Thirith on 7/7/2020 at 07:21
Let me get this straight, icemann: if someone was raped but for whatever reason there isn't enough evidence (or, as happens in a majority of cases, the evidence isn't processed or it's contaminated, and the police fuck things up), they should just shut the fuck up? Because in practice that is exactly what you're saying. You're putting all the responsibility on the victim of a rape to make sure there's enough actionable evidence, because if there isn't and the courts render a verdict of Not Guilty, the way you're presenting it the victim of the rape is actually the wrongdoer, because they've harrassed an innocent (according to the court) person.
Seriously, don't you see how fucked up that is?
P.S.: And that's not even addressing the many, many cases where courts let rapists go with a slap on the wrist, because supposedly they've learnt their lesson and you wouldn't want to ruin their lives. Funnily enough, this seems to be especially the case with better-off, white perpetrators.
Starker on 7/7/2020 at 07:40
Quote Posted by icemann
It is kinda amusing that a thread on cancel culture got cancelled by those demanding it's immediate closure, much like what happened in that video that Subjeff posted.
That's not what happened, though. It was shut down by Renz, because the thread was a garbage fire, not in small part thanks to your framing the issue. Don't pretend like you're innocent in this.
Quote Posted by icemann
I'm not a lawyer, but your logic is flawed there. The point of going to court is prove ones innocence. If found guilty, your guilty of the crime. If found innocent, you are innocent until proven otherwise. A very black and white issue that one. You can have an opinion as you say that "A criminal court does not judge a person's innocence", but that is very subjective. And you are not going to get a consensus of everyone agreeing with you on that.
Otherwise one could say "A criminal court does not judge a person's guilt, after all. It only determines whether they have enough evidence that proves that they did
not commit the crime."
No, this is literally the logic the courts run on in most of the world. If there is not sufficient evidence to prove the person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the verdict is not "innocent", it is, in fact, "not guilty" (as far as the criminal law is concerned). And that itself does not prove the accusation false.
SubJeff on 7/7/2020 at 07:49
But he hasn't done that Thirith.
These are the places your mind has gone, there's are the straw men you have found in your own psyche.
Thirith on 7/7/2020 at 07:53
Also, icemann, you're doing that thing again that you've done before: people address the points you're making, criticising your premise, and you ignore 9/10 of what they write and pounce on the one thing that you think is incorrect in their statement. Starker's addressed your examples and made a clear case why they don't say what you think they say, but you dismiss these out of hand and instead go off on a tangent about guilt and innocence that doesn't even tally with the facts (as Starker wrote, courts don't establish verdicts of "innocent"). Why should we, why should anyone, come away with the impression that you're doing this in good faith?
Thirith on 7/7/2020 at 08:00
SubJeff: icemann's been talking about 'false claims'. He lists examples of people being found not guilty by the courts. He says that because the courts found these people not guilty, they are innocent. He's been talking about the innocent being the true victims here and those accusing them as evil, vicious slanderers. Either he is saying that those who accused these people are engaging in false claims themselves and should therefore STFU or he is making entirely unconnected statements for the heck of it. Which is it?
SubJeff on 7/7/2020 at 08:41
Quote Posted by Sulphur
@SubjEff: I am not a trans person, so I'm not going to be able to answer the JKR thing in a real, qualified capacity.
I reject this notion that you have to be in a group to be able to discuss issues related to it. It's nonsense. Exclusionary nonsense.
You don't have to be black to understand racism against black people.
Please stop perpetuating this.
She disagrees with him it seems. That doesn't make her transphobic, does it? I don't think trans women are women, I think they are trans women. I don't think they should be discriminated against, but I do think they need special consideration as their situation is unique. I understand that there are cis women who are concerned about trans women encroaching on their safe spaces, and that's a reasonable concern sometimes, isn't it?
SubJeff on 7/7/2020 at 08:44
Quote Posted by Thirith
SubJeff: icemann's been talking about 'false claims'. He lists examples of people being found not guilty by the courts. He says that because the courts found these people not guilty, they are innocent.
