George Will Comes Under Fire For Rape Comments

[birdog1960]

I should think that you'd understand the meaning of the phrase 'culture of victimhood', since you're apparently a victim of the public school system.

 

 

 

let's review the article:

 

'So Will is making two points here. First, that university culture encourages students to perceive themselves as victims, and those that can credibly claim victimhood are sometimes given higher status.'

he says nothing about this case in regards to this female student being given higher status as a result of the incident. he presents no evidence that this was the case. therefore, what remains is "perceived victim". and keep in mind that the "article" is itself an interpretation of Will's meaning. it's not definitive. perhaps Will himself will shed light on why he used that example. i won't hold my breath. Edited June 24, 2014 by birdog1960

[Tiberius]

I should think that you'd understand the meaning of the phrase 'culture of victimhood', since you're apparently a victim of the public school system.

 

 

 

Nice way to dodge an argument you obviously can't handle. Come to think of it you really can't handle any arguments

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm unconvinced that it was rape. I see nothing other than an example of negative consent, and six weeks of regret over that granting on negative consent.

 

Show me otherwise.

Edited June 24, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

and keep in mind that the "article" is itself an interpretation of Will's meaning. it's not definitive. perhaps Will himself will shed light on why he used that example. i won't hold my breath.

 

my point all along has been that Will's critics have been accusing him of insensitivity toward rape victims, deliberately ignoring that his point was an observation of our continued cultural acceptance of victimhood as a social status. I think he could have used a better example to make his point, and he's getting grief for it, but the grief is manufactured outrage over ridiculous claims that he doesn't view rape victims as victims.

[Jauronimo]

how bout this? if i've misread his me re this case, then so have robb ("now i'm not saying he should have done it") and bernstein. they both read it that way although bernstein allowed for an alternative expalnation.

 

What the !@#$ are you talking about?

[Azalin]

Nice way to dodge an argument you obviously can't handle. Come to think of it you really can't handle any arguments

 

c'mon, you can do better than that. have you tried any of the insult-generator websites? they're free.

[B-Man]

From Law Professor Ann Althouse:

 

http://althouse.blog...-what-will.html

 

 

FTA:

 

I think what is happening is more nefarious, because it focuses on the person. It's not just an idea that is put off limits (such as questioning the veracity of a woman who accuses a man of rape), it's the person who dares to say it. You are to be regarded as toxic. It's this fear of being regarded as toxic that inhibits many people from speaking.

 

The problem isn't merely that the debate is chilled — that people don't get to hear the arguments on different sides — but that people are also influenced to choose their side out of a psychological need to be accepted by others and not shunned. Even if, in a chilled-debate environment, you sought out information and arguments on your own and even if you saw the value in them, you might still choose your position out of a desire to be thought of as one of the good people. So the argument "George Will is toxic" works even on people who think George Will makes a persuasive argument.

 

I'm using the word "toxic" — the poison metaphor — because I see it a lot, and because to me — someone who has lived and worked in a liberal environment for a long time — it expresses the threat of shunning so well: You are afraid that if you associate at all with the toxic person — if you offer one good word — you will have toxin on you, and others will have to avoid you lest they become toxic.

 

 

I note that the focus on the person corresponds to Saul Alinsky's Rule #12 in "Rules for Radicals":

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

.

[Tiberius]

I'm unconvinced that it was rape. I see nothing other than an example of negative consent, and six weeks of regret over that granting on negative consent.

 

Show me otherwise.

Negative consent? Wow, whatever.

 

Even so, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs to be fixed and just labeling the victims as nothing more that status seekers is really pretty low

 

my point all along has been that Will's critics have been accusing him of insensitivity toward rape victims, deliberately ignoring that his point was an observation of our continued cultural acceptance of victimhood as a social status. I think he could have used a better example to make his point, and he's getting grief for it, but the grief is manufactured outrage over ridiculous claims that he doesn't view rape victims as victims.

