Opie and Anthony Joke Describes Violent Sex Assault of Condoleeza Rice

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=450

Warning: Extremely Vulgar Language. XM Shock Jocks Opie and Anthony engage in discussion about forced sex with the Secretary of State. A studio guest, Homeless Charlie, begins describing the scenario as the hosts laugh and encourage him. Anthony talks about the horror for Rice as the guest is "holding her down" and assaulting her. They invite Charlie to be a regular guest.

I'm at work so I can't listen. I will say that as much as I dislike Condi, this sounds like it's way over the line. I'd say the same thing if they were talking about doing it to Coulter. Wonder if these buttheads will be fired again?

[Madspirit]

1. NEVER an excuse

Rape is not a joke and there is NEVER an excuse for making it one. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
Lee

[DS1]

2. They were funny about 7 years ago

Now they're just miserable and take it out on everyone else.

[tech3149]

3. I used to listen to them back then

I'm glad I grew out of it.

[Tesha]

171. They were *NEVER* funny. You were just younger...

> They were funny about 7 years ago

They were *NEVER* funny. You were just younger and probably
didn't as readily see how actions have consequences, not all
of which are intended. Opie and Andy profit from the cheapening
of society, the mocking of human values, and the ever-coarsening
American culture.

Tesha

[JitterbugPerfume]

4. they think rape is funny?

THEY are despicable

[Forkboy]

5. O & A have the maturity of two year olds throwing poop.

Yet more shock jocks who wouldn't know humor if it bit them on the funny bone.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. This is far worse than what Imus said. Where's the outrage? Where's Al Sharpton?

?????

[Madspirit]

10. I AM outraged!...

On more than one front. First and foremost for women. Rape is a violent crime and usually traumatizes the person for LIFE.

Second, it is insulting to men. None of my straight men friends use their sexuality or their penis as a weapon.
Lee

[ChazII]

138. Has the good reverand said anything??? If so

I missed it. Thank you for pointing out that his voice is missing.

[Reterr]

181. Why is Al Sharpton responsible for starting a campaign on every single offensive remark out there?

:shrug:
Or is this yet another roundabout way of saying Sharpton is reverse racist blah blah?
I mean I don't get it-so since Sharpton did something about the Imus thing, now he is a "hypocrite" unless he actively monitors every crappy radio show out there and raises a fuss? It was probably brought to Sharpton's attention because people tend to report race-related issues and this doesn't appear to be one. I agree this sucks but I don't see why Sharpton has a greater responsibility than anyone else.

By the same logic, if you are environmentalist going for "save the earth" rallies, but not "stop the war" then you should be roundly condemned and vice versa and on and on...That would be nuts imo.

[Oeditpus Rex]

7. More troubling, to me, than 'shock jocks' doing such as this

is the apparent fact that there's a market for it — particularly with XM, which is subscription-only.

That's also the reason they'll probably get away with it.

[Blackhatjack]

8. This should be condemned fully and completely, but it is free speech protected by the Constitution

We live in a democracy that provides for the exercise of free speech. It is not being broadcast with a government license over public airways, it is a subscription service.

I find it terribly offensive and is worthy of condemnation of the highest order, but we need to be careful about trying to silence free speech we do not like. It is a slippery slope from silencing this kind of speech to silencing speech that we may consider ok but is offensive to someone else.
But make no mistake, even if it is protected free speech, rape is never an appropriate subject for comedy.

Hate speech spewed by the KKK, and the right of the KKK to march in parades, has been upheld time and again by our Supreme Court. To live in a democracy that protects free speech for every citizen means we have to bear the cost of that freedom --which sometimes means we have to abide the worst that can come out of the mouth of another individual or group.

The way to deal with issues like this one is to use more free speech, not less. Complain, call, write the owner of the station that employs these idiots, and do the same with the sponsors of their employer. If the advertising dollars go away, these fools will also.

[Morgana LaFey]

64. It is NOT Free Speech

I sure wish DUers would get it right: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (you ought to actually read it sometime) guarantees ONLY against GOVERNMENT censorship of speech.

Anyone else with a property right claim can censor as much and as stupidly as they want. It's often called editorial control. You yourself go on to suggest that their advertisers be persuaded not to continue sponsoring them, which would suggest that on one level you actually do understand that it's NOT a FREE SPEECH issue.

So please don't conflate this with FREE SPEECH because it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I find it terribly offensive and is worthy of condemnation of the highest order, but we need to be careful about trying to silence free speech we do not like.

You're conflicted about this -- again, because you went on to suggest that we silence them by taking away their advertisers. Let me help you out here (or try to):

We don't use the "n" word in polite company any more. Why? Have you ever given it any thought? We don't use it because the people who were negatively affected by it -- and we're NOT just talking about hurt feelings -- finally made enough impression on the dominant culture (white males) that they realized they couldn't get away with that level of racism any more.

We know because there are organizations that track and document the statistics that whenever there are anti-gay initiatives going on anywhere in the country, hate crimes -- actual physical assaults -- against gays go up sharply. The very notion of curtailing their rights and merely talking about them (in polite terms but) negatively gives some people "permission" to go after them physically.

It's not really different for any other oppressed (and hated) group, we just don't have statistics on the matter -- whether blacks and other inorities or women: when their relative position in the larger society suffers in general ways, individual members of those groups are at increased peril of active discrimination and other negative actions against them of all kinds.

Thus, this type of woman-hating talk hurts individual women, and it hurts woman as a class. If we can make the use of the "n" word utterly verboten in polite society (including jokes other than by blacks themselves), we can sure as hell make anti-woman and anti-gay rhetoric and "jokes" verboten.

This stuff is just sick. Please don't twist your mind to find ANY reason to support or defend it; there isn't any. You're being untrue to your own inner core and your own values by doing so, you'll see if you search more deeply.

Hate speech has to end: Racism kills; homophobia kills; sexism kills.

Isn't that a good enough reason for you not to support it in any way, ever?

[Blackhatjack]

68. My explanation is accurate and grounded in the law, where you got your info I have no idea

Whether you abhor what they said or not, it is free speech.

What you may be confused about is there is no inherent right to say anything you want at any time when it has the potential of causing injury to others. For example, you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, and you cannot use 'fighting words' to incite a riot.

However, the US Constitution's protection of free speech rights is not limited to protesting against your Government. Do you think the KKK parades and demonstrations are protected because they are directed against their government? I think you know the answer to that one.

We all have the right to appeal to our fellow citizens to make good choices as to how they spend their money, this includes advertisers. Nothing wrong with that.

You need to get a handle on your emotions regarding this issue and realize that free speech protections are not limited to just what the majority thinks is appropriate.

And nothing I have said here defends the content of what was said, but rather the right for them to say it.

[iverglas]

108. the law as found in what cereal box?

Whether you abhor what they said or not, it is free speech.

Actually, it is SPEECH. "Free speech" is a principle, not an activity. Does that help?

What you may be confused about is there is no inherent right to say anything you want at any time when it has the potential of causing injury to others. For example, you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, and you cannot use 'fighting words' to incite a riot.

No, I don't think she was confused about any such thing. Your confusion, however, is apparent. The post to which you are replying is a 100% accurate description of the situation. And my law and philosophy degrees didn't come from a cereal box.

You cannot force the local newspaper to print your letter. And you cannot retain your broadcasting licence if you violate the conditions attached to it.

However, the US Constitution's protection of free speech rights is not limited to protesting against your Government.

Who said it was??? What was said was:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (you ought to actually read it sometime) guarantees ONLY against GOVERNMENT censorship of speech.

(And how often I have said the same about that: I sure wish DUers would get it right.)

Government could censor speech that had nothing whatsoever to do with protesting against it. It could outlaw the advertising of snake oil to cure cancer. Oh look, it does.

And that still has nothing to do with this situation.

Do you think the KKK parades and demonstrations are protected because they are directed against their government? I think you know the answer to that one.

Yeah. It's a straw-person argument. That's the answer to that one.

We all have the right to appeal to our fellow citizens to make good choices as to how they spend their money, this includes advertisers. Nothing wrong with that.

And the owners of broadcasting enterprises have the right to hire and fire whom they wish.

And the public, through its government, has the right to place conditions on the very limited number of licences available for the use of the public's airwaves.

You need to get a handle on your emotions regarding this issue

That's really a lovely bit of diversionary grooming, from soneone who is so obstinately refusing to acknowledge / completely unable to grasp the nature of the issues here. Mind you, I won't be blaming that obstinacy or inability on yer hormones.

And nothing I have said here defends the content of what was said, but rather the right for them to say it.

If you could only point to someone who has denied that they have a right to say it, you might have a point.

[Blackhatjack]

113. You might want to apply for a refund on that law degree you got....

I have practiced law for over 24 years, been editor of a newspaper, and stand by everything I stated.

You do not have to accept it, but it is in keeping with the existing law on the subject.

BTW satellite radio is a private enterprise, and broadcast rights are not regulated the same way as are regular television public airways. There is no public broadcast license issued and no review process required with renewal of the license every few years. (Why do you think Howard Stern went to satellite radio?).

But if you feel better attacking someone who just gave you valuable information on this issue, go right ahead. It would not be the first time an uninformed poster mistakenly touted their superior understanding of a subject.

[Morgana LaFey]

120. No wonder this country is in trouble, not to mention the press

This is the first time at DU I've ever had this thought: Dear God, I sure hope he's lying.

[Blackhatjack]

126. Personal attacks are no substitute for substance... flame on

[Morgana LaFey]

140. Substance? YOU're complaining about lack of substance?

That's rich. Very rich.

Edit: Here's some substance for ya. I don't believe that you're an attorney and worked as some editor somewhere sometime. I've already answered the "substance" -- as has another DUer -- and you've come back with nonsense that shows to me you don't know what you're talking about (and simply CLAIMING that you do doesn't exactly get you there). No way I'm going to waste any more of my time talking "substance" with you. You're wrong. It's as simple as that. Oh, and you apparently can't read with any real comprehension either.

But do, by all means, go ahead and slam me for my "personal attacks." People who HAVE no substance to posit can do that and sound really righteous.

[Blackhatjack]

155. You must be a graduate of the Karl Rove School of Persuasion....

... you accuse others of what you are doing?

Yes, there is no substance to your arguments. IF there were, you would provide the evidence to back it up --which you have consistently failed to do.

Your accusation 'you've come back with nonsense...' is not proof of anything. And whether you 'believe' or do not believe anything I posted does not constitute evidence that I have stated an untruth.

And lastly... your saying "You're wrong. It's as simple as that." is just another erroneous unsupported generalization. It reminds me of a child's response when caught red-handed doing something for which they have no defense.

Why keep hoisting yourself on your own petard? (If you are unfamiliar with this particular phrase, it means "Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.")

You might be happier if you could find someone else to attack who is less likely to defend themselves from your baseless accusations.

And don't worry, I can live without your seal of approval.

[Blackhatjack]

129. Those who cannot debate ideas, inflict personal attacks instead.... (but you must hear that a lot!)

[Forkboy]

243. Wouldn't your words in parenthesis be a personal attack?

[Blackhatjack]

252. Just read her posts and you will understand why I posted my response....

She posted: "No wonder this country is in trouble, not to mention the press
This is the first time at DU I've ever had this thought: Dear God, I sure hope he's lying."

Do you consider that a personal attack?

[Forkboy]

253. Yes I do....do you consider your words one?

[Blackhatjack]

257. No it is more an observation based upon her record of posting....

My response was tame but informative: "Those who cannot debate ideas, inflict personal attacks instead.... (but you must hear that a lot!)"

It was more an observation. Since she demonstrates an inability to debate ideas and stick to facts, and always turned to personal attacks instead, it seems obvious that she must hear this truism a lot.

But what is your point?

Do you think she was mistreated? If you do, just read her posts and try saying that with a straight face.

Some people who like to dish it out, just never imagine that anyone could stand toe to toe with them and give it right back.

[Forkboy]

259. "..(but you must hear that a lot!)"

Is that debating ideas and sticking to facts?

If it is a fact I'm assuming you can provide other instances where the poster has been told that.

The point is you appear to be a hypocrite.That isn't a personal attack,just being informative.

Getting it now?

[Blackhatjack]

261. OK I will assume you are ignorant of the difference between a stated fact and an inference....

A fact tends to be provable by direct evidence.
An inference is a belief that is based upon the existence of one or more provable facts.

For example: You are locked inside a room with a dead body bearing several recent gunshot wounds. No other individuals were present in the room except you and the dead body. You have a handgun in your hand which is emitting smoke. Just before the door was opened, witnesses outside heard the victim call your name and say please don't shoot me.

It may be inferred from the provable facts that you killed the victim with the handgun you are holding. Each of the circumstances mentioned above are provable facts.

IF you are looking to create an opportunity to call me a hypocrite, you will need more provable facts. However, the comment I made in the parenthesis was directed at the poster who engaged in the conduct I alleged, and it was a reasonable inference that could be drawn from her conduct in her previous responses.

WE cannot know every provable fact in the world, but we can make reasonable inferences from the facts we do know. One fact we know is I did not say 'I know you hear that a lot because I have been a witness and have the names and addresses of other witnesses who were present when you heard it.'

WE also know that I placed the comment in the supposition mode, 'you must.'

However it is just as valid to use the supposition mode in the example above(ie. you must have killed the victim with your handgun.

You did want to discuss exactly what I meant linguisticly in stating that observation right? You were not just looking for an opportunity to step in as a tag team member, and accuse me of being a hypocrite, right?

[Blackhatjack]

130. Self-deleted

Self-deleted

[Morgana LaFey]

118. You're making even less sense now.

However, the US Constitution's protection of free speech rights is not limited to protesting against your Government.

I didn't say it was. (Perhaps you would benefit by rereading my post...carefully?)

Do you think the KKK parades and demonstrations are protected because they are directed against their government?

Uh, no, not at all. They are protected because it would be the local GOVERNMENT shutting them down, or more accurately not giving them a permit for their march or parade or whatever.