This is the law, isn't it?
Innocent until proven guilty. Or don't you believe that?
Thirith on 7/7/2020 at 08:51
Quote Posted by SubJeff
This is the law, isn't it?
Innocent until proven guilty. Or don't you believe that?
Tell me when you're interested in more than just sophistry.
Sulphur on 7/7/2020 at 09:07
Quote Posted by SubJeff
I reject this notion that you have to be in a group to be able to discuss issues related to it. It's nonsense. Exclusionary nonsense.
You don't have to be black to understand racism against black people.
Please stop perpetuating this.
You do have to talk to a black person to actually know their point of view. And if someone's going to deny a trans person's point of view, I would rather
hear from those trans people first than the likes of you or me. It's simple logic, yes? You seem to think that you can make a judgement call about a situation without actually getting input from all parties, which is not only a sign of not seeing the forest for the trees, it's a phenomenal kind of narcissism.
Quote:
She disagrees with him it seems. That doesn't make her transphobic, does it? I don't think trans women are women, I think they are trans women. I don't think they should be discriminated against, but I do think they need special consideration as their situation is unique. I understand that there are cis women who are concerned about trans women encroaching on their safe spaces, and that's a reasonable concern sometimes, isn't it?
The word here is 'encroaching'. You have to contextualise what's going on here. None of this is isolated. It began with her not understanding that trans people menstruate, and making fun of it, and the backlash that followed. She then attempted to make a reasoned entreaty, but towards the end of that spiel doubled down on fearmongering instead by implying that men can dress up as trans people and endanger cis-women in the loo - what part of assuming that every trans person is a potential threat doesn't look like transphobia? And remember, this came up from her not understanding half of the problem to begin with. It's a patent lack of credibility not helped by the fact that she says she wants to side with trans people and in the same breath says they can't identify with the biological sex. You can't have it both ways.
It's
after all that that the Stephen King tweet happened. I don't know if she's transphobic or not, but all signs seem to point to yes. And yes, I still want a trans person to talk about this instead of you or me batting words around like self-entitled fuckwits assuming we know everything.
SubJeff on 7/7/2020 at 09:46
Quote Posted by Thirith
Tell me when you're interested in more than just sophistry.
Classic sidestep. Answer the question. You're accusing iceman of thinking a person found not guilty is innocent like that's a bad thing.
You said:
Quote:
He says that because the courts found these people not guilty, they are innocent.
Do you not believe that?
Quote Posted by Sulphur
You do have to talk to a black person to actually know their point of view.
Yes, but one doesn't need to talk to a black person to be able to tell if something is racist or not. You may need to have it explained to you because you don't understand the history or the references, but you don't need a black person to do that, and if you have that information you don't need to be black to process it.
Quote:
And if someone's going to deny a trans person's point of view, I would rather
hear from those trans people first than the likes of you or me. It's simple logic, yes?
I'd like to hear the point of view of trans people, yes, or course.
Quote:
You seem to think that you can make a judgement call about a situation without actually getting input from all parties
Not at all. I think you make a judgement after you've got the that input. I just don't think it needs to a trans/black/gay/whatever person who makes that judgement.
May I remind you that you stated that:
Quote:
I am not a trans person, so I'm not going to be able to answer the JKR thing in a real, qualified capacity.
which directly, specifically and unequivocally expresses the opinion that
only trans people can understand this. Imagine someone said this about white straight people - you wouldn't understand, you need to be a straight white person to get it. I think some people's heads would explode.
Quote:
It began with her not understanding that trans people menstruate
I don't think that happened. I think she had issue with the description, and I think she was wrong.
Quote:
what part of assuming that every trans person is a potential threat doesn't look like transphobia?
I don't think that's the case though. I think she's talking about trans people who still have penises, but identify as women (which is fine of course, but I shouldn't need to say that) and are attracted to women. You must see the concern here, right?
It's things like (
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/karen-white-transgender-prisoner-jailed-life-sexual-assault-rape-a8579146.html) this that are the pinnacle of this issue.
