Media/Journalism Cringe Megathread - Hot off the Presses

[LordsFire]

Here's a problem judges face when dealing with rape allegations: it's really hard to to determine if the allegations are true when collaborating witnesses or medical evidence saying "yup, she was raped and he did it" isn't available and it usually isn't available.

A (sadly deceased) cousin of mine had a story about a gal getting dumped on her doorstep in the middle of the night wearing nothing but a t-shirt and pair of shoes. The gal had absolutely no memory of how she wound up at my cousin's home.

It's part of why the '#metoo' movement has been so toxic. An accusation of rape either means that someone has been brutally violated and traumatized, or that someone is trying to brutally violate and traumatize someone through the accusation.

It's incredibly sensitive and dangerous stuff, from which simple platitudes of 'believe all women' or 'this is just a bunch of women regretting they had one-night stands or used their body to get ahead in their career' are not going to solve things. Each individual case needs to be treated on its own merits.

My brother in law worked for... I think it was campus security? Some position where he saw directly into a bunch of cases where women were getting raped, and it particularly drove him nuts because there were multiple instances caused by one or two specific guys, who just kept getting away with it.

Why? Because the woman either wouldn't push things at all, wouldn't even say she'd been raped, or wouldn't get tested by a rape kit. And one of the really big things about rape, is that it's one of those crimes where a huge proportion of offenses, come from serial offenders.

If people really want to try to drive the rape rate down, the two big cultural messages that should be going out are:

1. Women, travel armed.
2. If you do get raped, then you need to immediately go to the police and get the proper forensic work done. If you get a rape kit done, show bruises and other evidence that it was forced, the odds of getting a conviction go up massively, and both you and other potential victims will be safer with the perpetrator behind bars.

One of the things that drives me nuts is the feminist assertion that 'we need to teach men not to rape.' We already teach that. In every form of media except for twisted fringe bits of erotica, sexual assault in general and rape in particular is depicted as the most heinous of crimes one can commit, with only murder being on the same level.

 

[bintananth]

It's part of why the '#metoo' movement has been so toxic. An accusation of rape either means that someone has been brutally violated and traumatized, or that someone is trying to brutally violate and traumatize someone through the accusation.

It's incredibly sensitive and dangerous stuff, from which simple platitudes of 'believe all women' or 'this is just a bunch of women regretting they had one-night stands or used their body to get ahead in their career' are not going to solve things. Each individual case needs to be treated on its own merits.

My brother in law worked for... I think it was campus security? Some position where he saw directly into a bunch of cases where women were getting raped, and it particularly drove him nuts because there were multiple instances caused by one or two specific guys, who just kept getting away with it.

Why? Because the woman either wouldn't push things at all, wouldn't even say she'd been raped, or wouldn't get tested by a rape kit. And one of the really big things about rape, is that it's one of those crimes where a huge proportion of offenses, come from serial offenders.

If people really want to try to drive the rape rate down, the two big cultural messages that should be going out are:

1. Women, travel armed.
2. If you do get raped, then you need to immediately go to the police and get the proper forensic work done. If you get a rape kit done, show bruises and other evidence that it was forced, the odds of getting a conviction go up massively, and both you and other potential victims will be safer with the perpetrator behind bars.

One of the things that drives me nuts is the feminist assertion that 'we need to teach men not to rape.' We already teach that. In every form of media except for twisted fringe bits of erotica, sexual assault in general and rape in particular is depicted as the most heinous of crimes one can commit, with only murder being on the same level.

When a woman privately tells you that she's been raped she's usually telling the truth.

Unless she's like my sisters (they're literally the same size as a heavyweight boxer and even more ornery than one when upset with you) she's probably said yes to sex she didn't want because for her saying no means she might be injured by a guy much larger and stronger than she is.

 

[LordsFire]

When a woman privately tells you that she's been raped she's usually telling the truth.

Unless she's like my sisters (they're literally the same size as a heavyweight boxer and even more ornery than one when upset with you) she's probably said yes to sex she didn't want because for her saying no means she might be injured by a guy much larger and stronger than she is.

If a guy says 'will you have sex with me,' and she says 'yes,' that is not rape.

You can certainly argue coercion. You certainly can argue harassment. But if she literally says yes to the guy, she can no longer argue it is rape. Pleasant or not, that's the truth.

This is part of why I say travel armed. It's a lot easier to not feel pressured when you're backed up by a 9mm.

 

[Zachowon]

If you at any point take away consent that is rape.

 

[LordsFire]

If you at any point take away consent that is rape.

Yes. And if he says 'Will you have sex with me?' and she says 'yes,' unless he is literally holding a weapon in a threatening way, or made an explicit other threat, that is consent.

Just 'looming' or posturing is not enough. There has to have been a clear threat made for 'she said yes' to no longer be a valid defense. If he is brandishing a weapon, or is a wealthy/powerful individual who has said 'I will ruin your life,' then that can be considered rape.

But 'I was intimidated' when no actual threat was made, is not enough. And yes, an implied threat still counts as a threat, so long as it's a clear implication.

A guy standing up and flexing is not automatically a threat; he could be trying to impress the woman, because you know, that's a thing guys do. If he stands up, flexes, then puts his fist through the wall, that could be a threat.

 

[bintananth]

If you at any point take away consent that is rape.