Get it?

It's the GOVERNMENT which can't censor, thanks to the First Amendment.

I'd like to know where you got your, ahem, law degree.

What you may be confused about is there is no inherent right to say anything you want at any time when it has the potential of causing injury to others.

What YOU may be confused about is that there is no inherent right to say anything you want at any time, period. EXCEPT that it can't be the government shutting you down. Anybody else can, IF they have the power to do so (basically, property rights over the piece of real estate where you're trying to have your imaginary, non-existent FREE SPEECH).

You need to get a handle on your emotions regarding this issue and realize that free speech protections are not limited to just what the majority thinks is appropriate.

Well, aside from being patronizing and insulting, that's just a bizarre interpretation/mischaracterization of what I said. If you don't think so, PLEASE go reread my post. And if you still think you've got it right, please let me know because I will want to avoid trying to dialog with you hereafter.

[Blackhatjack]

127. Thanks for agreeing with me.... so pull in your claws!

Let's review:

You posted my comment: "However, the US Constitution's protection of free speech rights is not limited to protesting against your Government."

You responded: "I didn't say it was."

You posted my comment: "Do you think the KKK parades and demonstrations are protected because they are directed against their government?"

You responded: "Uh, no, not at all."

You posted my comment: "What you may be confused about is there is no inherent right to say anything you want at any time when it has the potential of causing injury to others."

You responded: (You did not refute the correctness of this statement)

You posted my comment: "You need to get a handle on your emotions regarding this issue and realize that free speech protections are not limited to just what the majority thinks is appropriate."

You responded: (You did not refute the correctness of this statement)

So in essence you attacked me personally, but you either agreed with the statements I posted or failed to respond to the correctness of the statements I made.

If you had evidence proving any of these statements untrue, I am sure you would have produced it.

Need I say more?

[iverglas]

134. so let's review

Your first statement was:

This should be condemned fully and completely, but it is free speech protected by the Constitution

Since no one had said it was not SPEECH protected by your Constitution, what was your point?

We live in a democracy that provides for the exercise of free speech. It is not being broadcast with a government license over public airways, it is a subscription service.

Yes, I missed that one. Of course, that doesn't invalidate what I said about broadcast licensing; it just didn't apply to this particular instance, in the place where it occurred. (How am I to know how ineffectively your governments govern in every tiny nook and cranny of public life? I'm just a silly foreigner.)

I understand that there is some sort of merger deal underway between the subscription service in question and Sirius. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, my public broadcaster, is 40% owner of Sirius Canada. Here, satellite radio *is* subject to federal regulation. Howard Stern is not available on satellite radio in Canada -- Sirius foresaw problems with the regulator. If the XM/Sirius deal proceeds, I'll be watching to see whether these two assholes are to be delivered in Canada, and protesting -- to the broadcaster and the regulator -- if they are.

'Cause the public interest prevails over their private interest ... whatever THAT may be ... in braodcasting vile fantasies of the sexual subjugation of women (of colour).

And that, my friend (what you would be, were we in a Cdn court), is the point. There are often public interests in suppressing certain speech that outweigh the private interest in engaging in the speech. Consider snake oil.

I find it terribly offensive and is worthy of condemnation of the highest order, but we need to be careful about trying to silence free speech we do not like.

And blows the straw. We could just rule out prohibitions on *anything* on the ground that the things being prohibited are something that "we" "don't like", eh? I don't like murder. That's no reason why it should be prohibited, surely. ... And of course, I'm not saying it is. But never mind that.

It is a slippery slope from silencing this kind of speech to silencing speech that we may consider ok but is offensive to someone else.

Really? Damn, it's a slippery slope from prohibiting murder to prohibiting talking loudly in the home, I'd say.

You are aware, I suppose, that "slippery slope" is actually a logical fallacy??

But make no mistake, even if it is protected free speech, rape is never an appropriate subject for comedy.

It may be protected SPEECH (and that, of course, is your opinion and/or an authoritative opinion, i.e. of a constitutionally appointed judicial authority) -- but since no one, as far as I can see, was advocating that anyone be charged, tried, convicted or sentenced for engaging in it, again: what's your point?

Hate speech spewed by the KKK, and the right of the KKK to march in parades, has been upheld time and again by our Supreme Court.

That's charming. But wholly irrelevant. As we've been trying to explain to you.

No one was advocating that a law be made or enforced to prevent these individuals from saying what they said.

(Of course, *I* would propose such a law and enforcement of it, by regulation of satellite broadcasting -- if I lived in the jurisdiction in question. I don't, and I already have rules that I'm quite sure would result in sanctions in this case.)

To live in a democracy that protects free speech for every citizen means we have to bear the cost of that freedom --which sometimes means we have to abide the worst that can come out of the mouth of another individual or group.

Speak for yourself. I don't have to put up with people advertising snake oil to cure cancer. Come to think of it, neither do you.

You have a preference as to where to draw the line. Others have other preferences. Yours doesn't trump anyone else's simply by virtue of you screeching "FREE SPEECH".

The way to deal with issues like this one is to use more free speech, not less.

In your opinion. Did Ratzwhatsit die and leave you his chair?

Once you enter into the realm of the efficacy of measures to combat an evil, my friend, you have abandoned whatever authoritative chair you might think you were speaking of. You want someone else to agree with it, you need to present facts and arguments to establish its merit.

Complain, call, write the owner of the station that employs these idiots, and do the same with the sponsors of their employer. If the advertising dollars go away, these fools will also.

So again -- what's your point?

You started out jousting with a straw effigy, and moved on to join other voices saying exactly what you just said.

None of your free speech pontificating had anything to do with anything. Just as Morgana LaFey said to start with.

Of course, it may be unfortunate that she decided to address the completely irrelevant first three quarters of your post as if even you thought it was actually relevant to something, when in fact it was just a great big red herring dressed up in straw. But it did seem as if you might be imagining it was relevant to something, so a little instruction, gratis, probably seemed wise.

[Blackhatjack]

135. You refuse to honestly debate the real issues, using diversion and obfuscation as a shield...

I am sorry you are unfamiliar with the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on these important issues. I tried to assist you in understanding how the law exists and is applied today in the US. (I guess the fact you describe yourself as 'a silly foreigner' gives us some insight as to your misbegotten ideas about our Constitution and its application).

My paraphrased quotes has been used many times by our Courts to demonstrate the point I was making.

For Example: (To live in a democracy that protects free speech for every citizen means we have to bear the cost of that freedom --which sometimes means we have to abide the worst that can come out of the mouth of another individual or group).

Or another example: (The way to deal with issues like this one is to use more free speech, not less).

Now I ask, if you have such ironclad evidence that proves my statements are false, why not present it rather than devolve into waging a personal attack upon me, my intelligence, and my professionalism? It does not serve you well, and diminishes any shred of credibility you might have had in making your point that you do not like the conduct complained of in the OP.

I will now suspend my efforts to help you understand the legal issues involved here. If you continue to rant and rave in an illogical and misinformed manner --it will merely remove all doubt as to the fact you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this and other discussions on this board.

[iverglas]

136. maybe you can enlighten me about how a lightbulb works

That would be at least as relevant to anything under discussion here as the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on these important issues.

I don't need any enlightenment on that subject, but I could use a refresher on how a lightbulb works.

(I guess the fact you describe yourself as 'a silly foreigner' gives us some insight as to your misbegotten ideas about our Constitution and its application).

I guess the fact that your assumption that foreigners know nuttin bout nuttin gives us some insight into a few things, too.

My paraphrased quotes has been blah blah blah blah blah

My paraphrased quote demonstrates that once again you are riding off on a horse of no relation whatsoever to anything under discussion here.

If you would just point to the post where someone proposed that Bozo and Dingbat be charged, tried, convicted or sentenced for something, we might be able to move beyond this little impasse.

Now I ask, if you have such ironclad evidence that proves my statements are false

Oh, and perhaps you could cut and paste something I said amounting to "your statements are false".

Are you that unable to distinguish between IRRELEVANT and FALSE?

why not present it rather than devolve into waging a personal attack upon me, my intelligence, and my professionalism?

That's a funny one. Of course, maybe there's something you could cut and paste to back it up, too.

Or another example: (The way to deal with issues like this one is to use more free speech, not less).

In the mouth of a court, that's what would be called, where I'm at, obiter dictum. Not much interested in the courts telling us how to deal with problems, where I'm at. We're quite fond of our courts telling our governments how *not* to do things (or permitting them to do things as they have, if the way they've done 'em is challenged and found justified), but that's as far as they get to go. Different strokes, I guess. Well, I don't really guess, but I guess you do, if you want your courts telling you how to do things that are none of their business.

Oh, ditto for that what-it-means-to-live-in-a-democracy business, too. Fond as I am of my Supreme Court most of the time, I don't need them telling me what it means to live in a democracy. Obiter!

And one more time, for the love of god, and as two of us have tried so hard to explain to you. One does not "use" MORE FREE SPEECH. Free speech doesn't come in quantities to be used; SPEECH does.

I will now suspend my efforts to help you understand the legal issues involved here. If you continue to rant and rave in an illogical and misinformed manner --it will merely remove all doubt as to the fact you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this and other discussions on this board.

Well hey, I'm sure your Supreme Court must have an authoritative opinion about that somewhere, too.

[Blackhatjack]

137. The lightbulb analogy is a funny one, but you asked for it.....

IF you were a light bulb, first you would screw yourself into a tight fit and then wait for someone to come along and flip the switch to light you up!

WE are all just waiting for you to burn yourself out.

I must give you credit for never refuting any statements I make, and yet find ways to condemn me for making the statements.

You must have a lot of pent up anger, and it just flows out of you at the first opportunity you come across. Glad I could be of assistance to you. Feel Better?

[Morgana LaFey]

141. I can't speak for iverglas

But believe me, among the feminists here at DU, there IS a lot of pent up anger. And there will continue to be as long as women continue to be treated as second class citizens in the larger world, and treated in demeaning, humiliating and degrading ways right here at DU.

And while I'll say again that I can' speak FOR her, based on my observations of her responses, I suspect that in YOUR regard, iverglas is mostly just amused with you -- along with your estimation of your own knowledge, nevermind that you can't seem to find or follow the point but obstinately stick witb your original misinterpretation of, well, just about everything.

I'm tempted to wonder at this point if your participation in this thread hasn't just been one huge put-on, a wee little joke.

But then I fear that it's not, that you're quite serious.

[iverglas]

142. yeh

I am the Queen of Romania, remember; I find most things amusing. Determined ignorance and wilful blindness, not so much; but the self-satisfaction and self-righteousness that tends to go with 'em, quite a bit.

[Morgana LaFey]

147. And the earnest befuddlement, too, right?

On the funny side, that is.

You know, in all my life I've never, ever wished I were male. Never. No matter what, not under any circumstances.

Until, that is, this very moment. This very moment I found myself wondering what it feels like to have that inborn, innate "certainty" that your every thought, your belief, tidbit of knowledge must CERTAINLY be right and correct and true vis a vis those of ANY female one could find, no question, no doubt. Just once, for maybe up to 20 minutes, I'd like to experience that. It must be whoppin' seductive. It must be so damn fine it's worth doing everything you can to prevent half the human race to be fully equal.

It must be freakin' addictive, way beyond oxycontin even. Heck, I'm almost hooked just thinking about it.

[Blackhatjack]

152. Do you always turn every disagreement into a feminist dispute? Hmmm....

You seem to see the world only in male/female terms.

Your sex makes no difference in the arguments I raised.

However, the more you post the more you reveal a skewed view of the world, at least as far as the male v. female experience.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

156. Imagine turning rape jokes into something to do with feminism!

Laugh to keep from crying.

[Morgana LaFey]

180. Well said.

Great post and perfect timing.

:hi:

[Blackhatjack]

190. You posted: "all my life I've never, ever wished I were male...Until.. this very moment."

And you continued "It must be so damn fine..."

I find this revelation disturbing since it indicates an inner turmoil on your part regarding your own psychological gender identification.

Why is it necessary to want to be sexually different in order to address a rather straight forward issue?

It really is quite simple. The content of what O & A said was bad, wrong, and worthy of condemnation. What O & A said was carried on a private subscription service, not a public broadcast airway subject to licensure by the United States Government. As private citizens working as employees of the station, O & A are not subject to any law which would make what they said illegal. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution not only protects citizens from their Government unlawfully preventing them from exercising their free speech rights, but as the legislative history shows, it was drafted and passed to insure that citizens have the right publicly 'to state their sentiments', which may offend their fellow citizens.

People of both genders may agree or disagree in this discussion, and therefore gender does not determine the opinions held.

It certainly does not require implementation of a male v. female litmus test to determine who makes the better argument.

[Blackhatjack]

154. I guess my condemning the content of O & A was not enough for you...

Does everybody around you have to agree with your world view of things or risk being labelled as a dominator of feminists? I just don't see how anything I posted could have given you the idea that I approve of treating women as second class citizens, or that I approve of treating them in demeaning, humiliating and degrading ways.

You need to take a time out, gather your ideas, make your argument, and if you are persuasive others will agree with you. Attacking others, and attempting to marginalize them, will not win you any followers.

No one elected you to go around and personally punish those who do not agree with you. You are only making yourself miserable.

[iverglas]

161. you see, the question is: why wasn't it enough for you?

Particularly since that's all anyone was doing: condemning the content. You seemed to have a problem with that, for some reason.

I'd suggest that You need to take a time out, gather your ideas, make your argument, ... if I had a clue what it was meant to be. Other than a springboard for calling someone else hysterical.

[Blackhatjack]

176. Here is the proof that you are lying....

You posted: "Particularly since that's all anyone was doing: condemning the content. You seemed to have a problem with that, for some reason."

I previously posted:

"This should be condemned fully and completely..."

"I find it terribly offensive and is worthy of condemnation of the highest order..."

"And nothing I have said here defends the content of what was said, but rather the right for them to say it."