Are your argument that there is some social status to rape victims is a complete garbage. A girl gets raped, speaks up about it, and you just want to say she is seeking attention? Great moral values there!

[FireChan]

Negative consent? Wow, whatever.

 

Even so, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs to be fixed and just labeling the victims as nothing more that status seekers is really pretty low

 

Are your argument that there is some social status to rape victims is a complete garbage. A girl gets raped, speaks up about it, and you just want to say she is seeking attention? Great moral values there!

 

You know, I used to think you might get bashed unfairly. Sure, sometimes you say dumb things, but that doesn't mean everything you say is uneducated or intentionally obtuse. However, after these comments, I firmly believe you're an idiot or troll. And that's sad.

[Azalin]

Are your argument that there is some social status to rape victims is a complete garbage. A girl gets raped, speaks up about it, and you just want to say she is seeking attention? Great moral values there!

 

you have to be trying to be such a cretin. I'd be better off talking to a muffin.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Azalin

[TakeYouToTasker]

Negative consent? Wow, whatever.

Yes, negative consent. It's how most sexual encounters are initiated. Physical acquiesce to another persons initiations. We don't sign sexual waivers, and we usually don't ask verbally.

 

When someone makes the physical actions of allowance, they have given negative consent.

 

Even so, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs to be fixed and just labeling the victims as nothing more that status seekers is really pretty low

A consenting partner is not a victim. Sometimes, however, a consenting partner is regretful, or ashamed, or is a poor decision maker.

 

Sometimes young women, who may have been more careful of their selection of partners while still in high school, and living under the roofs of their parents, may become overcome with guilt over having broken what may have been a prior moral code. Some may be ashamed after having been called a "slut" by friends, or after developing a certain reputation, earned or otherwise.

 

Many, not liking living with the reality of their own poor decisions, instead choose the armor of victim-hood. A magic shield which restores their chastity, absolves them of sins, and transforms them into "courageous figures" for "coming forward in defense of women everywhere".

Edited June 24, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

I'm unconvinced that it was rape. I see nothing other than an example of negative consent, and six weeks of regret over that granting on negative consent.

 

Show me otherwise.

that makes 3 people that see this example as Will apparently intended (rob, tasker asnd bernstein). so why is it that azalin refuses to grant that this was infact Will's intention as well? How is it that a reader can't perceive that this point is integral to the discussion?. whether it meets ones definition of rape or not (and it does meet mine) is immaterial. it is a justifiable reason for outrage among those that feel it most definitely is rape. and i agree with gator: what the hell is negative consent? "no" means "no".

 

suppose we consider an analogy other than bernstein's bizarre brooks bros one in the article. an ex friend asks to borrow your best fishing rig. he's known to you for not returning your borrowed stuff. you say "no" to his request. you see him going in to your garage to "borrow" your equipment later. you just don't think it's worth the trouble of physical confrontation at the time and just watch him b"borrow' it. he never brings it back. you call the cops. did he steal your fishing combo? damn right he did.

Edited June 24, 2014 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

 

 

suppose we consider an analogy other than bernstein's bizarre brooks bros one in the article. an ex friend asks to borrow your best fishing rig. he's known to you for not returning your borrowed stuff. you say "no" to his request. you see him going in to your garage to "borrow" your equipment later. you just don't think it's worth the trouble of physical confrontation at the time and just watch him b"borrow' it. he never brings it back. you call the cops. did he steal your fishing combo? damn right he did.

 

 

Surely, this should be in the You could laugh at this if it wasn't so pathetic thread ?

 

I'll leave it to Tasker to explain your multiple mistakes..........................lol

 

.

[birdog1960]

 

 

Surely, this should be in the You could laugh at this if it wasn't so pathetic thread ?

 

I'll leave it to Tasker to explain your multiple mistakes..........................lol

 

.

and what you propose here is somehow an apt analogy to my example?

[TakeYouToTasker]

that makes 3 people that see this example as Will apparently intended (rob, tasker asnd bernstein). so why is it that azalin refuses to grant that this was infact Will's intention as well?