Exactly.

An average guy v. average gal wrestling match will almost always end with the gal losing badly because he's got approximately 40lbs of muscle she doesn't have.

Gals instinctively know this. If she thinks "no" means "I'm going need medical attention" then she doesn't really have a choice.

 

[Rocinante]

Exactly.

An average guy v. average gal wrestling match will almost always end with the gal losing badly because he's got approximately 40lbs of muscle she doesn't have.

Gals instinctively know this. If she thinks "no" means "I'm going need medical attention" then she doesn't really have a choice.

So what are you getting at here? That a woman can just decide it was rape later because a guy has muscles?

 

[Cherico]

If you at any point take away consent that is rape.

we have already have had cases where consent was taken away after the fact, and we have had girls lie and get caught aka mattress girl. After a certain amount of false alligations you hold all alligations in suspecision until proven other wise in a court of law.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah. That is how these things go

 

[Captain X]

Honestly one of the shittiest aspects of all these provably false accusations is that it makes it that much harder for actual rape victims to come forward, because the assumption now is going to be that they are lying.

 

[Cherico]

Honestly one of the shittiest aspects of all these provably false accusations is that it makes it that much harder for actual rape victims to come forward, because the assumption now is going to be that they are lying.

when you don't punish the bad actors there are costs that are paid to society as a whole.

 

[Bear Ribs]

You Know Who Else Opposed Vaccine Mandates? Hitler.

Contrary to claims about “fascist” vaccine mandates currently circulating on the Right, the Nazis actually relaxed German vaccine mandates — and hoped doing the same for people they conquered would kill them faster.

jacobinmag.com

 

[Zachowon]

You Know Who Else Opposed Vaccine Mandates? Hitler.

Contrary to claims about “fascist” vaccine mandates currently circulating on the Right, the Nazis actually relaxed German vaccine mandates — and hoped doing the same for people they conquered would kill them faster.

jacobinmag.com

What...
I know this isn't true...is it?

 

[Bear Ribs]

What...
I know this isn't true...is it?

No, the Nazis were actually pretty keen on vaccinations and advanced the knowledge of them quite a bit... by means of horribly unethical medical experiments on concentration camp victims.

That said they can be considered very technically correct, in that the Nazis did not like making vaccines mandatory and instead preferred voluntary programs.

 

[Zachowon]

No, the Nazis were actually pretty keen on vaccinations and advanced the knowledge of them quite a bit... by means of horribly unethical medical experiments on concentration camp victims.

That said they can be considered very technically correct, in that the Nazis did not like making vaccines mandatory and instead preferred voluntary programs.

Ahhhhhh.
One of those as fact checkers would like to say "Mostly True"

 

[Sobek]

OH MY GOD THEY ARE TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY! THESE MAGA TERRORISTS ARE UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY AND OUR FREEDOMS!

Are they bombing cities? Taking hostages? Staging coups?

Nope, they are running for elections and winning, or volunteering for office in places. And this is absolutely unacceptable.

Opinion | Why your local election managers are getting a lot Trumpier

The threat to U.S. elections now runs all the way from top to bottom.

www.msnbc.com

Look at the sheer panic of these parasites. They cannot STAND that people who are political actors whose opinions they disagree with want to take part in democracy. That these people believe the "false and debunked narrative that the election was stolen without evidence" (and he makes sure to repeat that over and over, linking his Yes Men sources that also repeat that) and now they wanna come in and participate on the process to make sure it doesn't happen again.

With All Eyes on Washington, the Real Far-Right Threat Has Moved On

Similar article, but focusing more on the aspect of how no one showed up to the little glow op in D.C. and how these dangerous radicals refuse to give up and keep their dangerous extremism of wanting transparent elections and demanding standards. Shout out to Vera Bergengruen, the author, for not even doing a basic google search to check that the OKC bombing was in 1995 not 1998 like she claims when comparing the Capitol to the literal most deadly terror attack in US History before 9/11

 

[f1onagher]

In the future make sure to run links you share through archive.today so as to deny them clickbait revenue.

As for the articles, they're part panic that the deplorables are not just giving up like the good pet opposition the elite prefer and part laying the groundwork to accuse the right of cheating in the next election. Remember, half the democratic party was convinced that Trump cheated in 2016 but quietly shut up when the one audit Jill Stein managed to get going found several thousand of Clinton's votes to be "miscounted" expanding Trumps win in Wisconsin to no media acknowledgement.

The media are short-sighted grifters and fools, but they're not idiots. They know how to cultivate narratives and that's what they're doing here.

 

[prinCZess]

Psaki asked about image of Border Patrol agent with apparent whip: 'obviously horrific'

White House press secretary Jen Psaki called the images "horrible," but said she could not yet address what the consequences would be.

www.nbcnews.com

What kind of sheltered, even western-movie deprived dummy-journalist is incapable of knowing the difference between a 'whip' and reins?

 

[VicSage]

The same kind that sees an unused cartridge and says it was shot at someone's house by soldiers.

 

[GoldRanger]

Brian Stelter (and AP News) has found a terrible take on the 20th Anniversary of September 11th.



Thank goodness for News Anchors, our "National Leaders" and "Moral Authority" twenty years ago apparently, said no one ever until now.

The comments are hilarious.