"I guess my condemning the content of O & A was not enough for you..."

See this is how you refute obviously untrue statements. You go back and gather evidence that shows the person making the allegation cannot be believed since they have twisted the truth and/or just told a boldfaced lie.

I would suggest that people who make untruthful allegations, when they know the evidence is out there to prove them wrong, either live in a fantasy world OR they make things up because they are afraid people will see that they are lying.

I would classify your statements as patently untrue. And the quotes above prove it. So what does that make you?

[iverglas]

178. and here's how I respond to false accusations of lying

The opening post in this thread included this comment by the poster:

I'm at work so I can't listen. I will say that as much as I dislike Condi, this sounds like it's way over the line. I'd say the same thing if they were talking about doing it to Coulter. Wonder if these buttheads will be fired again?

You responded to it by saying:

This should be condemned fully and completely, but it is free speech protected by the Constitution
-- even though no one had said it wasn't, or should not be protected

I find it terribly offensive and is worthy of condemnation of the highest order, but we need to be careful about trying to silence free speech we do not like.
-- even though no one had proposed that the speech in question be silenced

It is a slippery slope from silencing this kind of speech to silencing speech that we may consider ok but is offensive to someone else.
-- even thought it is a logical fallacy, and unacceptable in civil/democratic discourse, to suggest that it is a "slippery slope" from A to B, i.e. that there is no distinction to be made between A and B that makes it plain that A is so dissimilar from B in an important aspect that A simply cannot be said to lead to B, when that is plainly not the case

Hate speech spewed by the KKK, and the right of the KKK to march in parades, has been upheld time and again by our Supreme Court.
-- even though no one had suggested that the speakers in this instance did not have a right to say what they said

To live in a democracy that protects free speech for every citizen means we have to bear the cost of that freedom --which sometimes means we have to abide the worst that can come out of the mouth of another individual or group.
-- which is a purely personal opinion, no matter what judicial decision it may have appeared as obiter in, which you are of course entitled to spout, but which conflates speech that someone doesn't like for idiosyncratic reasons and speech of a nature, and in a forum, that someone may have reasons for seeking to suppress that are entirely compatible with freedom and democracy

The way to deal with issues like this one is to use more free speech, not less.
-- again, one of those opinion things, apparently pre-emptively arguing against prohibitions against speech / punishments of speakers like those in the case in question ... and again off topic, since nobody had proposed such prohibitions/punishments, and offered for who knows what reason?

Complain, call, write the owner of the station that employs these idiots, and do the same with the sponsors of their employer. If the advertising dollars go away, these fools will also.
-- there ya go; no need for any of that chatter about constitutions and rights, and no need to imply that anyone else was proposing something you consider to be unconstitutional (whether it actually would be nor not), since no one had

Your opinions about what might be constitutionally legitimate limitations on speech might be quite fascinating. They are not authoritative. If someone were to propose that satellite radio broadcasting be regulated in the US, and that conditions be imposed on licences that would prohibit speech such as this and penalize licensees that broadcast it, there would be strong argument available for that position.

But I guess the main way I deal with false accusations of lying is just to point out that the allegation of lying hasn't even been substantiated to the extent of identifying a "lie".

I said:
Particularly since that's all anyone was doing: condemning the content. You seemed to have a problem with that, for some reason.
and you quoted that, presumably because you were calling it a lie. Huh. I guess you know how things seem to me better than I do, eh?

If you didn't have a problem with people condemning the content of the speech in question, why did you ride off on a hobbyhorse about free speech? I still don't know what the answer to that one is, despite the numerous opportunities you have had to provide it.

I would classify your statements as patently untrue. And the quotes above prove it. So what does that make you?

Mildly amused.

[Blackhatjack]

179. If you cannot answer the last question I posed, that makes you less intelligent than I thought....

If you do not agree with the state of the law and our Constitution go out and do something to change it. Until then, that is the way it is. Deal with it.

BTW when you disprove the truth of something someone said, you do not begin each attempt with:

"--even though no one had said..."
"--even though no one had proposed..."
"--even though no one had suggested..."
"--which is a purely personal opinion, no matter what judicial decision it may have appeared as obiter in, which you are of course entitled to spout..."
"-- again, one of those opinion things, apparently pre-emptively arguing against..."
"-- there ya go; no need for any of that chatter about constitutions and rights..."

[Morgana LaFey]

185. With all due respect

I'm not sure you're in a very strong position to be weighing in on the intelligence of anyone else. Just my take on things.

I'll give you just one utterly incredible example, a particularly vivid one:

If you do not agree with the state of the law and our Constitution go out and do something to change it. Until then, that is the way it is. Deal with it.

That's one of the biggest non sequiturs I've ever seen. Nowhere, but nowhere did iverglas ever even intimate let alone assert that she disagreed with ANYthing about our Constitution at all. So your admonition to her to go out and change it or live with it is utter nonsense.

I shouldn't need to point out that it's impossible to carry on a conversation with someone who isn't capable of comprehending what's being said, and is therefore equally unable to respond coherently.

[Blackhatjack]

187. You and your friend should just keep living in an alternate reality...

... where everyone bows down before your superior knowledge, all issues can be divided into categories by gender, and you are free to ignore the laws and regulations of the United States.

No one obviously can satisfy either one of you. If you could read and comprehend, you would understand that I am not your enemy, just the unfortunate soul who happened to try and help you both understand the application of the law to this circumstance. (But how was I to know that you both know more about everything than anyone else in the universe?).

Both of you are quite unpleasant, unable to debate ideas honestly, and find that your world is enhanced by attacking others personally for things you imagine they believe.

I guess it is easier to ignore reality and construct your own little world, where you do not have to cope with others and their opinions.

You both must lead sad little lives .... "just my take on things" to quote you.

[Morgana LaFey]

195. Oh, you poor maligned soul

You poor dear martyr. You have my sympathies, getting treated so unfairly by a couple of harpies. Imagine -- and you such a prince, and a scholar to boot.

Where's my violin?

[Blackhatjack]

201. Please, save your sympathies for someone who cares ...

A review of your posts reveals that it is the two of you who have thin skins, and are playing the roles of martyrs.

How is remaking the world in your own image INSIDE YOUR OWN MINDS working out for you?

Convinced anyone to adopt your positions by keeping up a constant attack on them?

Not so good? I wonder what you are doing wrong?

[Morgana LaFey]

217. Look

I tried to explain it another way, but now I'm going to be very explicit. I find you impossible to have an actual conversation with. I find that you imagine things, make arguments out of things that don't exist, make points that make no sense, etc., etc., etc. I won't be answering you in any way with anytyhing of substance. Period. I don't have the time or energy for such nonsense. I think I even put in one post what I was thinking: are you for REAL, or just an elaborate, put on hoax?

But no matter. Since you have not taken the hint, I'm now going to put you on ignore.

Bye!

[Blackhatjack]

I guess you are not used to having someone stand their ground with you...

I stated facts I could back up, I provided proof to support my positions, I waded through your personal attacks, and I am still here.

I guess that is as good a reason as any for you to put me on 'ignore.'

[joshcryer]

256. Good job.

Good on you for sticking to sensiblity. I know how hard it can be when you're being addressed in a less than professional manner and it has almost made me resort to the same sort of tactic. It's hard to stay true to yourself.

[Blackhatjack]

258. Thanks. I know you can identify based on my reading of the posts directed to you...

[Dorian Gray]

151. What they were saying

was not protesting the government. It could be construed as inciting rape if one of their crazy fans got ideas. But, regardless, it should be condemned as ignorant, unfunny, and truly offensive.

[iverglas]

106. continuing on that line

We know because there are organizations that track and document the statistics that whenever there are anti-gay initiatives going on anywhere in the country, hate crimes -- actual physical assaults -- against gays go up sharply. The very notion of curtailing their rights and merely talking about them (in polite terms but) negatively gives some people "permission" to go after them physically.

Google "Rape Myth Acceptance Scale".

I like this one:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/sers/2006/00000055/F0020007/00009101

Abstract:

Rape myth acceptance has been extensively studied. Little research is available, however, on the relationship of this variable to other oppressive belief systems. A sample of 492 male and 506 female college students completed the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (short form), the Neosexism Scale, the Modern and Old Fashioned Racism Scale, the Modern Homophobia Scale, a modified version of the Economic Belief Scale, the Fraboni Scale of Ageism, and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (short form). Because there were no existing measures of intolerance toward multiple religions, the Religious Intolerance Scale was developed for this study (using relevant items from the Godfrey Richman Isms Scale). Findings here suggested that greater racism (both modern and old fashioned), sexism (both modern and old fashioned), homophobia (toward both gay men and lesbians), ageism, classism, and religious intolerance were each associated with greater rape myth acceptance. Moreover, each belief system collectively added to the prediction of rape myth acceptance, although sexism has the highest overlap with rape myth acceptance. Although gender did not moderate the relationship between oppressive belief systems and rape myth acceptance, results, across analyses, did indicate that men reported greater rape myth acceptance than women did. Results point to the interrelatedness of rape myth acceptance, racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, ageism, and religious intolerance.

Well, "like" may be putting too fine a point on it.

I suspect that people who have heard the individuals in question in this tale (I have not had the pleasure) find that conclusion credible.

Ah, here's what I'm looking for:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17733364

BLEECKER E. Timothy; MURNEN Sarah K.

Abstract

The present study was conducted to learn more about the association between fraternity membership and attitudes and behaviors associated with sexual aggression against women. A male experimenter took digital pictures of all of the images of women displayed in the rooms of 30 fraternity men and 30 non-fraternity men on a residential, small, liberal arts college campus. The men also filled out a rape myth acceptance scale. A total of 91 images were found in the form of posters, "pin-ups," advertisements, or computer screen savers. It was found that fraternity men had significantly more images of women displayed in their rooms and that the images were rated significantly more degrading than those in the rooms of non-fraternity men. Fraternity men were found to have significantly higher scores on a rape supportive attitude scale (RSA). RSA scores were positively related to the amount of degradation in the images found in men's rooms. The possible purposes and consequences of the display of degrading sexual images are discussed.

And on the flip side:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16112439

Was it rape? The function of women's Rape Myth acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences

PETERSON Zoë D.; MUEHLENHARD Charlene L.;

Abstract

In a phenomenon called unacknowledged rape, many rape victims do not label their experience rape. Does their level of rape myth acceptance influence this labeling process? In this study, 86 college women whose experience met the legal definition of rape described their experience, indicated how they labeled it, and completed the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Logistic regressions indicated that, for 2 rape myths (e.g., if women don't fight back, it's not rape), women who accepted the myth and whose experience corresponded to the myth (e.g., they did not fight back) were less likely than other women to acknowledge their experience as rape. Women were also unlikely to acknowledge rape when they did not label the nonconsensual sexual behavior sex.

And there's always hope:

http://www.highereducationcenter.org/violence/sexual-assault.html

Foubert, John D. The Longitudinal Effects of a Rape-Prevention Program on Fraternity Men's Attitudes, Behavioral Intent, and Behavior. Journal of American College Health, 48 (4) pp. 158-63. 2000.

Abstract:

One third of twenty-three fraternities on a mid-Atlantic public campus volunteered to participate in a study which surveyed one hundred forty five fraternity men in their rape myth acceptance, likelihood of raping and displaying sexually coercive behavior. The men were either assigned to a control group or a rape-prevention program. The rape-prevention intervention consisted of "the men's program," a victim empathy-based presentation titled "How to help a sexual assault survivor: What men can do." Although no evidence of change in sexually coercive behavior was found, significant seven-month declines in rape myth acceptance and the likelihood of committing rape were shown among program participants. In the case of rape myth acceptance, the seven-month decrement remained lower in the participant group than in the control group. Implications of using these initial findings from the men's program for rape-prevention programming are discussed.

Hinck, Shelly Schaefer; Thomas, Richard W. Rape Myth Acceptance in College Students: How Far Have We Come? Sex Roles, 40 (9-10), pp. 815-832 1999.

Abstract:

Researchers have emphasized the significant role of rape myth acceptance in individuals' predisposition to engage in sexually aggressive behavior, including rape. The purpose of this study was to examine the current state of rape myth acceptance in college students and the factors that differentiated acceptance vs. rejection of rape myths. One hundred fifty-eight primarily Caucasian respondents were provided with two measures of attitudes toward rape and asked the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Men and women who had not attended a rape awareness workshop expressed weaker disagreement with rape myths than women and individuals who had attended the workshop. Discriminate analysis of these variables successfully identified a core set of rape myths that differentiated individuals in terms of the degree to which they subscribed to rape-supportive attitudes.

[Morgana LaFey]

124. Most excellent

Thanks for posting. Good to see you, as always. :hi:

[Hidden Stillness]

139. Their Enjoyment of Their Cruelty Toward Us IS the "Joke"

Great post. You always find that there are several attitudes and opinions that go together, and they are exhibited again on this thread. The response jumps, quickly, from "it was just a joke," to "I CHALLENGE you to PROVE IT," "male-hating 'bitch,' " "YOU really have serious psychological problems," "you are so fucking stupid, I can't even believe it," etc., etc., instantly--right below the surface. The thing that makes some people laugh at violence/humiliation "jokes" is a complete lack of empathy for the hated group--they can never suffer enough to finally please those who hate them. I offends the bigot, that the other even has a perspective that deserves to be heard. I have heard this from family members, other males I have known--you can feel them tightening up when a woman even wins a debating point, gains some kind of a victory, or anything else, and you know, there is going to be a fight. There is a certain type of woman-hating male, and you can read them yet again on this thread, who gets excited at the thought of more torment, who laughs and attacks every single thing you say or write, right down to the details of wording, and keeps it up, more and more angry and sputtering, more sarcastic, more hostile. If a woman's separate perspective is even referred to, if males are criticized at all--look out.

