Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Amanda Marcotte's Duke rape case analysis

Amanda, originally uploaded by Lindsay Beyerstein.
Suprised that a feminist would allow these comments ripping into Amanda Marcotte to remain.
Good for you Lindsay Beyerstein
Of course, Amanda does not censors people just for disagreeing with her. She censors them for proving her wrong.
Echo chambers

"The problem with the Duke rape case is not that Amanda was completely wrong and refuses to admit it. The problem is that people keep pointing it out to her. Poor Amanda!

How many of her loyal readers are asking her to issue a mea culpa? An honest poster would just come out and say "I screwed up" and a diverse audience would continuously ask them to do just that. But in Amanda's world the people who do crazy things like ask that we wait for evidence and a trial are the KKK. Point out that jumping the gun and breaking out the pitchforks based on nothing is poor form? You're a troll. Point out that Amanda was wrong from the start? You're a troll.

It is fundamentally dishonest and cowardly to make a colossal error, continue on as if nothing had happened, then blame the people who point out your error rather then yourself for making it.
Aeroman, I haven't hit a single bump. A) The claims that I was "covering" the Duke rape case were made up by people who are single-mindedly obsessed with making sure that the white supremacist patriarchy won this round, regardless of the truth, and B) I haven't deviated one iota from my thought that the prosecution fumbled the ball, probably because they foolishly forgot that they would be facing an extremely well-funded defense while prosecuting a rape where the victim is assumed to be "rapeable", in the sense that she deserves what happened and has no right to justice. I haven't deviated from that one iota.

That's funny, I would think that deleting the entire content of a post because it humiliated you and your employer would count as deviating at least an iota from one's position.

If people were banned for calling others names Amanda would be the first to go.

I love her analysis of the Duke rape case. She knows essentially nothing about the case or the evidence, yet she somehow magically knows that a good case could be built.

This is of course contrary to the views of basically every legal person who *does* know about the particulars of the case. This is contrary to the fact that there is no evidence at all and plenty of evidence that the accuser was lying. Her story was contradicted by the other stripper and by a cab driver.

How exactly does Amanda *know* that a good case could have been built? Does she work weekends at CSI? What pray tell does a solid case look like here?

Yet another example of Amanda and Chris knowing the unknowable. I would love to hear Amanda explain how she knows the Duke players are guilty. Because they are white men? Because nobody ever lies about being the victim of a crime?

And then she has the audacity of accusing *other* people of crusading regardless of the truth!

Her rationalizations are so flimsy. The prosecutor simply "forgot" that he needed to build a proper case!

She has absolutely ruled out the possibility of their innocence from the start. That is the mark of an unreasonable person.

*This* is the problem with echo chambers. The general public would consider Amanda's views on this issue something of a joke. Amanda clings to the notion that the players are guilty because it fits her agenda and confirms her world view. Not because of any evidence, not because she is a crusader for justice or a legal expert. Not because of the particulars of the case. In her mind they are guilty just because that is convenient for her.

In a diverse forum people would rightly jump all over Amanda and point out how obtuse and stubborn she is being. Instead she is encouraged to see conspiracy everywhere. Her perspective is warped beyond belief. Again, she literally cannot conceptualize that innocence is even a possibility here.

Maybe, just maybe, it isn't that the prosecutor forgot how to prosecute or that the victim was "rapeable." Maybe it isn't a conspiracy of money and white supremacist sexists. Isn't it at least *possible* that they really are innocent?

Apparently not.

When I first heard about this I assumed they were guilty. Most people accused of major crimes are. But false accusations happen. If you can't grant that then you an extremist of the highest order.

Echo chambers breed this sort of irrational extremist."

Links of the Day

My increasing support of waterboarding
Prof Cole tries to "save" US diplomats
Democrats: Applying Our Fairness Doctrine To PBS Would Be Unfair
Another fake “hate” incident at GWU
Clinton, civil wars and cowboy diplomacy 
A "Who's Who" of Ignorance in the Intelligence Community
Hasbro’s Clintonian G.I. Joe Damage Control
Russert: A Fair and Balanced Lying Liberal “Journalist”
Schwarzenegger Vetoes Justice
Kerry says he has the goods on those eeevil Swift Boaters
Is Pornography a Catalyst of Sexual Violence?
The great biofuel hoax - and the evil resulting

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Quote of the Day

Jill and Amanda

Amynda Marcotte and Jill Filipovic taken to task

"The Duke Rape Case is a rallying cry because, according to the MRAs, it proves that men are constantly being falsely accused of rape.

