Women's March speaker tortured a man to death

[jonks]

I wasn't referencing BLM, in any case.

But let's do so. You say that BLM has an implied also, or too in it. Okay.

What about her campaign in support of women, in particular against violence against women?

I sure as hell don't see an implied also or too there. Looks like, despite the fact she is guilty of the crime of rape (by accessory), she still is only interested in helping women. Like all feminists.

BLM also fails to specifically advocate for cancer survivors. By your logic, they're pro-cancer, or at best, ambivalent about cancer. She was a victim of violence against women, so she advocates in the arena of violence against women. She does not implicitly or impliedly condone violence against men just because it's not her area of advocacy. There are male rape victims who specifically advocate on behalf of that cause, and I doubt anyone could fairly characterize their efforts as trivializing or ignoring rape against women.

 

[jonks]

That would make sense and would be appropriate.

Why? He's a war criminal who murdered civilians! Why does he get to speak at an anti-war rally, but a women who was tortured from the time she was 9 and also did horrible things as a result is precluded?

Given the feminist undertones of this march, and also given that there is a militant, irrational, man hating wing of feminism, this speaker was about as appropriate as Lorena Bobbitt.

I'm not sure how man-hating can be called irrational given how women have suffered under our thumbs from the beginning of time to, oh, say, about now. A dozen dozen millennia of ill treatment can leave a bad taste. That aside, if her area of advocacy is violence against women, I still don't understand how she'd be an inappropriate speaker. And let's also recognize that the march was "organized" in a few weeks, and hardly centralized in message, tone or organization, and had quite a few men in attendance as well.

 

[agent00f]

Why? He's a war criminal who murdered civilians! Who cares what he thinks!



I'm not sure how man-hating can be called irrational given how women have suffered under our thumbs from the beginning of time to, oh, say, about now. A dozen dozen millennia of ill treatment can leave a bad taste. That aside, if her area of advocacy is violence against women, I still don't understand how she'd be an inappropriate speaker. And let's also recognize that the march was "organized" in a few weeks, and hardly centralized in message, tone or organization, and had quite a few men in attendance as well.

This thread is essentially pieces of shit who can never in a million years be bothered with women's issues making the most of an opportunity to rant about someone they would otherwise never care about. Pieces of shit gonna pieces of shit.

 

[interchange]

I wonder if it's possible to take a position that both honors the need for individual responsibility for your actions and the consequences of severely unjust circumstances.

 

[Humpy]

Donna was repeatedly molested and raped from the age of 9. By her father, neighbors, even a teacher. What do you think that does to a child? They destroyed her as a person. Over 27 years in prison she seems to have regained humanity, got a bachelors and masters degree, and is advocating on behalf of victims. Is this not what we are supposed to want our prison system to accomplish?

Yes.

Being a victim does not give one a free pass to murder though. Not addressing her violent crime in your post seems to imply that you, and many others, believe her atonement cancels the fact it occurred and that addressing it is some kind of attack on the women's march.

The free pass shits all over the thousands of victims who somehow managed to refrain from torture and murder. They are the heroes that make a good mouthpiece for victims. Someone who left victims in her wake? Not so good.

 

[zinfamous]

In the desperate frenzy to ignore their growing distaste of their elected Cheeto in Chief, longhair misogynist Trumpsters and conservatives scramble to find a new villain in the world, preferably one with a vagina. Ooo, one with a "victimless" criminal past, too! Hooray!

This thread exists.

 

[jonks]

Being a victim does not give one a free pass to murder though. Not addressing her violent crime in your post seems to imply that you, and many others, believe her atonement cancels the fact it occurred and that addressing it is some kind of attack on the women's march.
The free pass shits all over the thousands of victims who somehow managed to refrain from torture and murder. They are the heroes that make a good mouthpiece for victims. Someone who left victims in her wake? Not so good.

"Free pass"? Is that what you call 27 years in prison? How did I not "address" her violent crime? You needed me to affirmatively state that torture and murder is wrong? My failure to do so "implies" that atonement "cancels" the crime? No, "addressing" her crime is not an attack on the women's march, unless of course, someone ties the two together and says that because she committed a crime she shouldn't speak at the march.