Their trivialization is so ingrained in them, that they can't even find it, separate from the whole anymore, like the animal abuser who gets indignant: "You're arresting me because I kicked a dog?? A goddamned DOG??" They do not get that it is they who have diminished the other; they accuse you of exaggerating; and they don't get the flip side of the same coin. The manipulation is endless, of course: First, rape is "so serious" that they are furious that anyone should ever be allowed to make the charge, then a second later, they themselves are "laughing" at rape "jokes." They are "shocked, outraged" that anyone would ever want the rapist-lovers off the air, yet where are all the women on the corporate media telling jokes about cutting male penises off? Obviously, there are none--they were all censored by males, and no one complains. There is censorship all over the place--of us. As a matter of fact, I don't even know why this thread only refers to Condoleezza Rice, as if they were "selective." I heard a commercial promo on CNN Headline"News" for their "Hollywood" program, on this topic, and that it was "Offensive, Horrible, and Disgusting--and We Have It, Coming Up Right After This Message," and no, I did not listen to it, that mentioned that they were attacking other women too, including Queen Elizabeth. It is a hate-party against all women, who cannot do anything to stop it, because it has been given permission.

Many attitudes go together: a use of violent and/or degrading pornography, hated of feminism, excitement at violence from many male-media sources, enjoyment of taunting others, and complete lack of empathy for women and their perspective, leading to instant, angry attack and opposition at everything we try to express, no matter what it is. Dismissing the very experience of women, so that, 1) they are "always lying or exaggerating," 2) their history is "not important," the way "real, male" history is, 3) things are always worse when they happen to a male, and I don't want to bother listening to a "bitch" regardless. Some people make the mistake of thinking that they are good people, but just uninformed, but after you get lunged at, attacked, manipulated, and accused, several more times, each one more hysterical, then you can start to wake up. They will always defend the rapist, and attack the woman and her defenders.

I read some years ago, during the '80s, of a rapist who later felt a conscience for what had been done to the victims, and became a counselor in a prison rape-group, to make them face what they had done, and what their attitudes of hate toward women are. Knowing that the crime had happened, that it was rape and that the woman victim was telling the truth, this rapist described the treatment of the investigation and questioning by (male) police: "I coudn't believe it. They believed everything that I said." This is always the case with male bigots--they always cast the male as pure and truthful, and always treat any defense of women as if it were a "test"--(pro-"bitch," or "one of us")--and it is going to be a fight. The only good thing about this depressing spectacle, is that it seems the numbers of fighters-for-women has increased. I am no longer surprised that "Democrats" are shown to be woman-haters and abusers; this should be faced.

[iverglas]

143. an interesting new point you make

First, rape is "so serious" that they are furious that anyone should ever be allowed to make the charge, then a second later, they themselves are "laughing" at rape "jokes."

So hard to believe that women are raped, and yet so dismissing of the notion of it.

The only good thing about this depressing spectacle, is that it seems the numbers of fighters-for-women has increased.

The ranks at DU diminished sharply a while back, I gather, out of widespread disgust. Interesting to see, recently, that a new cohort seems to have formed and is growing. A belated welcome to it!

[Iris]

177. yes, I've been away for a while, but am pleased to see that the tone is less

abusive than it was last time I was around. At least in most of the threads I've looked at.

[Morgana LaFey]

144. Brilliant

Thanks.

[AZBlue]

260. Are you claiming to be a lawyer? Then you should know Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire:

In their unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court wrote: "It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.'"

[Redstone]

9. Those assholes are beneath contempt. I'd cancel my XM service in a heartbeat, if I had it. And if

Sirius signs them on, well fuck it, I guess I'll do without satellite radio.

I will NOT spend money with someone who would hire those scumbuckets.

Rape is never, EVER funny.

Redstone

[Bluerthanblue]

11. I AM OUTRAGED AS WELL

what a sad illustration of our screwed up 'entertainment' industry-

there is NOTHING 'entertaining' about sexual assault-

fie on this

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherine Vincent]

13. These guys should be fired. n/t

[Toucano]

15. And SHUNNED by all of humanity.

We really have to bring back shunning.

[salin]

16. These guys are sick.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. O & A Crack Me Up. Sure, They're Crude At Times, But Damn Friggin Funny Too!

You can't take them too seriously. They're just radio personalities.

Skit was overall harmless though relatively speaking. I thought it was gonna be far worse, knowing them. I personally didn't find it funny, but since I'm familiar with them and their personalities I'm not offended by it either. It's just typical shock jock nonsense ya know?

[Toucano]

17. The sexual assault of any woman is never funny. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Good thing no woman was sexually assaulted here.

:shrug:

[salin]

22. let's see... about 1/3 of girls/women between the age of 15 and 30

are rape victims... no harm continuing to dismiss the crime as not awful but instead funny in a dismissive way...

Look I don't think one or two guys are committing that number of rapes. So how do some get the idea that the behavior is okay? Let's see societal norms that defend such talk as harmless ... ???

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Who's dismissing the crime?

No crime was committed here.

[salin]

33. dismissing the idea of violent rape

via humour.

It is dismissive of the crime of rape. Turning the violence into a 'funny moment'. That is dismissive. If it were not still such a prevalent crime of young women in this country than perhaps it wouldn't be so outrageous. But given that this is a very serious and pandemic problem in our society - treating it as a point of humour - esp when graphicness is part of what makes the joke... then it help explains why norms and attitudes are such that help explain why this is still such a prevalent crime against women.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. So if people stop telling dead baby jokes...

is abortion going to become less prevalent?

[salin]

36. whatever.

I can be as dismissive as well. Have a nice evening.

[Bluerthanblue]

76. how about they tell them with your "baby" as the "joke"-?

how in the world can you defend this kind of crap???

[iverglas]

105. whoa

So if people stop telling dead baby jokes...
is abortion going to become less prevalent?

Now there's a reeeeally pro-choice/pro-women thing to say.

Never would have occurred to me, but there ya go.

[Morgana LaFey]

121. He's just full of 'em, if you haven't noticed

Real progressive type when it comes to women's rights.

[Reterr]

183. Ohhh you got them

Dude you like totally like zinged everyone with that...you are soooo like kewl!
All those silly women quacking about rape jokes...you showed 'em!!111!!
:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

104. ah, the usual suspects are out in force in this thread

Just note the names, and remember not to bother to click next time.

You 'n me and the rest of the civilized world knows that there is no parallel between "jokes" that are based on the sexual humiliation and subjugation and harm of women and -- that CONSIST OF the sexual humiliation and subjugation and harm of women -- and any other stupid non-analogous thing that one of the defenders of all things freedom around here might pull out of his/her ass.

These little discussions just let them display their colours, so they serve some purpose, one supposes.

[salin]

110. Indeed,

informative on that front.

Btw, great to see you again. We don't often have the chance to cross paths these days. :hi:!

[Madspirit]

42. The Psych term

"Desensitizing". Rape humor...jokes about violently assaulting a woman. I hate Tiny Boy humor. I also usually make assumptions about just how Tiny they are to engage in it. Who else would think bullying and terrifying and assaulting a woman was a source of Funny? It should make people shudder.
Lee

[salin]

19. ya, jokes about violent rape fantasies are harmless

:eyes:

and we wonder why rape is still such a prevalent crime. Perhaps the casual "can't take it seriously" attitude towards "jokes" and such, which can serve to validate listeners who harbor those fantasies that the fantasies are normal ... ...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. Yes. That's Brilliant. O & A Drive People To Rape And Video Games Drive People To Kill.

I see it now. Yup. Brilliant.

[salin]

23. And I am a *big* consumer of those products

...

but hey lets keep to topic. Got a good harmless rape joke to tell?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Sorry To Disappoint You Bub. I Don't Tell Rape Jokes.

And furthermore, I was keeping to topic.

[salin]

35. not a bub.

just one who has dealt with the way the crime is trivialized to where there are not many constraints against the behavior for enough young (and older) men to lead to staggering statistics per the prevalence of rape. For some reason - those with the tendencies to believe it is "their right" to force sex - have the idea that society is okay with it and it is not illegal or deviant behavior. Unless one believes that there are only two or three guys around the country committing so many rapes that 1 in 3 women between the age of 15 and 30 become victims of rape. There is something SOCIETAL about this problem. I would contend that the casual and dismissive attitude towards the crime (including fair game for ongoing "humour") might be a contributing factor.

I haven't called for a boycott or anything else. So I am not sure what the problem of expressing a concern and opinion seems to be. I think that awareness through discussion is probably the only way to eventually shift soceital norms. But as long as the conversation is viewed as shrill because the original conversation (on radio about violent rape as a comedy routine) is "harmless" - well that would help explain why there has been almost NO change in the rate of rape for women in the past 20 years.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Wait. What?

There's been a major decline in rape over the last 20 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html

[Beaverhausen]

85. Rape is a highly unreported crime, therefore no statistics on it are accurate

and even if it has declined, it is NOT ok to joke about it. Never. Ever.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. And is it less reported now than it used to be?

And if so, how do you know that statistic is accurate?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Like I Said: I Found The Skit To Be Relatively Harmless.

You found it otherwise. Well la dee da. I can express my opinion as you can express yours. Mine is that it was relatively harmless and that some are overdramatizing it to the nth degree.

Bye. :hi:

[salin]

44. I am sure that the eagle scout

who raped me x years ago, heard the same such skits with similar ears - but to him - they gave the green light to attitudes that suggested that such behavior was "acceptable." But who the heck cares. ces't la vie. And to you survivors - leave our "harmless jokes" that make fun of how you were brutalized (and tells yet another person the behavior is okay and funny) - because most of us laughing wouldn't act on it and we don't care that it gives the green light to other less balanced listeners... and by the way we find what happened to you... funny!

Gee thanks. Glad my experience, and that of others, could give you such a good laugh.

'Night!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. I Think Your Premise Is Completely Wrong.

I'm sorry to hear what happened to you and wish you didn't have to go through it. Having that said, I don't think for a second that radio bits such as the O & A bit above are responsible in any way shape or form for what that piece of shit did to you.

And as far as your attempted guilt trip closing your post, it didn't work. I'm truly sorry for what you went through but I also still have the ability to remain objective. But saying that my comments mean that I condone what was done to you and others, and that those experiences gave me a good laugh, is pretty shameful in its premise and intent. Really twisted too.

Night.

[salin]

54. To what would you attribute a rather widespread

societal attitude that leaves this crime relatively common? I would say that there are many factors- and a dismissive attitude (societal wide) towards the crime (and humour as a blunt to dismiss I would say is a contributing factor) leave too many folks with the idea that the behavior isn't criminal nor wrong.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. I Disagree Completely With Your Assertion.

I've never come across a person in my life that condoned rape, held a dismissive attitude about it, or when speaking seriously about it thought it any less than abhorable.

Your reply tried to put forth a premise that overall in our society rape is not condemned or that it's considered to be no big deal. I call bullshit on that and find it to be as misguided a premise as I've heard.

I challenge you to provide any evidence WHATSOEVER to the ridiculously absurd notion that many folk believe rape isn't criminal or wrong. I don't know what kind of company you keep, but I know for certain that the company and acquaintances that I keep would never in a million years consider it to not be criminal or wrong.

[salin]

60. we disagree and that is fine.

I would say, however, that while you may not believe it is criminal and wrong - you did say that the jokes were "harmless" ... in my opinion (and clearly we disagree) dismissiveness is part of what keeps rhetoric going that to some sends the message... this is okay nor criminal.

So while we disagree, can you at least try to see why those who have been raped (confined/held down/forced/) might find such a description, as part of a joke, NOT FUNNY even if the victim was a disliked public figure? Can we at least agree that for those who have experienced the degrading, humiliating and violent actions - there is no humour in it at all? Can we at least agree that for many, this is offensive per dismissing and trying to make humorous events that were life changing? Is a call for empathy able to be responded to?

[Morgana LaFey]

65. You REPEATEDLY come across as dismissive of rape

again and again and again. You seem to take particular DELIGHT in being dismissive of rape, and egging people on.

And Salin is exactly right: if society didn't find some "value" in rape (as in: it keeps the entire female population terrorized at a very low and almost subconscious level and under societal control, with their movements and activities greatly curtailed), then it just wouldn't happen. In such a society where rape wasn't seen as having some value, it just wouldn't happen.

In ways similar to how we, as a culture, have changed our minds about whether it's okay for people to drive drunk, or smoke in their workplaces and other public places, we'd begin the process of eradicating that behavior from our midst. It ain't happening, and you're no help.

Of COURSE joking about something like this is normalizing and desensitizing. Of COURSE it gives permission to the criminally inclined to be more assertive about their rape fantasies and perhaps actions. Your insistance that there's no connection is just ignorant. See my previous post for a bit more information on that issue.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. What A Provocative Bunch Of Crap That Is.

I've never been dismissive of rape and it makes you look quite the ignoramus to claim not only that but that I take delight in it, but thanks for the bullshit character attack.

Pretty pathetic and disgraceful accusation you got there, but I also know it is just provocative nonsense that is unjustifiable and simply the meaningless ramblings of someone trying to start trouble. If that's all you're about, then see ya! :hi:

[Forkboy]

92. Never? You're doing it right here in this thread.

Seems like someone has a pretty good handle on you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. Where did he do it?

I see him more or less dismissing a joke. But rape and jokes are two different thing.

Isn't it awfully disingenuous to accuse him of dismissing rape, when he's done know such thing? I'm reminded of the guy who posted a thread about how he was annoyed that police turned up at his door to warn him about a child molestor living in the neighborhood, and then somebody called him pro-child molestation.

[Forkboy]

95. I see your point,but by dismissing it as just a joke it helps feed an atmosphere...

...where these things become trivial.And they're not.You should know I like a good joke as much as the next guy.But making jokes about something that is a real and consistantly overlooked problem is pathetic.When someone finds rape jokes funny I have to wonder just how much of a problem they really see,and I also wonder if they have anyone in the circle of family or friends that has been raped.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

80. Salin is RIGHT-

"boys will be boys" and all-

Not being outraged by the joke- finding the notion of this being done to ANYONE (including male prisoners- who are often seen as expendable) as 'relatively harmless' is pretty twisted- and is indeed a part of what keeps the subtle approval the 'ya know they really wanted it' shit going-

Do you find the concept of 'mock lynchings' 'relatively harmless'???

