Is political correctness stifling debate?

[fleabitten]

Yes but did she try to make out that the guy just went out to a party and all of a sudden he's accepting what he thought was a voluntary donation at gun point from a blind drunk person, but it turns out the victim is unfairly accusing him of armed robbery?

Had that girl just given the guy a character reference, fine. But she said to the world, on the back of a high profile case, that people who rape are not always rapists. Come on.

I think she just worded it badly. She doesn't seem all that smart. I think she was trying to say that drunk sex at college is not always rape and that she believes this was just a case of two drunk people hooking up. It doesn't really jive with the fact that he tried to run when the Swedish guys found them, but if she's known the guy for years it's not hard to see why she might have a biased view.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I think she just worded it badly. She doesn't seem all that smart. I think she was trying to say that drunk sex at college is not always rape and that she believes this was just a case of two drunk people hooking up. It doesn't really jive with the fact that he tried to run when the Swedish guys found them, but if she's known the guy for years it's not hard to see why she might have a biased view.

I get that she might not be that bright, but when you're writing to a judge in a high-profile case, pretty much everyone knows the significance of that, yeah?

Getting her band taken off bills does seem over-the-top, but I'll say it a 5th time of whatever. These are people using the tools of capitalism to political ends. Organising potential boycotts and applying consumer pressure; people might call that "political correctness" but they're really just trying to get society to start taking rape more seriously and using the tools of free speech and capitalism to do it.

People who disagree with them are welcome to do the same. Economic rationalists have encouraged this behaviour.

 

[DemonTim]

I get that she might not be that bright, but when you're writing to a judge in a high-profile case, pretty much everyone knows the significance of that, yeah?

Getting her band taken off bills does seem over-the-top, but I'll say it a 5th time of whatever. These are people using the tools of capitalism to political ends. Organising potential boycotts and applying consumer pressure; people might call that "political correctness" but they're really just trying to get society to start taking rape more seriously and using the tools of free speech and capitalism to do it.

People who disagree with them are welcome to do the same. Economic rationalists have encouraged this behaviour.

Are they though? Will people take rape "more seriously" because her band was removed? I'd say how much he/his father/her/the American legal system has been condemned it's being taken pretty seriously

Maybe these people should use public power to force the legal system to change, instead of getting one person (plus the other members not involved) kicked out of their paid employment. It's Internet activism at its finest. The majority of these tweets were most likely from people who have done nothing for this topic.

I'm more worried about how social media is stifling educated opinion, than political correctness

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Are they though? Will people take rape "more seriously" because her band was removed? I'd say how much he/his father/her/the American legal system has been condemned it's being taken pretty seriously

Maybe these people should use public power to force the legal system to change, instead of getting one person (plus the other members not involved) kicked out of their paid employment. It's Internet activism at its finest. The majority of these tweets were most likely from people who have done nothing for this topic.

I'm more worried about how social media is stifling educated opinion, than political correctness

People having opinions that you don't think are well thought through is not new at all. Social media lets them talk to each other. It's up to others to decide if they take them seriously.

Similarly these opinions aren't new and attempts to change legal systems are very hard. And they're also very politicised in America, where they still can't appoint a Supreme Court judge because Republicans won't even accept Obama's nominee who they had previously said would be the acceptable option. So, no, I think using other tools is a realistic approach. "Internet activism" is normally dismissed for having no real effect. Now it's been dismissed for having real effects.

And, yes, undoubtedly people seeing the outcome of the girl's "character reference" (which also went into detail about the case) will realise that you can't be so dismissive of rape. Undeniably it helps promote that agenda of minimising victim-blaming. Punishing the whole band and her livelihood seems over-the-top, but it is certainly what the free market culture promotes.

 

[DemonTim]

People having opinions that you don't think are well thought through is not new at all. Social media lets them talk to each other. It's up to others to decide if they take them seriously.

Similarly these opinions aren't new and attempts to change legal systems are very hard. And they're also very politicised in America, where they still can't appoint a Supreme Court judge because Republicans won't even accept Obama's nominee who they had previously said would be the acceptable option. So, no, I think using other tools is a realistic approach. "Internet activism" is normally dismissed for having no real effect. Now it's been dismissed for having real effects.

