While I'm sure this comment was intended as a spoof of typical feminist-think, it’s just close enough to what some have actually stated to make one wonder (briefly) if she isn’t dead-serious:
This type of abuse is routinely suffered by lesser-known rape defendants. They are terrorized by the media circus, and turned into carnival freaks. Unruly crowds rally in front of their home. They are followed, spat on, chased through the streets, forced to move, lose their sanity and some even commit suicide to end the abuse. They are the new victims of modern technology: Google, Twitter, Facebook and cable news. The accusation is forever imprinted in cyberspace, only a keystroke away. Reputations are smeared, finances eviscerated, careers destroyed; jobs, businesses, friends, wives and children lost forever. All of this regardless of the verdict.
***
And that's exactly what it is: ABUSE. The worst form of abuse imaginable.
The victim feminists, who claim to live for the purpose of eliminating abuse, are the worst abusers of all. The "legal" system they have created is the most dishonest, reprehensible and discriminatory on the planet.
Reading through the comments at Solon.com, I am struck by the unusually high rate of functional illiteracy amongst it's readership.
Mr Black clear opens up by asking this question
"Did they deserve to be smeared before a verdict?"
Which a significant number of the dimwits read as "the allegations against them have been proved to have been false"
Of course, anyone with some advanced reading skills (say, a 4th grade-level reading comprehension) can clearly see that nowhere was it stated that all of the named examples had been exonerated. Yet, the screeching ninnies frame their (pitful attempts at an) argument against Mr. Black’s well reasoned questions by trying to accuse him of having claimed that they had all been false accusations.
Well, I guess the best way to discredit serious efforts is to flat-out lie about what conclusions they’ve reached.
slwerner, how on earth can you be so sensitive as to expect these poor, victimized women to read? How can they do so, when their eyes need to be wide open to defend against all the evil misogynist flesh-swords coming at them 24/7/365? All these women think about is RAPE, so therefore, that must be all men think about. Rape, rape, rape.
Mr strauss Khan's attorney said it best when he said the current American media circus is an attempt to "Inflame" the public. As an American, I don't feel very good about the FCC letting American media outlets "Inflame" the public, and profit from it. Newsweek, and other American media outlets should be held financially accountable for profiteering from "inflaming" the public against the presumed innocent.
Do other countries have media outlets that profiteer by "Inflaming" the public?? As international internet communication grows, we may very well be able to easily compare main stream American media outlets to others around the world. As we compare, we may ask ourselves why American media outlets profiteer off inflaming the public...one false rape accusation, after another false rape accusation, after another false rape accusation, after another.
Every civilized society must strive to (1) eradicate heinous crimes by punishing the offenders, and (2) insure that the innocent aren't punished along with the offenders. Too often, the second half of that balance is omitted from the public discourse. Accusations of serious criminality, especially murder and sexual wrongdoing, too often are their own convictions in the high court of public opinion because the stigma is so severe. It is our mission to raise awareness about the injustices suffered by persons wrongly accused of serious criminality. Protecting the innocent from unjust harm as a result of a wrongful accusation is a hallmark of a civilized society.
8 comments:
While I'm sure this comment was intended as a spoof of typical feminist-think, it’s just close enough to what some have actually stated to make one wonder (briefly) if she isn’t dead-serious:
What happened to my link ot the quoted comment?
Attempt #2:
"MISOGYNISTS!!!1!!!1!
Yes, I am here to pre-emptivelyaccuse all of you MISOGYNISTS TROLLS who are out in force to comment on this vile article!
As any infallible feminist can tell you, GUILT MUST BE PRESUMED whenever one of you penis-bearing SCUM is accused of perpetrating a Vaginal Holocaust with your filthy patriarchal flesh-sword.
HANG YOUR HEAD IN INDELIBLE SHAME, MISOGYNIST!!!11!
Vigilance, Sisters!"
—Linney Uston
This type of abuse is routinely suffered by lesser-known rape defendants. They are terrorized by the media circus, and turned into carnival freaks. Unruly crowds rally in front of their home. They are followed, spat on, chased through the streets, forced to move, lose their sanity and some even commit suicide to end the abuse. They are the new victims of modern technology: Google, Twitter, Facebook and cable news. The accusation is forever imprinted in cyberspace, only a keystroke away. Reputations are smeared, finances eviscerated, careers destroyed; jobs, businesses, friends, wives and children lost forever. All of this regardless of the verdict.
***
And that's exactly what it is: ABUSE. The worst form of abuse imaginable.
The victim feminists, who claim to live for the purpose of eliminating abuse, are the worst abusers of all. The "legal" system they have created is the most dishonest, reprehensible and discriminatory on the planet.
Reading through the comments at Solon.com, I am struck by the unusually high rate of functional illiteracy amongst it's readership.
Mr Black clear opens up by asking this question
"Did they deserve to be smeared before a verdict?"
Which a significant number of the dimwits read as "the allegations against them have been proved to have been false"
Of course, anyone with some advanced reading skills (say, a 4th grade-level reading comprehension) can clearly see that nowhere was it stated that all of the named examples had been exonerated. Yet, the screeching ninnies frame their (pitful attempts at an) argument against Mr. Black’s well reasoned questions by trying to accuse him of having claimed that they had all been false accusations.
Well, I guess the best way to discredit serious efforts is to flat-out lie about what conclusions they’ve reached.
slwerner, how on earth can you be so sensitive as to expect these poor, victimized women to read? How can they do so, when their eyes need to be wide open to defend against all the evil misogynist flesh-swords coming at them 24/7/365? All these women think about is RAPE, so therefore, that must be all men think about. Rape, rape, rape.
Don't read...Avoid rape!
Mr strauss Khan's attorney said it best when he said the current American media circus is an attempt to "Inflame" the public.
As an American, I don't feel very good about the FCC letting American media outlets "Inflame" the public, and profit from it.
Newsweek, and other American media outlets should be held financially accountable for profiteering from "inflaming" the public against the presumed innocent.
Do other countries have media outlets that profiteer by "Inflaming" the public??
As international internet communication grows, we may very well be able to easily compare main stream American media outlets to others around the world. As we compare, we may ask ourselves why American media outlets profiteer off inflaming the public...one false rape accusation, after another false rape accusation, after another false rape accusation, after another.
It seems that the original 2% liar, Susan Brownmiller, has decided that she should respond to Roy Blacks recent piece on Salon.com:
Accused rapists don't need more protections
Post a Comment