I'm so disapointed in your defense of the undefensable.

If the company you keep finds rape to be criminal and wrong- do they share your opinion that the 'joke' was relatively harmless???

please think this over-

peace,
blu

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. hugs emoticon

[Reterr]

186. Man you are a real jerk

Yeah no-its not because your awesome arguments have just floored me and everyone else that I am resorting to verbal abuyse-but sometimes there is nothing else to say.

Laughing at a rape victim-ho, ho-you are so awesome...Silly li'l woman on message board yapping about a rape that happened to her-she is probably just making a big deal out of nothing right...anyway she probably asked for it right?

You are a real piece of work and one of the most inveterate trolls one can find anywhere.

[Morgana LaFey]

196. He's been missing for days now -- have you noticed?

I'm really glad someone addressed this particular post. It was a particularly, stunningly ugly piece of work.

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

77. what's it all about OMC?

where is the decency, integrety, respect- ??? the GEN?UINE DESIRE TO WISH GOOD upon all in defending 2 shock-jocks making "fun" with the idea of a woman being forcibly raped???????


Sorry my friend, that is not my idea of liberal- or of any of the other noble ideals you say it is all about-

There is no defense for this kind of garbage- NONE- put your wife, daughter,mother, sister,grandmother in the slot of victim, and do you still find it 'relatively harmless'???

Would you find it "relatively harmless" if it was dick cheney making the "joke" about your relative????

Let's be honest- please.

this is a good statement:

"It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all. That is why I'm a liberal."

It doesn't match with defending Opie and Anthony's trash talk -


peace,
blu

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. ROFLMAO Oh Please.

It always cracks me up so much when someone has to resort to such silliness as using my quote as some stupid gotcha. I live by my quote and nothing I've said in this thread changes that, regardless of the ridiculously warped accusation of otherwise.

And your premise itself is absurd. One can absolutely enjoy O & A from time to time and be a liberal. Saying anything otherwise is simply zealotry.

Thanks for the laugh from the silly logic though. :rofl:

[Bluerthanblue]

81. you'd never laugh

at the notion of rape if you'd experienced it-

never-

and I would not wish it on anyone.

peace,
blu

(ps- if you don't want to be held accountable for the words you choose to hold up as representative of your perspective, you may want to consider changing them- Nothing silly in pointing out the dis-connect between a persons words- and their "actions"- (in this case defending the 'humorous' scenero of forcible rape as being relatively "HARMLESS")

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. Probably not.

But Richard Pryor was raped as a child, and he's a credited writer in the movie I referenced below, the one with the rape jokes.

[Morgana LaFey]

146. You're kidding me, right?

You trot this ONE example out as some sort of point that makes laughing at forcible rape jokes okay? Unbelievable, and unbelievably weak.

[BlooInBloo]

109. Damn overemotional drama-loving womens, eh?

[salin]

111. have I told you,

that I appreciate your approach to writing/points made? If not - consider it done now. I love both subtle irony and in your face irony. You do both - and while some may miss it - I find your posting spot on.

[BlooInBloo]

115. (blush)...

Promise to keep that in mind next time I piss you off? (grin)

[salin]

116. if you can allow me

to ask questions to *get the point* if I miss it. I think I get your both in your face irony and sometimes more subtle irony per one-liner responses. I can't remember being "pissed off" - but I do recall once needing a little more perspective (per yours) to *get* the spirit of the point being made. So I won't get pissed off - if you allow me leeway to seek a wee bit more of your perspective when I am missing the point... :D

[BlooInBloo]

117. I don't recall a specific instance either, but that's mostly because...

... I figure I piss pretty much *everybody* off - there's not much point in me keeping track. The mods *loathe* me - LOL!

Anyhoo - re: your profferred deal: Done and done!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

55. I chuckled at the original Mel Brooks line because of the absurdity of it all

When I listened to this O&A "comedy" skit, my lip twitched. This skit described the violent beating and rape of a black woman in fairly graphic detail.

I don't make jokes like that about Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or anyone. Even in my own take on that old "Aristocrats" joke, all of the acts performed were consensual, even if they were a bit gross.

I've known women who have been raped in the past. Very few women are able to emerge relatively unscathed by the ordeal. Some deal with it through therapy, crying, and taking one day at a time. Some are unable to deal with it at all and become catatonic.

The difference between Mel Brooks and O&A was that Brooks knew he was being absurd, but O&A and their guest were simply being cruel.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. The difference between O&A

...and Mel Brooks, and Monty Python, and Aqua Teen is simply a matter of taste. Some of it is funny- Brooks, some of it ain't- O&A (I assume, haven't listened), and some of it is strangely in between- Monty Python.

Now we could argue all day about taste and get nowhere. Whether or not Mel Brooks is funny, whether or not Oasis is the greatest band ever, blah de blah de blah...

Obviously it's going to be funny to people who have been raped. That's the thing about black humor. Awhile back there was a guy here absolutely pissed off about an AIDS joke in Family Guy. I know somebody who took a great personal offense to a suicide joke, because his brother had recently committed suicide. Same goes for the Simpson episode where Homer has a heart attack.

Now if a person's offended by it, fine, but that's not some kind of license to pretend that rape and jokes involving rape are the same thing.

[Morgana LaFey]

70. You've got it wrong, and it's disturbing to me that you don't

understand that.

It's not just a matter of taste, nor even the sensitivities of someone who's been raped. Fortunately, I've never been raped but I'm absolutely enraged by this type of "joke." Why? Because there IS harm in it, and not just hurt feelings.

Humor is a very potent weapon for normalizing and desensitizing. Your very attitude, for example, helps promote and foster an environment in which rape happens -- a lot. WHere people like you don't even give a damn. Where you and other people make light of it, dismiss it, trivialize it -- and where something isn't seen as a horrible social problem, it doesn't get changed or improved.

I'll risk repeating myself. There was a time when driving while drunk was commonplace and laughed about and so forth. And people died on the streets and highways at the hands of drunk drivers. They still do, of course, but these days we don't laugh about it. And we DO it much less.

THere was a time when it was a lot of fun to joke about men knocking their wives around. You'll not hear those jokes much any more because women were (finally) able to convince the bulk of society that physical assault by anyone was wrong, even by those who claimed to love us. And it ceased being a laughing matter. It still happens, but at least we all know it's wrong, not the man's entitlement.

The same needs to happen for rape. It needs to stop, and it'll never, ever stop without people finding it unfunny and refusing to allow ANYone to make light over the physical, emotional, spiritual and psychological harm visited upon others.

Would you find jokes about torturing Iraqis funny, a matter of taste? My guess is not, but I'd like to know YOUR answer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. We don't joke about drunk driving?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uc8vPyQ_hHQ

Ha ha!

[Morgana LaFey]

119. Not like we used to. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Does the same thing work for murder?

Because I was watching that comedy the other day, and while it did inspire in me a murderous rage, I did think the murder jokes were reasonably funny.

[salin]

27. I have no idea

to what you are referring so I can't respond. "that comedy" isn't terribly descriptive for a conversation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Jokes involving murder.

You know- black comedy. Spoofs on detective stories. That sort of thing.

[iverglas]

169. ... don't generally target a specific group or individual

and, in particular, a group/individual that is stereotyped, widely hated/victimized and already vulnerable to attacks such as are being "joked" about.

If a joke about murder was in fact a joke about lynching African-Americans, I do think that the same people who condemn this particular "joke" would be saying precisely the same things.

In case you missed it, the joke in this instance was about the violent sexual assault of a woman. As I understand it, the jokers weren't talking about sexually assaulting and beating Republican white house workers in general.

Does this help at all?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

200. So...

the difference is because it's a specific person?

[iverglas]

205. okay, so I guess it didn't help

I don't know why some people apparently enjoy making themselves look this thick, but that's their choice, eh?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

209. Isn't that what you said?

"the jokers weren't talking about sexually assaulting and beating Republican white house workers in general."

You tried moving the goal posts by arguing that it was specific, not general. You got caught doing it to, and now you complain about others being thick? Heh.

[iverglas]

220. so you *can* quote

Ever wonder why that thing one solemnly promises to do in court refers to not just the truth, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

"The whole truth" would be the operative concept here.

You tried moving the goal posts by arguing that it was specific, not general.

I don't really have a clue what you're talking about. I wasn't involved in the converation before that post.

You seem, however, to be believing, or at least pretending to believe, that when I said "a woman" I was referring to a particular woman. I wasn't. When I referred to a joke about lynching African-Americans, I could just as easily have said a joke about lynching an African-American, and the same meaning would have been conveyed. Number made no difference. The joke in question here happened to be about a woman -- although in fact I gather that similar things were said about several women. So feel free to read that as the joke in this instance was about the violent sexual assault of women. Did you imagine that I didn't object to the others, and only to the particularly vile one about Condoleezza Rice?

You may genuinely not understand. I really can't tell. So I'll try one more time.

You asked about jokes involving murder. I can't think of one offhand, but my response was that they don't generally target a specific group or individual -- and, in particular, a group/individual that is stereotyped, widely hated/victimized and already vulnerable to attacks such as are being "joked" about. I doubt that you actually didn't see that part.

If the joke were about the murder of a Pakistani individual, and the Pakistani-ness of the victim were essential to the humour intended to be found in the joke, would you find it funny? Feel free to explain your answer. Consider the same kind of joke, about the murder of a gay man.

Someone asked about dead baby jokes. If the baby were Sudanese, and the Sudanese-ness of the corpse were essential to the humour intended to be found in the joke, would you find it funny? Feel free to explain your answer.

Now, here we have some things known as analogies. Do you see how they are similar, in significant elements, to jokes about the violent sexual assault of women? And not similar, in significant respects, to jokes about generic unspecified kinds of people being killed, or generic unspecified kinds of babies being dead?

No? If not, I think I probably just can't help you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

242. Proves my point, doesn't it.

The problem you, at least at this point, have with the joke isn't the rape, it's that it's a rape joke involving a woman. Which implies that it would be OK if it were a rape joke involving a man. (and it seems to me most rape jokes do, specifically prison inmates.) Which also implies that rape jokes may be acceptable to you, given proper context. Same goes with murder, and dead babies, apparently.

[iverglas]

244. implies a few things

it's that it's a rape joke involving a woman. Which implies that it would be OK if it were a rape joke involving a man. (and it seems to me most rape jokes do, specifically prison inmates.)

I know what that implies, and I've already said it a few times.

It implies that you are so dishonest that you will say anything at all that serves your agenda, and that you have nothing true or rational to say at all, since shit like this is all you repeatedly come up with.

Which also implies that rape jokes may be acceptable to you, given proper context.

Since I cannot imagine a context in which rape is other than the exertion of control and the causing of harm to someone who is vulnerable, and since you have no reason for thinking that any rape joke would be acceptable to me whatsoever, well, not much more needs saying.

In the male/prison context, men are victims of the brutalization inflicted on them by society, the state, the government, the courts, and prison authorities. And before being prisoners, very often the victims of other conditions that contributed to them ending up in prison. They are victims of their immediate assailants, but more importantly the victims of the permission and even encouragement those assailants are given for their actions, by all those agents in the society. (It just isn't a big problem in Canada, you know.) I don't find anything funny in that situation -- although there are many, many here at DU who do find it quite hilarious and express their hilarity with quite sickening regularity. I am quite sure I have expressed my distaste for expressions of approval for any prisoner "getting what he deserves" or whatever other illiberal language may be used by people of that bent.

So you see, what you're doing is not seeing an implication. What you're doing is assuming, or perhaps more accurately falsely accusing.

I had a client - a man - who was raped by multiple assailants as part of an incident intended to terrorize him into ceasing his political activities in a South American country. Maybe you find that funny. I didn't.

Same goes with murder, and dead babies, apparently.

Well, I just dunno. I guess I just hang out with the wrong crowd, because I'm not actually aware of the issue ever arising. Should I lower my standards and decide to spend my time with people who joke about murder and dead babies, I'll let you know how I feel. So far, I don't see it happening here, but if you do, you be sure to let me know.

For now, same goes for this as I said about the other: just another baseless and false accusation. Pretty boring after a while, don't you find?

[Forkboy]

66. Of course you do.

Knew that before you even posted it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. Well Ain't You Just A Psychic Extraordinaire.

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

82. Apparently I am.

[mudesi]

90. Time for a thought experiment

"I'd like to shoot that bitch in the head, yo."

Harmless and humorous typical shock jock skit about murder? Or something to be condemned?

[WCGreen]

21. Well, if that's not a reason not to buy XM,

I don't know what is...

[greyghost]

25. This is an easy...

one. If you don't like them then don't listen.

And no, they won't be fired because they are on a subscription service and not subject to commercial sponsors only.

[salin]

30. I am glad to know

what to avoid.

[tammywammy]

39. It's never that easy

Seriously, you must not have been here that long. Most people would rather yell and scream about something they didn't hear or someone they don't watch, than just ignore it.

And with most stuff, if more people just stop listening, they'll eventually not be on the radio.

Hey, I don't like Rush, that's why I don't listen to him.

[Morgana LaFey]

72. And how's that working out for ya?

And with most stuff, if more people just stop listening, they'll eventually not be on the radio.
Hey, I don't like Rush, that's why I don't listen to him.

Is he off the air yet, now that you're not listening to him?

[tammywammy]

102. Actually, it's going great

I don't care that he's out there. I could care less what he says.

[SayWhatYo]

114. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way...

....but it sounds as if you're saying that people who you do not personally agree with shouldn't be on the air. Now, I grew up in a house hold where Rush was played every morning, and I cannot stand the guy. However that does not mean he should be thrown off the air.... Of course, I'm sure that's not what you meant, right?

