope in areas about sex, love, death, and cannibalism. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in 64 was basically about a war for libertarian independence (no mystery it's one of my favorites).. by 1973, Time Enough For Love had an Author Expy (as mentioned before) having twin female teenaged clones of himself demand that he get them both pregnant (and he sighing and acquiescing), and by 82 he's winning a Hugo award for Friday, which starts off with a graphic chapter-long "fuck your rapist into submission" scene I couldn't even get through.Heinlein....man. That guy. So much of his stuff is just....its good. But its confusing. He is SO hard to box in. Sometimes I'm so sure I should be offended, like in Farnham's Freehold. I'm pretty sure that should have offended me. A lot.
Seems to me we're doing a real good job of molding him into the next Steelers QB.Maybe (ok definitely) that's really idealistic to think that it would help, but at least if he doesn't finish out the sentence he deserves, we're making an effort to educate and mold him into someone who deserves to be outside.
Well, Riley Freeman did have a point.I wish I could say that it was just football, but I think we all have our blind spots. I will admit that I kind of wanted to give R Kelly a pass.
And a toot toot. And a beep beep.
I wish I could say that it was just football, but I think we all have our blind spots. I will admit that I kind of wanted to give R Kelly a pass.
And a toot toot. And a beep beep.
And if the average 18 year old was caught with ecstasy, they'd go to jail in many states. Myeah.There was a news thing that I read about today that fits right along with this discussion.
Dallas Cowboy's cornerback, Orlando Scandrick, has been suspended for 4 games for testing positive for the drug "Molly" (ecstasy), which is not performance enhancing.
4 games.
But Ray Rice gets only 2 for beating the shit out of his girlfriend.
The lesson? Take Molly and get a 4 game suspension. Beat the shit out of Molly and you only get 2.
I'm not one that believes in the "patriarchy" like most feminists do, but I can't understand how in instances like this that drugs, alcohol, etc. are held in more contempt than the physical or sexual abuse of women.
Actually true feminism would take issue that you think it's "worse" to abuse womenI'm not one that believes in the "patriarchy" like most feminists do, but I can't understand how in instances like this that drugs, alcohol, etc. are held in more contempt than the physical or sexual abuse of women.
Just read this: No True ScotsmanDare I even ask?
As in worse to beat/abuse/rape women than to do drugs? I'm afraid I don't get it. It is a worse crime to do ANYONE bodily harm as opposed to drugs or alcohol - as long as the drugs/alcohol are simply taken and not used in a way to harm others.Actually true feminism would take issue that you think it's "worse" to abuse women
In an equal society, absolutely. Everyone has a right to defend themselves.Question. So in the same vain, if a woman starts to hit a man is it reasonable for the man to defend himself in whatever way necessary to stop the assault?
And nowhere did @Dave in any way imply that violence against women is worse than violence against men. Charlie is just being an ass by insisting on gender neutral language when any rational person should realize it's not only unnecessary, it's a damn ridiculous bit of semantic acrobatics when talking about a specific instance.Charlie means that in feminism, doing harm to a woman is on equal severity footing as doing harm to a man.
This is basically the crux of it from a feminist perspective. Implying that it's worse to hit a woman than it is a man implies that women are inherently less capable of taking care of themselves and therefor need more protection.Charlie means that in feminism, doing harm to a woman is on equal severity footing as doing harm to a man.
I'm still confused as to what part of my statement would offend feminists.Feminism, in theory, would have a society where men are equal to women.
However, in reality, men have huge advantages and privilege. One of which is height and strength in most cases that makes retaliation by men against women disproportional (disproportionate? fuck).
The Charlie brand of feminist?I'm still confused as to what part of my statement would offend feminists.
That's because you don't operate by 'Charlie Logic'. What he's saying is that, since you imply that a large professional athlete beating a woman is an especially heinous crime compared to recreational drug use, you're saying that women are defenseless/helpless, which is offensive to feminists.I'm still confused as to what part of my statement would offend feminists.
The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes. Everything else is just theory. - Sepp Herberger, German National Team coachI want to hear Charlie tell me. Everything else is conjecture.
Fair enough. I was actually saying that it was worse to beat a woman than it was to do drugs/alcohol, and confused/concerned that these situations are exactly backwards from that.I dunno, I kind of screwed that up? I just assumed you thought it was worse to abuse women since you only mentioned it specifically.
Are you kidding? everyone is sticking up for the guys!Not that I necessarily condone the action, but I'm honestly surprised someone in that town hasn't tried dealing out some vigilante "justice" on these guys.
Surely not every single person in the town feels that way, though. That's my point. Seems like the vast majority, though, which makes the whole debacle all the worse.Are you kidding? everyone is sticking up for the guys!
I think it makes it much more unlikely. When you feel something is unjust and 'people' agree but the system doesn't, you may feel supported and more compelled to do something vigilante-ish. When you risk becoming another victim, this time of the system AND your neighbors, not so much. Unless you know the unjustly treated victim, of course.Surely not every single person in the town feels that way, though. That's my point. Seems like the vast majority, though, which makes the whole debacle all the worse.
It's Steubenville. Football is serious business there. Forget the small town, bubbles, and all that. It's all about the football.I don't know, man. Small towns. Insulated bubbles. "They're just children" and all that. I can easily see people putting on the blinders and moving on.
And considering how these people have acted already would YOU want to be the person who stood up against them?It's Steubenville. Football is serious business there. Forget the small town, bubbles, and all that. It's all about the football.
And if you do stand up, you can go to prison for longer than the rapists.And considering how these people have acted already would YOU want to be the person who stood up against them?
*obviously, yeah, some of us would want to be that person, but we don't have to live there and deal with the consequences of such actions. It's a lot to ask of someone in that position. And illegal.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nevertellmetheodds/A judge was ambushed in Ohio this morning. The judge and a probation officer returned fire, killing the shooter.
The shooter was the father of one of the Steubenville rape suspects. He had a record, and officials are saying this is probably not connected, but still. Odd coincidence.
A piece of shit raised a piece of shit.A judge was ambushed in Ohio this morning. The judge and a probation officer returned fire, killing the shooter.
The shooter was the father of one of the Steubenville rape suspects. He had a record, and officials are saying this is probably not connected, but still. Odd coincidence.
Because nobody else has said it, it's explicitly mentioned in that article that the Judge had nothing to do with the Son's case, but DID have the shooter in front of him on more than one occasion. I still agree with @sixpackshaker's explanation thoughA judge was ambushed in Ohio this morning. The judge and a probation officer returned fire, killing the shooter.
The shooter was the father of one of the Steubenville rape suspects. He had a record, and officials are saying this is probably not connected, but still. Odd coincidence.
"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!"Police named Nathaniel Richmond, 51 — the father of Ma'lik Richmond, one of two teenage high school football stars from Steubenville, Ohio, convicted in 2013 of raping a 16-year-old girl — as the shooter in the ambush. Bruzzese had nothing to do with that case, officials said.
But the judge was not defenseless. The armed Bruzzese returned fire with his own weapon, according to police.
A probation officer, who was behind Bruzzese, also fired at Richmond.