And, yes, undoubtedly people seeing the outcome of the girl's "character reference" (which also went into detail about the case) will realise that you can't be so dismissive of rape. Undeniably it helps promote that agenda of minimising victim-blaming. Punishing the whole band and her livelihood seems over-the-top, but it is certainly what the free market culture promotes.

And this is why things never change. You're basically saying they can attack the individual, because the culture promotes it. But they shouldn't attack the system. Because it's all too hard. All you're doing is advocating the system to continue as it is

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

I don't agree with what she said, but I don't think people should be condemned for giving character references to judges. My mother has done it for a man who committed armed robbery, she's also been a victim of the same offence. I'd hardly say she is an armed robbery apologist.

Shyt analogy Tim. I don't have a problem with her providing a character reference. Excusing the behaviour of a rapist with a bit of casual victim blaming is something different altogether.

Whilst she may be thick as two planks, that does not excuse ignorance

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

And this is why things never change. You're basically saying they can attack the individual, because the culture promotes it. But they shouldn't attack the system. Because it's all too hard. All you're doing is advocating the system to continue as it is

If the system refuses to change using one set of tactics then why wouldn't people try different tactics? I'm not condoning this specific approach. I'm just pointing out it is the product of the culture of the free market that the west has been pursuing for 30-35 years. Previously it would've been complained about in University groups whereupon it was dismissed as 'elitism' or 'femi-Nazis' or whatever.

The take-away from anyone being fair on all this, is that the problem is none of the above when it comes to complaints about elitism or political correctness or internet activism. The problem is that some people don't like what they're saying and want to label it and dismiss it.

 

[DemonTim]

Shyt analogy Tim. I don't have a problem with her providing a character reference. Excusing the behaviour of a rapist with a bit of casual victim blaming is something different altogether.

Whilst she may be thick as two planks, that does not excuse ignorance

Not really. Perhaps that's what most character references contain. You're only up in arms at this one because it was made public

She's obviously too close to make an unbiased opinion on the matter, I don't think internet activism is helping anything.

 

[DemonTim]

If the system refuses to change using one set of tactics then why wouldn't people try different tactics? I'm not condoning this specific approach. I'm just pointing out it is the product of the culture of the free market that the west has been pursuing for 30-35 years. Previously it would've been complained about in University groups whereupon it was dismissed as 'elitism' or 'femi-Nazis' or whatever.

The take-away from anyone being fair on all this, is that the problem is none of the above when it comes to complaints about elitism or political correctness or internet activism. The problem is that some people don't like what they're saying and want to label it and dismiss it.

Well for any of that to stand, you'd have to show these people have rallied to change rape laws and failed, so instead attacked an individual who held a different view on a specific case.

Might just spend my days trawling Facebook pages for offensive comments and get the people sacked. Ya know, help change the system

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Not really. Perhaps that's what most character references contain. You're only up in arms at this one because it was made public

She's obviously too close to make an unbiased opinion on the matter, I don't think internet activism is helping anything.

How else would I know about it? I believe she should be held to account for her antiquated and frankly disgusting views

 

[DemonTim]

How else would I know about it? I believe she should be held to account for her antiquated and frankly disgusting views

The question doesn't even make sense. You only care because the media has latched onto the statement. For all you know every reference could look like hers in every case, you don't care about them because there is no media latching to it.

So you believe her (and her fellow band members) being removed from the line up is a fair result for an opinion you disagree with (it is after all her opinion)?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

"The media" didn't latch onto it. People did. If it wasn't an effective piece of communication, people wouldn't have reposted it and the media story wouldn't have eventuated (or it would've died off quickly).

Well for any of that to stand, you'd have to show these people have rallied to change rape laws and failed, so instead attacked an individual who held a different view on a specific case.

Disagree. I think you are just applying an unreasonable standard because you don't like Internet Activism.

I don't like the shaming, aggressiveness and individualisation of it either, but I'm not going to pretend that people have to have personally run for office or had years-long fights on certain issues before they can try to get things done using the tools they have been taught are important (and which society consistently illustrates are important) - consumer power.

There are plenty of people on the right-side of politics doing all sorts of things to push their preferred opinions in society. Individuals coming together online to try and get their opinions out there in society is potentially a good thing. Of course at the moment it's an anger-filled s***fight, but in my experience that bottle was uncorked by the right-wing long ago and being reasonable or calm in response to their anger, hasn't slowed them at all. And of course when people misstep then people like you or me won't like it, and hopefully the overall social pressure gets us to a better place eventually. But just letting things be while the internet is spewing out conspiracy theories, misinformation, hate, etc. I don't think that's been working for society.