[iverglas]

145. and that would be ...

it sounds as if you're saying that people who you do not personally agree with shouldn't be on the air.

... because it didn't sound remotely like that. Lucky you were sure it didn't mean that, eh?

... Rush was played every morning, and I cannot stand the guy. However that does not mean he should be thrown off the air.... Of course, I'm sure that's not what you meant, right?

I'm sure you didn't want anyone to be persuaded, from your words, that it was what she meant when she said no such thing, right?

Well, I'm sure you're surer that that isn't what she meant than I am that you weren't trying to persuade someone of something you know to be false, anyhow.

I mean, unless you were just being a little inadvertently vague, and you meant "thrown off the air by his employers". Maybe you meant that, and you meant that nobody should pressure his employers to throw him off the air. And then I'd have to wonder why you'd say something like that.

So confusing, isn't it all?

[SayWhatYo]

153. Actually..

exactly.

[greyghost]

75. Exactly n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Who the fuck is listening to all this crap? I mean this just as much as right-wing hate radio.

Really. Leaving aside the offensiveness factor, who has the time to waste on such utter garbage?

[salin]

40. have fun

too much dismissiveness of rape - ala no big deal, harmless, or no crime was committed (aka "shut up!") comments to stay on this thread. Have fun.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. So...

there was a crime committed?

[salin]

46. was just repeating statements on the thread

per the dismissiveness. I never said a crime was committed (which would be an absurd statement.) Just find it interesting that some find such a topic humorous. Interesting, and tiring.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. No...

but you appear to be suggesting that some "unbalanced person" is going to committ a crime because some DJs told a tasteless joke.

Talk about absurd statements.

"Just find it interesting that some find such a topic humorous. Interesting, and tiring."

I think that's a thing people call a "strawman."

[salin]

52. Madspirit has a good post

per desensitizing up thread. That is to which I refer. There is some societal norm that makes it "okay" for number of folks to act on impulse and rape. It is not a rare crime. Just pointing out that this is one of those things, and the casual response to it, that leads to societal norms being okay (and at times defensive) towards the crime of rape. Not absurd at all. Not saying it is THE factor, but certainly exhibitive of how this continues to be an accepted enough norm in society that a third of young women (between the age of 15 and 30) are likely to be victims of rape.

How can we deal with the prevalence of the rape (and thus of rapists) if we can't talk about it without being dismissed?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Isn't it just the same silly argument...

about violent video games?

[salin]

56. That isn't my "issue", thus I haven't reviewed

the games. I would guess that it would depend on a case to case basis. But I have never, ever, advocated censorship - just full discussion and debate. I would bet that at least for the older kids and adults involved in the big debates that surrounded the video game "Grand Theft Auto" (only use that as an example because there was so much coverage that I have a tiny bit of familiarity) - that the game had less valence (per acceptable vs unacceptable behavior) regarding societal norms. The discussion is healthy as it heightens awareness and, in my opinion.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. But it's the same argument...

entertainment (jokes, video games, comic books, etc) desensitize their audience to despicable crimes (rape, murder, etc.) which leads to its more unsavory members going out and committing those crimes.

Now the argument is absurd in the case of video games, and I see no reason why it's any less silly here.

[salin]

61. okay

will you at least acknowledge that for those who have been confined/beaten/ and then raped - that we might find that the subject is less than funny, and that we can voice objection at being offended by the mere use of the descriptions of the crimes against us as being fodder for "funnies"? Can I at least cry fowl when being offended? (and as I stated many times no where have I asked for censorship - just the ability to use this as a spring board for discussion - or is that, too, unreasonable?)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. Well, duh.

You can be as offended as you want to be.

[salin]

63. then we

can at least agree on something. :D

[Morgana LaFey]

74. What makes you think the argument is absurd re video games?

Another ridiculous argument on your part.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. There are a number of reasons.

The predominating one being that youth violence and crime has dropped precipitously with the spread of violent video games.

[Morgana LaFey]

148. I don't believe that, and if there are studies showing it

(links, please?), then I'd seriously like to examine the methodology of such studies, not to mention who funded them because common sense alone points in a completely different direction.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

198. Methodology? Well, they tallied all arrests, convictions, etc.

You can always talk to the FBI, DoJ, CDC and other organizations that keep track of this sort of thing. Funding? that would be the tax payers.

http://www.cjcj.org/press/hype_skews.html

And common sense? It's not common sense, it's an obviously erroneous pre-concieved notion based on fear, age-based discrimination, and Nancy Grace style media sensationalism.

[Morgana LaFey]

218. Not a word there about video games, and yet that was your claim

Specifically:

youth violence and crime has dropped precipitously with the spread of violent video games.

I asked you for studies to back up your point. You gave me statistics about the decline in youth violence, absent ANY comment about causation, let alone that violent videos are responsible for the decline in youth violence.

Edit: you don't get to imaigne your own reasons. Again: got any studies??????

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

225. Youth violence has dropped precipitously in the last thirty years.

While the number of violent video games has increased significantly within the last thirty years.

[iverglas]

226. the number of cats in my household has doubled in six years

while the number of tulips in my garden has quadrupled.

Can you explain this, er, phenomenon for me?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

227. Are you making the argument...

that the number of cats is directly proportional to then number of tulips in your garden?

Because people have made the rather stupid argument that violent video games cause actual violence, and that's what I'm debunking here.

[iverglas]

229. oh, you are doing a *fine* job

snort.

Because people have made the rather stupid argument that violent video games cause actual violence, and that's what I'm debunking here.

Not that anyone has actually made that argument, but ...

Rain causes actual wetness.

There I was, standing in the rain, and I wasn't wet.

Obviously, rain *doesn't* cause actual wetness.

The fact that I was holding an umbrella had no effect on my outcome, of course.


Apparently you're not familiar with the concepts of "correlation" and "causation", and the distinctions between.

This may help you:
http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=rape+%22ice+cream%22&btnG=Search&meta=


Or with the idea that there might be more than two variables in a given situation.

Or maybe you are, and you're just pretending not to be. One never knows.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

231. I'll refer you to post #74.

Wherein somebody actually asks why I think violent video games don't cause violence, something that they find "absurd." This being the same person claiming that rape jokes cause rape.

This is now the second time you've been unaware of what the discussion was about before you chimed in, perhaps you should go back to the beginning and read through.

"Apparently you're not familiar with the concepts of "correlation" and "causation", and the distinctions between."

No, I'm quite aware. I'm claiming that violent video games are, obviously, not a causation of violence. Indeed, there's an inverse correlation.

"Or with the idea that there might be more than two variables in a given situation.

Or maybe you are, and you're just pretending not to be. One never knows."

LOL, wait a minute... are YOU now implying there's a link between violence and video games?

[iverglas]

233. well, it's at least the second time for something

You referred me to post 74, which reads:

74. What makes you think the argument is absurd re video games?
Another ridiculous argument on your part.

... and you seem to think this proves some point of yours.

(And see?? It DOESN'T ask "why I think violent video games don't cause violence, something that they find 'absurd'," as you claimed in your most recent post. Here's a hint: open another window in that browser, and you can see what's on the monitor as you type, instead of making things up. I have about 50 windows open at the moment, myself.)

Second time, at least, for reiterating unsubstantiated allegations and purporting to provide substantiation that is no such thing, I'd say.

YOU, my friend, are the one who made the assertion, in post 59:

59. But it's the same argument...
entertainment (jokes, video games, comic books, etc) desensitize their audience to despicable crimes (rape, murder, etc.) which leads to its more unsavory members going out and committing those crimes.
Now the argument is absurd in the case of video games, and I see no reason why it's any less silly here.

-- and YOU are the one who has entirely failed to substantiate it.

By the way, the argument is considerably more sophisticated than you'd like it to be. If you google "rape myth acceptance scale", as I suggested back in post 106, you'll find a wealth of information about the observed effects of widespread tolerance/denial of the occurrence of rape / minimization of the effects of rape, for instance. The argument isn't that "people will go out and commit rape"; it is also that women will not report assaults, and police will be less likely to charge, and juries will be less likely to convict, and sentences will more likely be low -- and all those things will predictably have an effect on the rate of sexual assault. The whole world really is not as stupid as would be convenient for you.


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt again - of being genuinely uninformed rather than dishonestly denying knowledge.

I'm claiming that violent video games are, obviously, not a causation of violence. Indeed, there's an inverse correlation.

If "inverse correlation" is the only leg you have to stand on, you're going to get very tired.

Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no way of knowing what youth crime rates would have been over the period in question if there had been no violent video games. Or if Bill Clinton had not been president; from your link:

For example, school crime declined by 29 percent between 1993 and 1997, mirroring the 30 percent decline in overall youth crime during roughly the same period.

or if abortion had been illegal. Or if, or if. Those "if"s represent variables.

What if Bill Clinton had been president, as he was, AND there had been no violent video games?? Let us know when your crystal ball has the answer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

237. LOL, who are you trying to kid?

"By the way, the argument is considerably more sophisticated than you'd like it to be. If you google "rape myth acceptance scale", as I suggested back in post 106, you'll find a wealth of information about the observed effects of widespread tolerance/denial of the occurrence of rape / minimization of the effects of rape, for instance. The argument isn't that "people will go out and commit rape"; it is also that women will not report assaults, and police will be less likely to charge, and juries will be less likely to convict, and sentences will more likely be low -- and all those things will predictably have an effect on the rate of sexual assault. The whole world really is not as stupid as would be convenient for you."

And ultimately, those things would lead to more rape, i.e. jokes about rape ultimately lead to more rape. The same way violent video games lead to "desensitization" (that fancy psychological term) and thus youth violence. Or, I don't know, Dungeons & Dragons leads to satanic worship and animal sacrifice. It's all the same bullshit.

"YOU, my friend, are the one who made the assertion, in post 59:

59. But it's the same argument...
entertainment (jokes, video games, comic books, etc) desensitize their audience to despicable crimes (rape, murder, etc.) which leads to its more unsavory members going out and committing those crimes.
Now the argument is absurd in the case of video games, and I see no reason why it's any less silly here."

I made the analogy and called it absurd. Somebody said it wasn't absurd, and asked me to show it was. Which I did.


"The argument isn't that "people will go out and commit rape""

Heh

"For some reason - those with the tendencies to believe it is "their right" to force sex - have the idea that society is okay with it and it is not illegal or deviant behavior. Unless one believes that there are only two or three guys around the country committing so many rapes that 1 in 3 women between the age of 15 and 30 become victims of rape. There is something SOCIETAL about this problem. I would contend that the casual and dismissive attitude towards the crime (including fair game for ongoing "humour") might be a contributing factor.

I haven't called for a boycott or anything else. So I am not sure what the problem of expressing a concern and opinion seems to be. I think that awareness through discussion is probably the only way to eventually shift soceital norms. But as long as the conversation is viewed as shrill because the original conversation (on radio about violent rape as a comedy routine) is "harmless" - well that would help explain why there has been almost NO change in the rate of rape for women in the past 20 years."


"If "inverse correlation" is the only leg you have to stand on, you're going to get very tired.

Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no way of knowing what youth crime rates would have been over the period in question if there had been no violent video games. Or if Bill Clinton had not been president; from your link:

For example, school crime declined by 29 percent between 1993 and 1997, mirroring the 30 percent decline in overall youth crime during roughly the same period.


or if abortion had been illegal. Or if, or if. Those "if"s represent variables.

What if Bill Clinton had been president, as he was, AND there had been no violent video games?? Let us know when your crystal ball has the answer."

Yes, you're saying something else caused the decline in youth violence. So am I. We agree. Now are you suggesting that this thing, whatever it was, counteracted the affects of violent video games, which would have otherwise caused an increase?

:rofl:

[iverglas]

239. what I'm saying

is that your dishonesty is on show for the world. Or your dimness. I won't hazard a guess as to which it is. And I'm always open to hearing what the third option is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

240. Hey, it's all out there for everybody to see.

The stuff that I said. And the stuff that you said.

Take a good look at everything. I'm not the one with anything to worry about.

[Morgana LaFey]

249. Actually, you are

I'm not surprised you're (a) unable to see it or (b) unwilling to admit it.

[Morgana LaFey]

248. I'll accept those two things as facts -- but

you've provided NO causal link. It could be that youth violence could have dropped even more had there been NO violent video games. It could be that the violence that did happen was much more directly linked to violent video games. It could be that pretty much the only violent youths are those also watching violent videos.

My husband belched and then it rained. Both entirely true facts. Causative? About as much as the linkage between your two facts.

Edit: Hahah. That's the one flas with the MY DU posts feature: you don't see what else has gone on. I'll have to make a point to look at that hereafter.

[iverglas]

250. well

I do usually say "my dog barked and then it rained; my dog can make it rain" ... but since, strictly speaking, I don't have a dog, I decided to cite only strict truth.

[Morgana LaFey]

73. Yours is the absurd argument

And at this point, you're beginning to look cruel in pressing your INvalid point. Do you consider yourself cruel?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Do I feel cruel? No.

Do you feel absurd?

[Forkboy]

67. Just the same few jokers

Let's make some rape jokes about their mothers,sisters and daughters.

Of course,they will probably laugh about that too.

I'm sure Mom would be proud.

[salin]

69. hey Forkboy

our paths don't cross so frequently now that the community is so large... but :hi: and *thanks* for this post. Good point.

[Malikshah]

43. Looks like they want to be martyrs to "the cause" some here hold so dear regardless of

the costs.

1) "The cause"? "Free Speech" Why in quotes? Because some here think incitement to violence is covered. It isn't.

2) Martyrs? Yup. They know full well that if a merger comes, their butts are gone. Howard Stern loathes them as much as Imus for the reasons many on this thread loathe them--they're crude and vile for "comedy's sake" --- they think being contrarian is cool. It makes them feel big. It brings them attention (sort of like responses to their posts) to validate their low self esteem. Should the merger come, they're done for. They'll want to pull a Bon Jovi-esque "Blaze of Glory" so they can console themselves later on in life. Hell, maybe their little sob story will get others with low self esteem to go home with them from the bar.