See my discussion above where there is agreement that it's "appropriate" for a male soldier who murdered civilians and who served his time to speak at an anti-war rally without delegitimizing the rally, but for a female rape victim who likewise served her time for her crime, it isn't. Can you square that for me?

 

[zinfamous]

Yes.

Being a victim does not give one a free pass to murder though. Not addressing her violent crime in your post seems to imply that you, and many others, believe her atonement cancels the fact it occurred and that addressing it is some kind of attack on the women's march.

The free pass shits all over the thousands of victims who somehow managed to refrain from torture and murder. They are the heroes that make a good mouthpiece for victims. Someone who left victims in her wake? Not so good.

I tend to agree.

So, does this women speaking at the march disqualify all women that have cause to protest, to the organization of these protests, the marchers and their movement, and by extension, "all of liberals" that those in this thread accuse of being in lock-step with this one lady?

Or is it flailing hysteria from the right, eager to distract their minds from that which they have hoisted upon this country?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes.

Being a victim does not give one a free pass to murder though. Not addressing her violent crime in your post seems to imply that you, and many others, believe her atonement cancels the fact it occurred and that addressing it is some kind of attack on the women's march.

The free pass shits all over the thousands of victims who somehow managed to refrain from torture and murder. They are the heroes that make a good mouthpiece for victims. Someone who left victims in her wake? Not so good.

We don't hear about them so I'll tell you about one I know.

Back in the '90s I had the pleasure of associating with a young woman from Rwanda and we had opportunity to talk about many things. She had two distinct physical features, a prosthetic right hand and right foot. I never mentioned them but over time she decided to tell me her story.

She is a Tutsi from a small village, pretty much an ordinary life in Africa. One day Rwandan soldiers came to her village and this is the part where Americans even in jail should count their blessings. The women were raped while the men were forced to watch, including this girl and then most were killed or hacked at with machetes. In her case once they had their "fun" they cut off her right hand and foot. The rest of her family was hacked to death.

What do you say to someone like her that could make a difference? She shed a few tears and the only thing I could say was "I'm sorry" and we never spoke of it again.

She could have hated the world but she came to the states to raise money and awareness and then she eventually went back to help her people.

That young girl was a hero, a term I don't toss about lightly. Hopefully she's alive and well and doing the good she wished.

 

[Humpy]

"Free pass"? Is that what you call 27 years in prison? How did I not "address" her violent crime? You needed me to affirmatively state that torture and murder is wrong? My failure to do so "implies" that atonement "cancels" the crime? No, "addressing" her crime is not an attack on the women's march, unless of course, someone ties the two together and says that because she committed a crime she shouldn't speak at the march.

See my discussion above where there is agreement that it's "appropriate" for a male soldier who murdered civilians and who served his time to speak at an anti-war rally without delegitimizing the rally, but for a female rape victim who likewise served her time for her crime, it isn't. Can you square that for me?

Your focus was on her being the victim while not mentioning she is a murderer. She didn't just commit a crime, she committed the very same crime she is speaking against. She figured out that murder is bad? Neat.

I agree that one shitty speaker does not de-legitimize the rally. Even though a bunch of overly sensitive types want it to be about the rally, the thread is about this one person. Let's please keep the focus on her being a wise and beautiful woman.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Imagine the outcry if a man convicted of rape was campaigning in support of male sexual assault victims.

 

[jonks]

Your focus was on her being the victim while not mentioning she is a murderer. She didn't just commit a crime, she committed the very same crime she is speaking against. She figured out that murder is bad? Neat.

I agree that one shitty speaker does not de-legitimize the rally. Even though a bunch of overly sensitive types want it to be about the rally, the thread is about this one person. Let's please keep the focus on her being a wise and beautiful woman.

I'm not arguing that she's a good person, whatever that means. And she was both a victim and a murderer. The latter does not excuse the former. Obviously. Which is why she spent 27 years in prison. I feel like we're simply stating obvious things. This is someone who was degraded and dehumanized in ways you and I can't quite imagine. And I have no problem with her speaking about those things at a rally for women. If she says, now, "that dude I killed deserved what he got", call me.