 

[DemonTim]

Disagree. I think you are just applying an unreasonable standard because you don't like Internet Activism.

I don't like the shaming, aggressiveness and individualisation of it either, but I'm not going to pretend that people have to have personally run for office or had years-long fights on certain issues before they can try to get things done using the tools they have been taught are important (and which society consistently illustrates are important) - consumer power.

There are plenty of people on the right-side of politics doing all sorts of things to push their preferred opinions in society. Individuals coming together online to try and get their opinions out there in society is potentially a good thing. Of course at the moment it's an anger-filled s***fight, but in my experience that bottle was uncorked by the right-wing long ago and being reasonable or calm in response to their anger, hasn't slowed them at all. And of course when people misstep then people like you or me won't like it, and hopefully the overall social pressure gets us to a better place eventually. But just letting things be while the internet is spewing out conspiracy theories, misinformation, hate, etc. I don't think that's been working for society.

Of course I don't like Internet activism. It's a bastardised version of actual activism. It's people doing the bare minimum to pretend they care, and it now has real world impacts. It's result is to attempt to shut down an opposing opinion, because the person may have a real life impact because of it. I'm not talking overly abusive individuals either (like the clem ford example), if you're going to spew vile hatred against an individual you have to expect consequences

You just keep repeating this same opinion, but really what have people like these changed? If anything it's keeping things from changing, people are too busy fighting each other instead of those causing the issues.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

The question doesn't even make sense. You only care because the media has latched onto the statement. For all you know every reference could look like hers in every case, you don't care about them because there is no media latching to it.

Don't be so ridiculous. I deal with the consequences of rape every day of my working life, so when I become aware of something along the linres of this incident, it's no surprise what my reaction will be.

So you believe her (and her fellow band members) being removed from the line up is a fair result for an opinion you disagree with (it is after all her opinion)?

Hell no. Why should her band and fans suffer because she is a tool. I never suggested anything of the sort

 

[DemonTim]

Don't be so ridiculous. I deal with the consequences of rape every day of my working life, so when I become aware of something along the linres of this incident, it's no surprise what my reaction will be.



Hell no. Why should her band and fans suffer because she is a tool. I never suggested anything of the sort

So you seek of character references for other rapes?

Well we are agreeing then, so what are we arguing about. She should be educated on why she is incorrect, not lose her job.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

So you seek of character references for other rapes?

No psych nurse/ therapist. Plenty of rape victims and those that experienced childhood trauma (much of it rape)

Well we are agreeing then, so what are we arguing about. She should be educated on why she is incorrect, not lose her job.

You objected to me calling her a rape apologist

 

[DemonTim]

No psych nurse/ therapist. Plenty of rape victims and those that experienced childhood trauma (much of it rape)



You objected to me calling her a rape apologist

Well that was my point. You only care about what this girl said because the media beat it up, it's probably fairly common for character references to downplay it

Oh yes. I still disagree with that.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

I'm gonna leave this be Timmy after this post, we're having a bit of a circular argument

Well that was my point. You only care about what this girl said because the media beat it up, it's probably fairly common for character references to downplay it

Oh, I don't care for her. She's an ignorant rape apologist and victim blamer, and as I've mentioned earlier, "how else would I know" of the incident if not for the media interest in the case (as opposed to a media beat up which suggests disingenuous or manufactured outrage)

Oh yes. I still disagree with that.

Apologist for rape apologists.

Not sure what barrow your trying to push, apart from some misguided anti internet activism, which I think Ratts of Tobruk touched on earlier.

Good night, sweet dreams Tim

 

[DemonTim]

I'm gonna leave this be Timmy after this post, we're having a bit of a circular argument



Oh, I don't care for her. She's an ignorant rape apologist and victim blamer, and as I've mentioned earlier, "how else would I know" of the incident if not for the media interest in the case (as opposed to a media beat up which suggests disingenuous or manufactured outrage)



Apologist for rape apologists.

Not sure what barrow your trying to push, apart from some misguided anti internet activism, which I think Ratts of Tobruk touched on earlier.