I suppose so. But let's not forget that feminists made it into a rallying cry before it became evident that the charges were bogus."

Actually, it became the rallying cry because feminists and elements influenced by feminism refused to back off as exculpatory information came to be known, and as the incriminating evidence which Nifong represented that he had assembled began to be exposed as not very incriminating at all. The less likely - from the evidence - that a rape occurred and that these three perpetrated it, the more entrenched the feminists became, with talk of "white privilege" and "rich boys" as if the same had anything to do with the fact of whether they penetrated the woman without her consent.

It became clear to reasonable people - that is, the vast majority of people - that no rape actually occurred, and that the continued demand by feminists for the effective ends of the lives of these young men was not grounded in facts or evidence, but in some twisted, pathological resentment and hatred beyond reason - hatred of young men who are considered successful and who probably get the attention of young women without much effort and supine, approval seeking behavior of the sort of which Fecke is fond. See also, Kobe Bryant.

To this day Marcotte and Jill will not concede that the facts and evidence are an insufficient grounds upon which to continue to accuse these three young men of a heinous crime. I believe Jill's words are "something happened that night" or some such. I believe Marcotte wrote something to the effect that even if the Duke three were innocent in fact, she did not consider their ordeal significant, nor does she empathise with them. I get the sense that neither really have much compunction about false accusations against "priviliged" and "entitled" men, and that Marcotte may quietly consider it a legitimate means of fighting her vagina uprising.

So, the point of MRAs and, well, normal men regarding the Duke matter is that credible facts and evidence regarding the actual, physical occurrence of a rape isn't a necessary predicate to have the whole feminist rape-lynching apparatus come down upon you in full force, and that if you don't have access to hundreds of thousands of Dollars for attorneys and investigators to comb the record, you may lose your freedom as the result of a single false accusation.

Progressive Debate 103 - Comments deleted from Shakesville by Melissa McEwan

Comment #1

ginmar, So am I allow to say If [wo]men don't want to have children they should use BC or is there a double standard.
And how do you defend this.
Florida Supreme Court: Man Must Pay Child Support For Kid That Isn’t His

Comment #2

I see Melissa is using the progressive debate technique of deleting comments.

And you who object to men being released from any financial obligation for children or male reproductive freedom what do you think of this feminist who had a abortion for financial reasons.
My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?
I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.

Feminist debate

The comments on this post are open to feminist and pro-feminist posters only. If you’re not a feminist and want to leave a comment, you may do so at the identical post on Creative Destruction.

And more BS from these guys on the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax.

Links of the Day

More IU Coverage in the NY Times
GOP To Take On Hillary’s 1992 Eavesdropping
Sham on the Hill
Huh? MRA's Advocate Rape and Assault???
What a Bitch
Truly Bizarre Stories
LIVES; When One Is Enough

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Links of the Week

When The Legends Don't Die
That’ll show us
Fallen Soldier MSNBC Used for 'Gotcha' Game With Rep. Blackburn Did Not Live in Her District
No Warrantless Breath Tests for Non-Motorists
Love notes from the left
NRA the Victim of Sloppy Hill Staffers
More unintended irony from Sullivan
Ahmadinejad’s Spin Docs Are Operating
Bill Clinton Uses Threat Of Lawsuit, Presidential Seal To Intimidate Restaurant Owner
Bubba gets testy
Katrina vanden Heuvel’s Inadvertent Humor Rag
Behind the Numbers (September Edition)
Clintons and “thugs” not good for a campaign
Juan Cole, The Dumbest Ph.D. in History
NASA’s James Hansen Claims He’s Being 'Swift-boated' by Critics
Stupid University Tricks: How Columbia Routinely Chills Speech It Doesn't Like
Murtha To Testify In Marine Defamation Case
Al Gore: Not interested in dissentested in dissent
Leftist hypocrisy again
Lies repeated often enough
Clarence Thomas: Liberal Progressives Are As Bad As Old South Racists
The new peace paradigm is working!
Harry Reid’s tin ear 
Clarence Thomas on middle-class white women who think they're "oppressed."
Fake war hero Tom Harkin smears Rush Limbaugh
Sauce For The Goose
Al Gore: Sleazebag Liar?
Video: Spicoli defends Chavez’s shutdown of opposition TV station
John Kerry Gained Fame Via ‘Phony Soldiers’
Will Antiwar Vets Group Use Phony Soldiers In Attacks on Rush?
The N&O, Newsweek & plagiarism

Friday, September 21, 2007

Progressive Debate 102 - Banned from Pandagon

 Amanda and Jessica

Progressive Feminazi harpy Amanda Marcotte noticed my parody of her Duke comments and used the standard cowardly progressive debating technique of calling them hate and deleting them.