It's pathetic. They're pathetic. And the "too cool for school" contrarians for contrarians' sake are riding the pathetic pony too.

[blondeatlast]

88. Re: your last sentence--there was a time (showing my age here) when

that humor had a point to make and most of it managed to be biting and funny (Richard Pryor for instance).

As you say, now it's "contrarian for contrarian's sake" packaged up in a big shiny box--and pathetic is EXACTLY what it has become.

[Kerrytravelers]

45. Sick sick sick and not a bit funny.

As much as I dislike Ms. Rice for her politics and the horrible things she does (shoe shopping during Katrina, for example,) I would never never never wish violence on anyone.

These "shock jocks" need to be dealt with to the fullest reach legally possible.

[MrSlayer]

47. Well, these guys have no clue how to be funny.

They're nothing more than Stern wannabes who haven't an eighth of his talent.

[Madspirit]

50. Boycott them and let them know why.

We're all aware of the "I have a right to be a big dumb jerk" Amendment. That's between the government and us. Employers don't have to put up with it. ...and we're allowed to boycott it. Then they can stand on the street corner abusing the "I have a right to be a big dumb jerk" amendment all they want.

We complain about Bush...THE Ugly American but boy, anytime someone complains about racist or sexist or homophobic or violent speech, invariably someone reminds us, as though we didn't know, 'Markins have that "I have a right to be a big dumb jerk" amendment. Yes, we are quite Ugly.
Lee

[blondeatlast]

84. Disgusting. The "horror in her face?" That's sadistic. I despise Rice almost more than I despise W,

but that is WAAAAAAY over the line.

[Morgana LaFey]

149. Any gender-based slurs or insults

are over the line for the rightwing women we hate as well as the women we love. This HAS to be understood by everyone: you can't differentiate the dehumanization that accompanies such misogynist talk from harming the women we hate versus ALL women. It negatively affects ALL women. It fosters an environment in which SOME women can be thusly targeted and ALL women must tow the line or be threatened in just such ways.

[Eugene]

94. AP: XM Shock Jocks Apologize for Sex Comment

Source: Associated Press

XM Shock Jocks Apologize for Sex Comment

Friday, May 11, 2007

(05-11) 09:18 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

XM Satellite Radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony apologized Friday for
airing a homeless man's crude comments that he'd like to have sex with
Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth.

The remarks were made on their show Wednesday by a guest the duo
call Homeless Charlie. As the name of each woman came up, the guest
said he would like to have sex with her — using language not fit
for print.

Opie and Anthony laughed as they imagined Rice's "horror" while
describing a violent sexual encounter in which Rice is punched in the
face.

Washington-based XM condemned the remarks.

"We deplore the comments made on Wednesday's 'Opie & Anthony
Show,'" XM spokesman Nathaniel Brown told The Associated Press
on Friday. He would not say whether XM planned to take disciplinary
action.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/11/entertainment/e085834D57.DTL

[blondeatlast]

97. What, no photo-op? Then they MUST be sincere...

:sarcasm:

I've had it with the easy, hollow apology route. Imus, Mel Gibson, etc. It's a sham, all of it. Why are there no longer consequences for this crap?

[Marnieworld]

98. god even this sounds like a whitewash

Would like to "have sex with her?"

a "violent sexual encounter"?

Um, why is it so hard to write the word rape? It was a rape fantasy, rape joke, he's like to rape them. No euphemisms necessary and no AP byline of the person that thinks this is "sex."

O & A comments are a predictable result of no talents with a lot of pressure to produce something provocative. This is what they resort to.

[youthere]

96. COMPLETELY Inappropriate. I'd like a list of their advertisers so I can complain.

[WilliamPitt]

100. Nobody seems worried about the homeless guy.

Hm.

[blondeatlast]

103. Ge's the one who described "punching her in the face." Um, sorry, but no pity here.

And sure, he's a homeless dude they just picked up off of the street.

Not buying, not a moment of it.

[Morgana LaFey]

150. That's about as misogynist a comment as has been made on

this thread, among a lot of 'em.

Too bad you didn't think to add a nice little emoticon to camouflage your vile sentiment.

[WilliamPitt]

158. Really?

It's mysoginist to wonder if the horrors of homeless existence might have turned this man into an animal?

I guess I missed that definition.

[iverglas]

165. well, I didn't say anything myself

Because I was just kinda gobsmacked, and wondered whether I was missing something.

It's mysoginist to wonder if the horrors of homeless existence might have turned this man into an animal?

One might wonder about an erudite fellow like yourself misspelling "misogynist". Not a concept that enters your thoughts/conversation on a regular basis?

But I'll just ask: how, exactly, would homelessness have turned anyone into a person who fantasized about violent sexual assault against women?

I guess unemployment turns men into spouse abusers, too ...

Women, the universally acceptable victims. Lose your home, lose your job, lose your dog, and take it out on a woman. It won't be your fault, buddy.

[Morgana LaFey]

184. I know, I know!! "Gobsmacked" and all.

Amazing, isn't it?

There are some things I'd love to say, but I'd better not. Check your PMs.

[WilliamPitt]

194. Hm, let's see.

An existence where all life is devalued and where violence is the mainstay...nah, that wouldn't change anyone.

Note where I didn't say anything about this person not being at fault, though. Careful where you put those strawmen.

[Morgana LaFey]

203. No, you didn't say anything about this person not being at fault

you didn't have to. You whisked away any personal responsibility he might have had with this remark:

It's mysoginist to wonder if the horrors of homeless existence might have turned this man into an animal?

Turned him into an animal (stated, explicit) where he wasn't one before (not stated, implicit).

You, yourself, of all people should know that as much meaning can be conveyed with what isn't said as what is. Hell, we know YOU know that, so let me put it this way: you of all people should be expected to be intellectually honest enough to not try to claim you "didn't say that." You did, it was just hidden in the premise of your remark.

Now, what else do you have up your sleeve to defend rape jokes, this particular purveyor of rape jokes and/or their broadcasters???

[iverglas]

204. yes, let's

Note where I didn't say anything about this person not being at fault, though. Careful where you put those strawmen.

You said:

It's mysoginist to wonder if the horrors of homeless existence might have turned this man into an animal?

Now, to start with, who's needing to be careful of where he puts those strawmen, eh? Did someone say that it was misogyinst to wonder such a thing?

Seems to me you have a choice here:
(a) you really are too dim to grasp the point that was being made; and
(b) you really are dishonest enough to pretend not to have grasped it.

Perhaps there's a third option; I've never discovered it.

Lovely to see you're one of the crowd lacking the guts to make a statement they know is false without tacking a cowardly little question mark on the end of it.

But back to our point: how exactly would a person who had been turned into something/someone incapable of forming the intent to commit wrongdoing -- "an animal" -- not then be not to blame for what s/he then did?


An existence where all life is devalued and where violence is the mainstay...nah, that wouldn't change anyone.

I would certainly say that a life of brutality is likely to distort a person's perception of the world and increase the likelihood that the person will do bad things to others, and not do good things for others, out of an exacerbated need to protect him/herself or an acting out of anger against targets not responsible for the brutality. I'm not sure why it would make a person a woman-hater. Maybe someone who had suffered long-term brutality at the hands of a woman or women, but yer average homeless person? You've lost me.

This was not a rant about eating the rich. This was not a random outburst of violent behaviour. This was not an expression of hatred of individuals responsible for his plight. This was a rant about sexually brutalizing a woman. A particular woman, and one whom a homeless person could not reasonably see as more responsible for his/her plight than any number of men I could name. And yet he didn't propose to rape Al Sharpton, about whom I understand he also had harsh words.

This issue arises, for instance, in impoverished First Nations communities in Canada where alcoholism, addiction and sexual violence against women and children are endemic. The women and children in question are not inclined, these days, to accept that their function is to be the recipient of the abuse meted out by disadvantaged or distressed men.

That really is what your cryptic comments here come down to. Because Mr. X is disadvantaged and has been brutalized, it is only natural that his own brutality should be directed toward a woman.

I don't disagree that it is not acceptable to exploit the vulnerable or oppressed or exploited for entertainment. In this case, I actually don't have a clue how vulnerable or oppressed or exploited Mr. X was. I certainly don't have anything to indicate that there are reasons for him proposing to violently rape a stranger that would be understandable to a properly sympathetic person.

Obviously, he is not completely responsible. The patriarchal, misogynist society that permits and encourages those attitudes are a contributing factor. I see no reason to think that anyone would spontaneously associate sexual intercourse and face-smashing, or even think of sexual intercourse as something one would subject another person to against his/her will, just out of the blue; those associations have to be learned, and if he had not learned them, he would not likely have spewed them.

Presumably you've been exposed to these notions, and you don't spew things like that. What might it take for you to absolve someone of responsibility for doing something like that -- for actually committing the acts he talked about? Whom would you be willing to excuse for fantasizing aloud to an audience of what, millions? about doing it?

Sure, you didn't absolve him of responsibility. You just want us to consider whether he should be absolved of responsibility, I guess. So I wonder what conditions would have to be present for you to do that.

But anyhow, this wasn't really about him, was it? It was about a society in which the things that he said are considered to be jokes. You just decided to make it about something else, I guess.

Curious that you have nothing to say about what he said, or about the propriety of it being broadcast, or about whether people who create and broadcast this kind of content should be permitted to continue creating content for broadcast and broadcasting content. I thought somebody might at least have deserved a lecture about free speech and all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

207. Um...

"Did someone say that it was misogyinst to wonder such a thing?"

Yeah, someone did.

[iverglas]

210. er ...

"Did someone say that it was misogyinst to wonder such a thing?"
Yeah, someone did.

Then I'm sure you can quote the wondering in question.

Once again, what pleasure there is to be got from putting on a dunce cap and walking out into the agora, I just have never figured out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

211. Oh, it wasn't wondering.

It was an ad hominem attack.

"That's about as misogynist a comment as has been made on"

Right there in post #150.

"Once again, what pleasure there is to be got from putting on a dunce cap and walking out into the agora, I just have never figured out."

You could have fooled me.

[iverglas]

221. good bleeding dog

"That's about as misogynist a comment as has been made on"
Right there in post #150.

YES.

AND THAT COMMENT WAS IN REPLY TO:

Nobody seems worried about the homeless guy.
Hm.

If YOU want to PRETEND to read THAT as wondering if the horrors of homeless existence might have turned this man into an animal, YOU feel free. I wouldn't want to look that stupid and/or dishonest, myself.

I SAID:

Did someone say that it was misogyinst to wonder such a thing?

rhetorically -- because NO ONE HAD SAID THAT -- for the simple reason that NO ONE HAD WONDERED whether the horrors of homeless existence might have turned that man into an animal. Your "yes" and selective quoting notwithstanding.

[AngryOldDem]

167. What...you don't think the homeless man is a victim of this, too?

Why did the jocks pick out a **homeless** man for this shit? Just as the rape is repellent, making the perpetrator of it homeless is just the same as setting up a bum fight -- sick humor at someone else's expense, someone who is equally defenseless and voiceless at that.

Nothing at all misogynist about Will's observation. He was just pointing out another outrageous and unacceptable side to this.

[Morgana LaFey]

182. What, they put words in his mouth or something?

They forced him to become the perpetrator of this against his will? They made him say those things in exchange for a free meal or something?

Please.

Your argument is even worse than Will's, frankly, if that's even possible.

First, I too rather doubt he's homeless at all, but if he is, he's the butt of WHAT joke? The "joke" was about women, a couple of specific women, remember? AND it advocated violence, a particularly degrading and humiliating form of violence, agsinst those women. He's gotten little criticism that I've seen or heard, just SYMPATHY here at DU -- nothing's been at his "expense." Hell, it hasn't even reflected poorly or stereotypically on the homeless!!

I really don't get your point, except that it's yet another way to dismiss and trivialize the harm against women as a class, and a rather cheap one at that.

[AngryOldDem]

192. Oh, bullshit

I work with the homeless. Some don't know if they are coming or going, some have the mental ability of small children. Some will do anything for a hit of crack or a fifth of bad booze. That's what I meant with my analogy of this to a bum fight. In case you don't know what that is, that's where people with video cameras, for shits and grins, pay the homeless to beat the shit out of each other. Then, it is marketed as entertainment.

Please answer this: Why didn't these assholes have Condi victimized by a white man? Or a Middle Easterner? Why did it have to be a homeless person? Why? Because it's acceptable and easy to stereotype the homeless this way, and therefore he was just as much the butt of this sick joke as Rice was.

And Will's post was the FIRST I saw that ever mentioned the homeless man.

I get your point (God knows you have been harping about it here enough), but I ALSO see the whole picture here and I am capable of feeling outrage BOTH at the depiction of rape used for laughs as well as at using the convenient stereotype of a homeless man to perpetrate it. (I admit it's a rather unique talent, right up there with being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.)

And thanks for the compliment -- any day that I can trump Will Pitt in any argument is a good day for me. :sarcasm:

[Morgana LaFey]

202. Okay, great

Goody. Let's subordinate the issue of violence against women yet again -- this time to a population whose oppression in the specific way you describe (bum fight) is so common in our society that I've never, ever heard of it before.

I'm very well aware that the homeless in this nation are mostly severely mentally ill, drug addicts and/or alcoholics, too. And if they didn't end up homeless because of that, I'm sure BEING homeless will give you a real good dose of the mentally unstables at least.

But don't fucking ask me to ignore the bigger issue -- violence against women which affects over half the fucking population of the WORLD -- just because you're pet concern is the homeless. And YOU shouldn't be asking anyone to do that either. Shame on you for this:

I get your point (God knows you have been harping about it here enough),

Do you realize how incredibly sexist THAT is? Women's concerns are ALWAYS trivialized and belittled, just exactly as you've done in remonstrating me for "harping" (also a sexist term) about it here at DU.