I can't speak to that, nor should you. I'll not put words in his mouth.

 

How is it that a reader can't perceive that this point is integral to the discussion?. whether it meets ones definition of rape or not (and it does meet mine) is immaterial. it is a justifiable reason for outrage among those that feel it most definitely is rape. and i agree with gator: what the hell is negative consent? "no" means "no".

Stop with that canard.

 

"No" does not mean "no forever", and that is especially true when mixed signals are being sent.

 

When a woman, clad only in her underwear, invites you into her bed, it creates those sorts of signals, the ownership is equally on the woman and the man.

 

This is not the case of a "subway rapist", an abductor who sexually assaults, or an aggressor who fights through obvious verbal and physical objection.

 

This is the case of someone with an obvious and spoken attraction, with whom there was very recent sexual involvement, who is invited into the bed of a mostly naked woman for the purpose of an overnight visit, who is verbally rejected, which is standard in most relationships, but is still being sent the equally empowering physical signals of willingness. The fact is that the female involved completely acquiesced to the physical advances, and did not offer any further rejection, but rather accepted them willingly.

 

Willing acceptance is not rape. It's the opposite.

 

Further, she states that "she thought it was understood that they were just friends", well, he apparently didn't, and she didn't make that distinction any clearer by allowing him to have sex with her.

 

With no clear boundaries set, you can't call this rape.

 

As I said, "no" doesn't mean "no forever".

Edited June 24, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Jauronimo]

and what you propose here is somehow an apt analogy to my example?

Wrong again. Prolific.

[Azalin]

that makes 3 people that see this example as Will apparently intended (rob, tasker asnd bernstein). so why is it that azalin refuses to grant that this was infact Will's intention as well? How is it that a reader can't perceive that this point is integral to the discussion?. whether it meets ones definition of rape or not (and it does meet mine) is immaterial. it is a justifiable reason for outrage among those that feel it most definitely is rape. and i agree with gator: what the hell is negative consent? "no" means "no".

 

good lord, you just don't get it, do you? his article is about the creation of a class of victims, and the current tendancy of some to elevate them to a status that (pay close attention here) absolves them of any and all responsibility they may have in anything that negatively effects them, ever. he could have easily made the same point by using an example of someone who grew up in a gang-infested ghetto who got arrested for stealing cars, and the tendancy of many to absolve them of their responsibility by blaming it on his upbringing and environment. you keep trying to argue the definition of rape, but that is not Will's point, and neither is it mine.

[TakeYouToTasker]

suppose we consider an analogy other than bernstein's bizarre brooks bros one in the article. an ex friend asks to borrow your best fishing rig. he's known to you for not returning your borrowed stuff. you say "no" to his request. you see him going in to your garage to "borrow" your equipment later. you just don't think it's worth the trouble of physical confrontation at the time and just watch him b"borrow' it. he never brings it back. you call the cops. did he steal your fishing combo? damn right he did.

A more apt analogy:

 

You invite a guy who considers you to be his best friend, but whom you don't really care for, over to hang out in your garage. Every time this guy has been in your garage in the past, the two of you hitch your boat, on it's trailer, to the hitch on his truck, and you proceed to go out fishing together.

 

He assumes you want to go fishing, because that's what happens every single time you invite him over. However, when he starts hitching up the boat, you stop him and say, "I really don't feel like fishing today," so he stops, and you shoot the **** for a little while.

 

After talking for five minutes, he gets up and, once again starts hitching the boat trailer to his truck. You get up and help him, and then the two of you go out and spend the morning fishing.

 

Six weeks later you call the cops and say he stole your boat.

[Tiberius]

From Law Professor Ann Althouse:

 

on the person[/i] corresponds to Saul Alinsky's Rule #12 in "Rules for Radicals":

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

.

well, this is interesting, it's basically Poor George Will who is the victim here. Wow!

[Magox]

well, this is interesting, it's basically Poor George Will who is the victim here. Wow!

 

So who is the victim here?