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."


Fidelbogen said...

Thank you for giving that detestable Marcotte creature the moral bitch-slapping she deserves.

Roy said...

This is excellent!
But in Amanda Marcotte's case, it does not one whit of good - her skin is so thick a bullet would ricochet off it.

Unknown said...

The only conspiracy in this case was its planned use by the prosecutor in his future run for higher office. the DNA evidence is damning - if the accuser was assaulted it was by one of her prior customers, not these jerks from the lacrosse team.