 

[realibrad]

Looking at the link and listening to what she said, I don't see a problem with the message. Reading the story does make me worry about having her in any sort of leadership position. Wanting to promote women's rights and correct injustice can be done by anyone. The problem in my mind is when she is not in the public eye and directing people. People that was willing to torture a man to death have obvious value judgement deficiencies and you don't want those people directing others based on their flawed judgement.

The further issue here is that the perpetuating people she is trying to work against is the same group that led her to take part in torture and murder. I think it would be reasonable to worry that behind the scenes she may be pushing for things that are beyond just correcting inequality. She had no problem with her crime and was okay with seeing him as a means to some money. When interviewed, she seemed to have little remorse about what she did to a fellow human.

 

[jonks]

Imagine the outcry if a man convicted of rape was campaigning in support of male sexual assault victims.

I don't know that that hasn't happened. I don't frequent the reformed-racist seminar scene (worst TED talk ever) but I don't find it particularly difficult to envision a man who as a boy was raped for years, and who then committed a rape, served prison time, and when he got out educated himself and advocated for awareness of abused children.

 

[werepossum]

Yes.

Being a victim does not give one a free pass to murder though. Not addressing her violent crime in your post seems to imply that you, and many others, believe her atonement cancels the fact it occurred and that addressing it is some kind of attack on the women's march.

The free pass shits all over the thousands of victims who somehow managed to refrain from torture and murder. They are the heroes that make a good mouthpiece for victims. Someone who left victims in her wake? Not so good.

Well said indeed.

In the desperate frenzy to ignore their growing distaste of their elected Cheeto in Chief, longhair misogynist Trumpsters and conservatives scramble to find a new villain in the world, preferably one with a vagina. Ooo, one with a "victimless" criminal past, too! Hooray!

This thread exists.

How fortunate for "longhair misogynist Trumpsters and conservatives" that the left conveniently elevated one of the most horrendous criminals of our time to hero status and put her center stage.

 

[desura]

Yeah, universities are decadent like this. Like, Christianity has always skirted with insanity with heir ideals.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why? He's a war criminal who murdered civilians! Why does he get to speak at an anti-war rally, but a women who was tortured from the time she was 9 and also did horrible things as a result is precluded?



I'm not sure how man-hating can be called irrational given how women have suffered under our thumbs from the beginning of time to, oh, say, about now. A dozen dozen millennia of ill treatment can leave a bad taste. That aside, if her area of advocacy is violence against women, I still don't understand how she'd be an inappropriate speaker. And let's also recognize that the march was "organized" in a few weeks, and hardly centralized in message, tone or organization, and had quite a few men in attendance as well.

If you have to go through such mental gymnastics to justify it, you've already answered your own question.

 

[jonks]

If you have to go through such mental gymnastics to justify it, you've already answered your own question.

I don't even know what you're talking about, unless logical progression constitutes mental gymnastics for you. I do note that your non-response saved you from having to explain why the war criminal is a-ok but she isn't.

How fortunate for "longhair misogynist Trumpsters and conservatives" that the left conveniently elevated one of the most horrendous criminals of our time to hero status and put her center stage.

You know, for a good few seconds I thought you meant Hillary and was going to respond incredulously to your description? I will take issue with your claiming that "the left" made this woman a "hero", since neither of those things is accurate.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't even know what you're talking about, unless logical progression constitutes mental gymnastics for you. I do note that your non-response saved you from having to explain why the war criminal is a-ok but she isn't.

My non response was due to the analogy being a distraction from the topic at hand and I didn't feel like chasing you down the rabbit hole.

Mental gymnastics. Trying to create an analogy to a soldier being desensitized during war and killing animals, which I then redirected to a more accurate analogy of a war criminal...which you "progressed" to fit your narrative.

I will simplify things for you. While this person may have a legitimate perspective to share given her life's experiences, and while her speaking does not necessarily represent an endorsement of rape or murder, the optics are poor.

 

[jonks]

My non response was due to the analogy being a distraction from the topic at hand and I didn't feel like chasing you down the rabbit hole.