[Channeling a old post by Amanda Marcotte]

In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear students at Jena are being persecuted just because they attacked some guy, because the some of the charges have been thrown out.

    Can’t a few black youths assault a white boy anymore without people getting all wound up about it?

    So unfair.

She earns my disdain and the title feminazi for calling anyone who disagrees with her about Jena by pointing out that black "innocents" in the case really did assault a white male, a white supremacist.

Having to deal with the white supremacists who want to stink up your comments when you blog stuff like this is a disincentive, I’ll point out. Which of course is what said white supremacists are trying to achieve, the silencing of bloggers on this. That said, the silencing efforts should be a clue to bloggers about how important this issue is that people want to silence you about it.

Amazing, she deletes the comments that disagrees with her and claims that the other side is silencing people.

Amanda also forgets that the accused in the Duke rape hoax were declared innocent by the NC AG and all the evidence shows that they were innocent.

Absolutely. I’m not making excuses so much as pointing out that there’s a concentrated harassment and silencing effort on certain issues. The Duke case is a big one; I have opinions, but the very idea of expressing them and having to deal with the horrible racists out there who feel vindicated because they lucked into a bad prosecutor gives me a headache. Same with this case; when it first came to my attention, I thought, “That’s going to be relentless troll bait.” I had a lot of thoughts about it as a case that really has potential to be a stand-out case of our time after hearing Common mention it at the Austin City Limits Festival, but I won’t lie, I pussed out, too exhausted to cobble together something barn-storming enough to give people energy to fight off trolls. You also see how this sort of non-stop harassment works to reduce abortion access, since a lot of doctors who’d like to perform the service simply can’t because they don’t have the personal resources to deal with the harassment. It just seems like people on the right have an endless reserve of energy to do hateful things to people who speak out. They’re like machines that run on hate or something.

Anyway, have I personally failed to step up? Yes. I admit that. I’m just looking into the whys not to defend myself but in order to suss out what I would need to work on not to fail on this sort of thing in the future. Constructive self-criticism, as it were.

Ever the victim of the racist patriarchy, Eh Amanda?

Progressive Debate 101 - Banned from Feministing


Got banned by Jessica Valenti from Feministing for this comment:

How about this double standard?

Women have reproductive rights. Men do not.

If the woman get pregnant and does not want the child, she can abort it. But if the man does not want the child, he is still obligated to pay child support.

It is her blog. But don't tell me that she promotes honest debate.

Notice how she overlooks this little fact.

"Planned Parenthood is working hard to make sure that the center opens on time, but they could still use your help."

She forgot to mention that Planned Parenthood used a dummy corporation and lied to the Aurora City Board about the new building being a Abortion Clinic.

"The city granted a building permit to a company called Gemini Office Development LLC to build what was being called a “medical office building.” It turns out, however, that Gemini Office Development LLC is actually a shell company for Planned Parenthood and this new building was not going to be just a regular, non-descript “medical office building” but a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, instead. Curiously, Planned Parenthood neglected to tell the city of its plans until the building was complete and they were ready to open for business."

Must not let whose nasty facts confuse the issue. Eh Jessica? Of course if Walmart did the same thing, you would be up in arms.

Technorati Tags:

Links of the Week

Yet Another Slanted Abortion Story From the LAT
Planned Parenthood Lies to City Board That New Building to be Abortion Clinic
Media Giving Planned Parenthood a Pass for Lying to City About Abortion Clinic
Re: Shut Up and Sing Already
Environmental lawsuits and climate models 
It’s OK if you’re an idiot
Murtha Caught Red-faced-- Refuses to Apologize to Haditha Marines!
Rep. Jack Murtha confronted about Haditha accusations
Resolved: three random people on the street of Bangkok have more common sense than anyone in Greenpeace
More Military Frauds
That Florida Kid
Charges against ANOTHER Haditha Marine dropped
Haditha Hurrahs May Be Premature
Opinion Turning Against Fruitcake Andrew Meyer
Another university student dealt with appropriately
Media Mob Descends on Duke:
The Joyce Foundation: buying credibility
The Privileged Class, Ct'd...
What Are College Administrators Afraid of?
"Thousands" Rally In Jena To Support Hate Crime
A Screened Resolution of 39-17×1351
Jena 6 - America 0
Jena Justice
Brilliant Analysis, "Think Progress"

