Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So. Mel Gibson didn't have a thread yet. Fixed.

18911131416

Posts

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I wasn't aware that terms were derogatory only when referenceing oppressed classes of people.

    Good to know, I guess?
    Kinda obvious. The n-word is less socially acceptable for a white person to say than the word "cracka" or "whitey" or "ghostface" is for a black person to say. I made up the last one, but the point stands.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    This thread really is fascinating.

    This is a bit passive aggressive.

    Sure, it certainly would be if I just popped my head into the thread and that was all I said.

    edit: I decided to cut down my aggressive-aggressiveness. Saying the thread fascinates me isn't being passive-aggressive because I've made my position thoroughly clear in over two dozen posts. I literally find it fascinating that people can possess such misogyny/cynicism that they will blame someone for something in a total absence of evidence.

    steam_sig.png
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that terms were derogatory only when referenceing oppressed classes of people.

    Good to know, I guess?

    It's not that only those terms are derogatory, it's that terms that denigrate an oppressed class to much greater damage to that class (and to society in general) than terms that denigrate a privileged class. That should be common sense, right?

    Um, no?

    If you want to argue that using derogatory terms to describe others is harmful to society then, sure, I'll agree that's common sense.

    I'm not seeing how being part of an oppressed group somehow makes it especially harmful. Increases the volume that society must deal with sure, but why do you beileve that adds extra weight to the terms themselves.

    Then again there's quite literally nothing anyone can say to me that I'm going to take personally short of threats of physical violence.

    sigtk.jpg
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    This thread really is fascinating.

    This is a bit passive aggressive.

    Sure, it certainly would be if I just popped my head into the thread and that was all I said.

    edit: I decided to cut down my aggressive-aggressiveness. Saying the thread fascinates me isn't being passive-aggressive because I've made my position thoroughly clear in over two dozen posts. I literally find it fascinating that people can possess such misogyny/cynicism that they will blame someone for something in a total absence of evidence.

    I wasn't talking about you personally. Just the quip, which seemed completely unnecessary to your argument.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    This thread really is fascinating.

    This is a bit passive aggressive.

    Sure, it certainly would be if I just popped my head into the thread and that was all I said.

    edit: I decided to cut down my aggressive-aggressiveness. Saying the thread fascinates me isn't being passive-aggressive because I've made my position thoroughly clear in over two dozen posts. I literally find it fascinating that people can possess such misogyny/cynicism that they will blame someone for something in a total absence of evidence.

    I wasn't talking about you personally. Just the quip, which seemed completely unnecessary to your argument.

    Fair enough.

    steam_sig.png
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that terms were derogatory only when referenceing oppressed classes of people.

    Good to know, I guess?

    It's not that only those terms are derogatory, it's that terms that denigrate an oppressed class to much greater damage to that class (and to society in general) than terms that denigrate a privileged class. That should be common sense, right?

    No, that's not common sense. That's bullshit because "privileged class" is such a vague term that it can basically be applied to everyone. I'm a white middle class male. I'm being oppressed by the upper class so anything you say that hurts by delicate feelings is hate speech!

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that terms were derogatory only when referenceing oppressed classes of people.

    Good to know, I guess?
    Kinda obvious. The n-word is less socially acceptable for a white person to say than the word "cracka" or "whitey" or "ghostface" is for a black person to say. I made up the last one, but the point stands.
    To me it's about context (THERE'S THAT WORD). Theoretical Black Guy I Know calls me cracker jokingly, I will take it as a joke. There's no history to the term and I have no personal history with it so I have no reason to get offended and wouldn't. But if he calls me "cracker" in a serious attempt to insult me by ethnicity I will take it just as seriously as he would if I called him the n word in the same manner.

    Where the difference is how acceptable it is to use a word in just ordinary social banter. A different case can be made for different words, the most important factor being how offended someone would be. If you know most black people are offended by the n word in any context then you have no excuse to use it casually. Your intent is to offend and it can't be hidden. But even with the n word, it isn't that clear cut and absolute, but it's definitely close to that.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Hoz wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that terms were derogatory only when referenceing oppressed classes of people.

    Good to know, I guess?
    Kinda obvious. The n-word is less socially acceptable for a white person to say than the word "cracka" or "whitey" or "ghostface" is for a black person to say. I made up the last one, but the point stands.
    To me it's about context (THERE'S THAT WORD). Theoretical Black Guy I Know calls me cracker jokingly, I will take it as a joke. There's no history to the term and I have no personal history with it so I have no reason to get offended and wouldn't. But if he calls me "cracker" in a serious attempt to insult me by ethnicity I will take it just as seriously as he would if I called him the n word in the same manner.