Mental gymnastics. Trying to create an analogy to a soldier being desensitized during war and killing animals, which I then redirected to a more accurate analogy of a war criminal...which you "progressed" to fit your narrative.

I will simplify things for you. While this person may have a legitimate perspective to share given her life's experiences, and while her speaking does not necessarily represent an endorsement of rape or murder, the optics are poor.

And that's a framing I can understand, even if I disagree. Man, next time let's just start at the end!

 

[zinfamous]

How fortunate for "longhair misogynist Trumpsters and conservatives" that the left conveniently elevated one of the most horrendous criminals of our time to hero status and put her center stage.

Hey man, I ain't about to elevate this crazy lady.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And that's a framing I can understand, even if I disagree. Man, next time let's just start at the end!

It's Miller Time (even though I prefer Stella or Sam Adams)

 

[agent00f]

Well said indeed.


How fortunate for "longhair misogynist Trumpsters and conservatives" that the left conveniently elevated one of the most horrendous criminals of our time to hero status and put her center stage.

Your focus was on her being the victim while not mentioning she is a murderer. She didn't just commit a crime, she committed the very same crime she is speaking against. She figured out that murder is bad? Neat.

I agree that one shitty speaker does not de-legitimize the rally. Even though a bunch of overly sensitive types want it to be about the rally, the thread is about this one person. Let's please keep the focus on her being a wise and beautiful woman.

If you have to go through such mental gymnastics to justify it, you've already answered your own question.

Let's take a moment to consider what the sort of people who look to make the most of this opportunity will do in similar ones. There's little doubt Trump/Bannon/etc are looking to antagonize/subjugate muslims or other low status groups, so it's certainly possible they're going to get their 9-11/Reichstag moment sooner or later. In that golden opportunity, just looking at the members here, we all know which are going to be on point to support/advocate rounding people up, the secondary actors obligated to protect their peers, and the tertiary ones looking the other way trying to pin it all on the leftards. That's just how the conservative/fascist ecosystem works, per traditionalist/loyalist mentality.

The only question here is which of those category/roles various conservatives see fit for themselves, though these threads give us all a pretty good idea.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Let's take a moment to consider what the sort of people who look to make the most of this opportunity will do in similar ones. There's little doubt Trump/Bannon/etc are looking to antagonize/subjugate muslims or other low status groups, so it's certainly possible they're going to get their 9-11/Reichstag moment sooner or later. In that golden opportunity, just looking at the members here, we all know which are going to be on point to support/advocate rounding people up, the secondary actors obligated to protect their peers, and the tertiary ones looking the other way trying to pin it all on the leftards. That's just how the conservative/fascist ecosystem works, per traditionalist/loyalist mentality.

The only question here is which of those category/roles various conservatives see fit for themselves, though these threads give us all a pretty good idea.

FDR allowed for the rounding up of Japanese immigrants during WW2. Was that fascism, or an over abundance of caution that also happened to contradict our values as a nation.

I know you need to demonize your political nemeses on these forums or your whole house of cards come crashing down, but I also think you would be pleasanty surprised on which side some of us would fight in the face of true fascism. You take things to such an absurd extreme, that there is a Mussolini hiding behind every Tweet.

While I appreciate the intelligence behind many of your posts, you should try the snare drum on your kit occasionally to mix things up a bit.

 

[agent00f]

FDR allowed for the rounding up of Japanese immigrants during WW2. Was that fascism, or an over abundance of caution that also happened to contradict our values as a nation.

I know you need to demonize your political nemeses on these forums or your whole house of cards come crashing down, but I also think you would be pleasanty surprised on which side some of us would fight in the face of true fascism. You take things to such an absurd extreme, that there is a Mussolini hiding behind every Tweet.

While I appreciate the intelligence behind many of your posts, you should try the snare drum on your kit occasionally to mix things up a bit.

Keep in mind that was a time when most americans supported segregation & such anyway, so let's not pretend as if the conservatives then were all about helping out lower status groups any more than they are now (if not sympathetic to the euro right), and the political alignment of those who didn't care for it. The other essential difference between progress vs. tradition is one learns lessons from history and other doesn't want to, by definition. That's basically the story of modern politics in a nutshell.