Monday, September 17, 2007

Links of the Week

If at first you don’t succeed…
Will Media Report Al Gore’s Hypocritical Private Plane Flights?
Edwards Announces Dream Cabinet
“MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor”
"There are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style."
A Sandy Burglar Comeback?
Plausible Deniability and crocodile tears 
Rep. Dennis Kucinich sucks up to Syria
Joan Foster comes out swinging!
The left always relies on force
Sicko Loses Bet
The Worst 9/11 Tribute Post Ever
Chemerinsky: Gravely Wronged by the University of California . . . But Still a Shameless Partisan Hack Who Gets It Wrong All The Time
Update in St. George
More evidence that there is no “consensus” on “man-made” global warming
Bin Laden’s beard real, last video is not
More Unanswered Questions
An Abortionist’s Right to Deceive Women
NYT Rejected Advocacy Ads Like MoveOn’s From Conservative Groups
FAQ - The State of the Race
We have succeeded in shrinking the hole that's growing
CAIR: Save us Audrey Hudson! You're Our Only Hope!
IDF Ends Its Silence On Al-Dura
The Civil Suit
Lincoln Chafee Leaves GOP
When The Stupid Talk Too much
Nifong Before Lacrosse
Clinton Lied and people DID Die
How Did Alexis Debat Lie So Well?
Is NASA’s Hansen Playing Enron Accounting Games With Climate Data?
Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support
Things You Might Not Know About The Duke Case
Parody, thy name is Hamsher
MoveOn.org, McCain-Feingold, the FEC, and you
Lying to Women Considering Getting an Abortion: A-OK

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Comment that got deleted at Pandagon

I guess feminists do not like it when you parody their talking points.

[Channeling Jessica Valenti and the other ladies of Feministing or Amanda Marcotte and the other ladies of Pandagon]
Someone used the the great injustice against a poor black woman who was sexually assaulted by a few white boy to defend Larry Craig

If you have a choice between missing a flight and getting a lawyer to help you address the charges against you, heres a helpful bit of advice, get the lawyer – miss the flight. Chances are Senator, the local police force is counting on you and many others doing exactly what you did, pay the fine, and then (you’ll excuse the pun) - blow out of town.

Is there such a thing as entrapment? Do policeman lie? Do they bend the truth? Do DA’s get overactive and push prosecution of cases when the politics of the matter fit their particular template? If you say no, then I got some phone numbers of a bunch of college students who went to a party one night in North Carolina and nearly went to prison over it. Their lawyers and their families can tell you stories about how an entire legal system fell around their heads one night and how the press tried and convicted these young men, despite the fact that there was never any evidence of any sort of crime.

But unlike you, they were smart enough to get lawyers. Imagine if they hadn’t, and trusted the police and the DA, like you did... 

The evil rich white men who assaulted Saint Crystal and their hired gun lawyers brought up no DNA evidence linking the accused Lacrosse players rapists, ever-changing stories from the accuser that seemed to address flaws in her testimony reported in the media and used falsified eyewitness and video evidence of the accused being nowhere near the scene of the crime when the rape occurred.

These are the only facts important to the case:
A)Women never lie about rape!!!!!!!!1!!
B) A lacrosse player (not one of the accused) wrote a email about killing strippers.
C) A racial slur came from a lacrosse player (not one of the accused).
It does not matter that the player was responding to the second dancer for her innocent retort of "little [expletive] white boy".
D) No one knows what really happened.

The hired gun lawyers swiftboated, demonized and persecuted Mike Nifong (who "fumbled the ball." and "was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself.") Disbarring him with lies about his statements to the media and so called withheld "DNA evidence"!

After that the accused Lacrosse players rapists who were not proven innocent in a court of law sent the hired gun lawyers to shakedown Duke University for 10 million. Now they attempting to shakedown the City of Durham.
They stole from a progressive university which was guaranteeing the academic freedom for the group of 88 and are now attempting to steal from a progressive community using frivolous lawsuits.