Good night, sweet dreams Tim

Ugh. I thought we were having a decent discussion. Not sure the need for condescension.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You just keep repeating this same opinion, but really what have people like these changed? If anything it's keeping things from changing, people are too busy fighting each other instead of those causing the issues.

Yes, I do. Because it's my opinion. And you keep retorting with arguments which don't stand up, in my opinion.

As I said a second ago, the idea that the left should just be calm and reasonable in the continued barrage of antagonism from the right-wing hasn't been working for them. Tony Abbott won. Obama couldn't win mid-terms. Trump is now the Republican nominee.

The angry internet won on all of those. The fact that more left-wingers online have decided to fight more aggressively is hardly surprising in the face of that.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Hadnt realised this until I read the story. Interesting.

http://fusion.net/story/306927/peter-thiel-gawker-dangerous-blueprint/

This is the big story, which a lot of people are missing about the news that Peter Thiel secretly funded a series of lawsuits against Gawker: the Facebook board member and Silicon Valley demigod just gave the world a master class in how a billionaire can achieve enormous ends with a relatively modest investment. That’s a lesson many of his friends are eager to be taught—not least his protégé, Mark Zuckerberg, who is just beginning to try to reinvent philanthropy for the 21st Century.

Thiel’s tactics in going after Gawker are very, very frightening for anybody who believes in freedom of speech; they’re also extremely effective, in an evil-genius kind of way

Silicon Valley has always had its fair share of large egos. But until now, they haven’t generally had the stated aim of using their personal money to wage scorched-earth campaigns against private media organizations. If Thiel succeeds in having such wars accepted as worthy philanthropy, we should all be very afraid.

this is not a freedom of speech issue it's a privacy issue. Nobody has the "right" to secretly film someone shagging in private, sell that footage without the person's consent and you have no right to buy it and splash it all over the internet for profit without the parties consent.

Gawker are tabloid scum who've pissed a lot of people off, but most people do not have the money to sue media companies, Which is why some much gutter "journalism" exists. In this case thiel saw a way to get back at parasites who he had a personal beef with and they couldn't hide behind an army of lawyers this time.

this like the so called "wiretapping" (in reality they illegally hacked into answering machines) and the stolen nudes are clear cases of jurno's crossing the line and violating the law. typically the media always backs the media and pretends they are victims and idiots just repeat it without even thinking about it.

 

[coerced]

It's pretty hard to decide who to hate more, Gawker or Peter Thiel. Thiel is an odious son of a bitch, but Gawker going under is a good thing regardless.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It's pretty hard to decide who to hate more, Gawker or Peter Thiel. Thiel is an odious son of a bitch, but Gawker going under is a good thing regardless.

oh thiel is a *head, No doubt. But this case is about what was done to hogan, not about thiel and no amount of spin from the Media can make this about him or free speech, its about the right to privacy. Everyone should have the right to consensual legal sex without having to worry about it ending up all over "news" sites.

Hogan is the victim here and he got the justice he deserved. If any questions should be asked it's why gawkers buisness model precludes them from conducting buisness within the confines of the law and why they seem to have a problem with basic ethics?

 

[Chief]

Well that was my point. You only care about what this girl said because the media beat it up, it's probably fairly common for character references to downplay it

Oh yes. I still disagree with that.

I initially thought this was an open letter linked on Twitter not a character reference to a judge.

Turns out it was an actual submission.

Who the hell writes that crap? Telling a judge what "rape" and "rapist" mean? Making out this is just a bit of a mistake by a saintly boy.

"He would never ever rape and even if he did it doesn't make him a rapist."

A bit much to drop the band, but that letter is rank bile.

 

[DemonTim]

Yes, I do. Because it's my opinion. And you keep retorting with arguments which don't stand up, in my opinion.

As I said a second ago, the idea that the left should just be calm and reasonable in the continued barrage of antagonism from the right-wing hasn't been working for them. Tony Abbott won. Obama couldn't win mid-terms. Trump is now the Republican nominee.

The angry internet won on all of those. The fact that more left-wingers online have decided to fight more aggressively is hardly surprising in the face of that.

Don't make it another left vs right crap fest.

Internet activism is rubbish, people complain online about serious issues, because it's easy (for the most part). Not from an actual attempt to change things.

You seem to just be responding to things that aren't said now. I think we are done