How DARE you criticize me for giving a damn about rape "jokes" and the ever-present oppression of women and the stinkin' misogyny so rife at DU, including among one of DU's most well-known and respected (cough, cough) members, which only serves to normalize. What the hell would you say if I belittled you for your concern about the homeless?

And besides, some shock jocks of highly questionable credibility SAY the guy is homeless but neither one of us knows for sure if that's true. BTW, where is your outrage that you and Will -- ALONE IN THE WORLD -- are the only ones caring about him? Why aren't you bashing everyone else who mentioned it? Why aren't you criticizing the two jerk jocks? You're not -- it's just ME you're criticizing for taking such strong exception to Will's misplaced sympathies.

There is something we can actually agree on, or could have had you not ruined it with your own noxious sexism:

I get your point (God knows you have been harping about it here enough), but I ALSO see the whole picture here and I am capable of feeling outrage BOTH at the depiction of rape used for laughs as well as at using the convenient stereotype of a homeless man to perpetrate it.

Yes, it is possible, or should be. Unfortunately, you demonstrated yourself incapable of it yourself, so I guess you were speaking from experience with the remark immediately following the previous one:

(I admit it's a rather unique talent, right up there with being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

206. Homelessness is a pet concern?

Sheesh, who's being dismissive now?

[BlooInBloo]

101. What - doesn't everybody need a good rape joke in the morning to get your day started?

And then the mid-day lynching skit, and end the day with a vignette about dragging a gay guy behind my F-150.

Isn't that how everyone organizes their day?

[etherealtruth]

107. Well, must be ...

It certainly would be consistent with some of the opinions expressed .

[salin]

112. you crack me up!

Probably on this one only reaching the chorus - but this part of the chorus appreciates it.

[Rex]

122. They sound like two idiots that couldn't get work doing anything worthwhile.

Yawnage. :eyes:

[madeline_con]

123. Their intended audience must be some bunch of losers!

What a piece of shit THAT was! Some people are entertained by the stupidest crap available.

[Forkboy]

125. Hell,they wear it like a badge of honor.

Some people's kids...

[underseasurveyor]

128. That ain't cool at all.

No matter how much I dislike the #&^@*, as a victim of rape myself, THAT just ain't cool:mad: Sick, sick, sick.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

131. Rape jokes not OK on DU; defense/justifying of rape jokes OK on DU.

Should add this to the rules.

[salin]

132. So it would seem... but fortuately

those voices (justifying/defending and then being obtuse to how the two things are related) are fewer than those voices pointing it out.

:hi:

[theHandpuppet]

133. They were way out of line, period.

Time for them to consider a new line of work.

[militaryspouse]

157. wow

i havent' heard the audio, but what i read was disgusting. was there more that they said on the audio that didn't get printed? I wouldn't doubt that this 'homeless' guy has actully raped already.

[AngryOldDem]

193. What makes you think the "homeless guy" is a rapist?

[grateful581]

159. I encourage everyone to read Cenk Uygur take on this (Young Turks)

We can't censor everything based on the lowest common denominator of sensitivity. This applies to conservative thought, liberal thought or completely non-political thought. You don't need the concept of freedom of speech to protect pleasant speech, you need it to protect speech that might be and is offensive to some.

And if you're an adult, you need to be able to tolerate adult conversations. You don't have to listen to it, but you shouldn't have the right to shut it down for everyone else because you are sensitive to it. Honestly, who cares that you are sensitive about it?

Why do I have to stop having an adult conversation because you don't like it? Go away and listen to something else. If my thoughts are corrupting you, then grow a brain and have thoughts of your own.

more at
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/05/11/nothing-wrong-with-sexual-talk-involving-public-officials/

[A-Schwarzenegger]

160. Yeah, everybody stop trying to "censor" "adult conversations"!

If you are offended by rape jokes, then "grow a brain and have thoughts of your own." Cenk is right up there with Patrick Henry as an original & eloquent spokesperson for liberty.

[Madspirit]

163. Not censorship

I'm Repeat-O Girl:

We're all aware of the "I have a right to be a big dumb jerk" Amendment. That's between the government and us. Employers don't have to put up with it. ...and we're allowed to boycott it. Then THE PIGS can stand on the street corner abusing the "I have a right to be a big dumb jerk" amendment all they want.

We complain about Bush...THE Ugly American but boy, anytime someone complains about racist or sexist or homophobic or violent speech, invariably someone reminds us, as though we didn't know, 'Markins have that "I have a right to be a big dumb jerk" amendment. Yes, we are quite Ugly.

...but as I said, we can boycott it and employers can fire them for it. It has nothing to do with the "I have a right to be a big dumb jerk" amendment.
Lee

[A-Schwarzenegger]

166. Just in case you really think I really think it's censorship . . .

That's why censor is "in quotes".

Your beef's with Cenk or grateful who recommended him.
Cenk says give him rape jokes or give him death.

edit: recemmonded!

[iverglas]

168. I was going to point out

that you two agree. ;)

Sadly, it's probably the fact that so many people wouldn't have put those things in quotation marks that makes it so easy to mistake the good for the bad. One actually expects to see people talking that way at DU ...

[Madspirit]

175. No...

I read you above. I knew it wasn't you. Sorry for posting under your post.
Lee

[iverglas]

164. hey, you made me look

Lord knows why someone would cite that bozo, but lordy, what a bozo.

For the rest of this post, I will discuss just the sexual part of the conversation, not the part involving violence, which has a different standard -- and should.

Huh. Well, if there was such a part, I haven't heard anyone bothering to mention it, so once again, I just have to wonder: what was his point, eh?

[iverglas]

162. and you (or whoever that was) would have a point if ...

(a) anybody had been having an "adult conversation"; and

(b) anybody had been talking about censoring anything.

Oh well.

[Blackhatjack]

191. Oh my! Grateful you cited the truth, now prepare for a pounding....

If you had worn a sign saying "I molest women and children" you would not get a more thorough illogical pounding from this bunch.

Thanks for having the courage to put the truth out there.... (and prepare for incoming!)

[grateful581]

224. thanks

I can't believe how many people around here can't wait to jump on the censorship bandwagon.

BTW: Opie and Anthony did a great segment on free speech this morning.

[iverglas]

228. wonderment just never ceases

I can't believe how many people around here can't wait to jump on the censorship bandwagon.

Me, I can't believe how many people around here tell so many lies about what other people say.

Of course, I also can't believe that anybody could read that moronic screed by that boob you cited and want to be seen associating with you in public.

BTW: Opie and Anthony did a great segment on free speech this morning.

Well isn't that special.

[Nikki Stone1]

170. Like I said yesterday, where's Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al?

Joking about raping a black woman? They should be at the forefront of this.

[iverglas]

172. got google?

Or just prefer not to know the facts, and thus be able to ask questions insinuating the opposite of the facts?

On a really quick googlenews search for sharpton opie:

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=69653
Dateline: yesterday.

The pair apologized for the comments, but that has not stopped the Reverend Al Sharpton from calling for their firing.

Sharpton says he hopes to meet with officials at XM about the incident.

And from the day before (Friday):

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/05/12/2007-05-12_opie_shows_will_live_to_nauseate_again.html

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who called the stunt "ugly and outrageous," said he would meet with his associates today to discuss whether they'll call for Opie and Anthony's firing.

I also read reports saying that Sharpton (along with the Queen, "white people", and others) was himself, personally, a target of the remarks by the individual on the show.

Any other questions you might have that you could easily answer for yourself and thus avoid looking, er, foolish, you feel free to ask.

[Nikki Stone1]

173. Actually the question was a real one and thanks for the answer. :)

Why hasn't CNN picked this one up?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

174. A) What the fuck?, B) How do these idiots have fans?

[joshcryer]

188. I don't care.

I listened to a radio broadcast of a bunch of uncivilized dipshits. I read a few of the posts here. I just don't care. Whatever. I'm a terrible evil woman-hating asshole.

I don't care. Fuck what some idiots say.

[iverglas]

189. and the voice of the loonytarian is heard in the land:

"I don't care".

Why, who would have guessed?

A discussion that seems applicable here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=878495&mesg_id=880826

It's all about "INDIVIDUAL Rights," as in "it's all about ME."

Exactly what some people obviously think that rights 'n freedoms shit is all about.

[joshcryer]

197. How'd I know you'd stalk my comment?

I totally saw you commenting to me.

[iverglas]

208. sorry

I've abandoned the gun dungeon again, so soon after you found me there; but I didn't mean to be hiding from you. Glad you found me, and used the opportunity to express another one of your shallow, puerile ... er ... thoughts. The thread was the richer for it.

[joshcryer]

212. The rules of DU explicitly say not to behave this way.

I wasn't 'seeking you out.' But I forgive you.

What's happening here is these idiots (Opie and Anthony) are actually getting attention they don't deserve.

[Iris]

215. "puerile" is the appropriate word. n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

213. Totally? You totally saw her commenting to you?

Did you totally see ME commenting to you?

FWIW, you really shouldn't use the term stalking in this way, for 2 reasons. One, stalking is a real crime, and it's terrifying. Two, stalking has a meaning here at DU as well, and can get a person banned.

As I understand it, the DU meaning would include someone searching out all the posts you've made and following you around in order to annoy and harrass you. I'm absolutely positive that's not what iverglas did, and it's wrong of you -- very wrong -- to use a word that implies that she did OR even just use a word that would make anyone else infer that she might have done that.

I think you owe her an apology.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

216. So... you're saying that it's wrong...

for DUers to make accusations against other DUers?

:rofl:

[Morgana LaFey]

219. Of stalking, absolutely

Not surprised at your attitude about that, either.

[joshcryer]

222. I don't even know who you are.

The term is appropriate in this context.

[iverglas]

230. you need to be a man here

It is as obvious to you as it is to everyone else that I had posted in this thread multiple times before your arrival here. I had posted replies to numerous people, all uninvited as I was. You were about the umpteenth.

So you need to stand up straight and tall and say that you did not intend your "stalk" remark to be taken seriously, and that you realize it was a lapse in judgment to make that remark, and that you wholeheartedly retract it.

That -- not to be taken seriously -- is the intent I took from the Valley Girl-esque "I totally saw you commenting to me." I mean, I didn't think, or claim to think, that you really talked like that and really meant what you said, and thought rather that the "I totally saw you commenting to me" was a bit of slightly self-deprecating humour. We Canadians practise that assiduously, so I'm pretty good at spotting it.

[joshcryer]

232. Hmm, I can't post in a thread?

I didn't post to you, I wasn't even talking to you, I was making a general statement. Then you predictably said something. What really made me characterize it as such was the unsubstantiated "loonytarian" comment. Had I joined into your thread, called you a "loonytarian" I'd rightly be accused of the same.

The "totally" comment was of course not serious. :) But I don't retract an other accurate statements I have made.

[iverglas]

235. I dunno; can't you?

Had I joined into your thread, called you a "loonytarian" I'd rightly be accused of the same.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=140399&mesg_id=140447

You didn't seem to think there was any "rightly" about it.

Not that anyone would think of calling me a loonytarian. No shortage of other terms though, eh?

[joshcryer]

236. Yeah, because it wasn't intentional, as in this case.

That was like one of your first posts in the guns forum since your leave of absence as per the very person below your comment. I honestly didn't know you posted there. I geniunely thought you were posting there because I'd a few hours before started a thread in that forum. :)

It's unfortunate we seem to be on the opposite side of two very heated issues.

[iverglas]

238. and your point is?

I was posting in this thread BEFORE YOU DID. Give it up, 'k?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

241. You were posting before he was, sure.

But it seems to me, you responded to him, not the other way around.

:shrug:

[iverglas]

245. gosh

I just know that's something you've neer done -- responded to someone's post who hadn't responded to yours.

At least, I'm pretty sure you'll say you've never done it.

[joshcryer]

246. I wasn't addressing you.

Thus the difference.

[iverglas]

247. and, uh, I don't give a shit

The person who initiated the thread wasn't addressing ANYONE. How do you account for all the responses to that post? Just plain rudeness?

At least *I* addressed *you*, and didn't open by talking *about* you to someone else. You know who you are. You.

Sometimes the words "grow up" just can't be suppressed.

[joshcryer]

251. I was actually referring to the sentiment in general in that thread.

Not you specifically.

[iverglas]

254. hmm; and yet

You responded to a post addressed to me that started out "Buddy, you argue like a 9 year old", and then ranted on at somewhat further pointless length, by saying "Welcome to the club". Well, I'm flummoxed ...

Enough said, I figure. Really.


punctuation added in effort to avoid pointless "misunderstandings" ...

[joshcryer]

255. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

But I really wasn't addressing you or commenting about you in particular in that thread. I think I did refer to you in another thread about your positions, though (the nanny state comment). But I thought that was productive in the conversation since the poster didn't know your opinions on those matters. If that is breaking the conduct of DU chat I do apologize. However I feel it was accurate. :)

[Iris]

214. well, at least you don't call yourself a man

"I'm a terrible evil woman-hating asshole."

[joshcryer]

223. You think I was serious?

I'm hardly a woman-hating asshole. However to some on this forum any comment that isn't in total and utter support of something can be construed certain ways unlike the original intent.

[Marie26]

262. If you don't care, why post about it?

Seems a waste of time.

[Triana]

199. THIS IS *NOT* FUNNY - I don't like Ms. Rice but this is NEVER...

...acceptable.

Period. This is WAY over the line.

:mad:

[ComerPerro]

234. so get em off the air, the fewer idiot shock jocks around the better

[Marie26]

263. So tired of "shock jocks"

Rape is about power. This ugly incident is one example of that. Rice is one of the most powerful women in the country, and they're all laughing about making her powerless. This really isn't so much about Rice as about their need to disempower women in general. Imus wasn't just putting down the Rutgers team, but expressing his need to put down minorities & women in general. It's a power trip for them. I think, in a way, that's what much of this "shock-jock" phenomenon is about. The jocks get to feel powerful by cutting down others (especially women), and the listeners get a vicarious power trip as well.