    Where the difference is how acceptable it is to use a word in just ordinary social banter. A different case can be made for different words, the most important factor being how offended someone would be. If you know most black people are offended by the n word in any context then you have no excuse to use it casually. Your intent is to offend and it can't be hidden. But even with the n word, it isn't that clear cut and absolute, but it's definitely close to that.

    I don't think anyone could possibly call me "cracker" in any context, even if they were specifically aiming to offend me on a deep racial level, where I could come even close to as angry or indignant as someone who was throwing the n-word at a black person. It's not solely a matter of intent but also a matter of history.

    steam_sig.png
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Man it sometimes takes me a second to remember that "Cracker" wasn't invented for use in comedic retro-blaxsploitation movies. I'd say it's like a Class-0 racial epithet at best.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I don't know what you have in mind when you say you wouldn't be "angry and indignant".

    I wouldn't have a white pride parade over it but I would be offended and mark the guy who said it as a lowly douchebag.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that terms were derogatory only when referenceing oppressed classes of people.

    Good to know, I guess?
    Kinda obvious. The n-word is less socially acceptable for a white person to say than the word "cracka" or "whitey" or "ghostface" is for a black person to say. I made up the last one, but the point stands.
    To me it's about context (THERE'S THAT WORD). Theoretical Black Guy I Know calls me cracker jokingly, I will take it as a joke. There's no history to the term and I have no personal history with it so I have no reason to get offended and wouldn't. But if he calls me "cracker" in a serious attempt to insult me by ethnicity I will take it just as seriously as he would if I called him the n word in the same manner.

    Where the difference is how acceptable it is to use a word in just ordinary social banter. A different case can be made for different words, the most important factor being how offended someone would be. If you know most black people are offended by the n word in any context then you have no excuse to use it casually. Your intent is to offend and it can't be hidden. But even with the n word, it isn't that clear cut and absolute, but it's definitely close to that.

    I don't think anyone could possibly call me "cracker" in any context, even if they were specifically aiming to offend me on a deep racial level, where I could come even close to as angry or indignant as someone who was throwing the n-word at a black person. It's not solely a matter of intent but also a matter of history.

    Personal opinion is personal and therefore cannot apply to the masses.

  • ArlingtonArlington Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Hoz wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    I wasn't aware that terms were derogatory only when referenceing oppressed classes of people.

    Good to know, I guess?
    Kinda obvious. The n-word is less socially acceptable for a white person to say than the word "cracka" or "whitey" or "ghostface" is for a black person to say. I made up the last one, but the point stands.
    To me it's about context (THERE'S THAT WORD). Theoretical Black Guy I Know calls me cracker jokingly, I will take it as a joke. There's no history to the term and I have no personal history with it so I have no reason to get offended and wouldn't. But if he calls me "cracker" in a serious attempt to insult me by ethnicity I will take it just as seriously as he would if I called him the n word in the same manner.

    Where the difference is how acceptable it is to use a word in just ordinary social banter. A different case can be made for different words, the most important factor being how offended someone would be. If you know most black people are offended by the n word in any context then you have no excuse to use it casually. Your intent is to offend and it can't be hidden. But even with the n word, it isn't that clear cut and absolute, but it's definitely close to that.

    I'm not sure your post really offers a counter to his argument. Can you think of a socially acceptable situation where a white person calls a black person a Nigerian. I can't. In other words there is no acceptable context.

    This whole tangent seems pretty interesting in the context of people questioning baby mama's motives etc.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Hoz wrote: »
    I don't know what you have in mind when you say you wouldn't be "angry and indignant".

    I wouldn't have a white pride parade over it but I would be offended and mark the guy who said it as a lowly douchebag.

    I mean I wouldn't be angry or offended. There is zero history in which the term "cracker" was used to oppress or even remotely insult white people. It's a term with no teeth. You might as well call me a "table."

    The n-word isn't even remotely comparable. It carries with it a history of oppression, slavery, subservitude, and racism.

    Comparing the way I'd feel if anyone called me cracker for any reason in any context to how a black person deserves to feel if the n-word is slung at them in any given context is absurd.

    steam_sig.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »

    Note where I said his antics were unacceptable. Note that the conversation over the previous pages was touching on her violation of the court order to not release. Note how many people have mentioned that we are only hearing one side of the story. Note how I never said she deserved it, but rather that she was manipulating the situation. Note how I said "it would not surprise me if..." Note how I said that he needs help for his issues.

    Now please correlate that with giving him a pass, blaming her or justifying his physical and emotional violence.

    Already did.

    Based on nothing more than "going out on a limb" and a selective view of a handful of completely unrelated people, you went off on a wild-ass guess about how she probably was abusive and/or provoked him into this behavior and was "manipulating the situation". Never mind that nothing on the tapes or anything else we know about this situation supports such an inference. Never mind that, hey, if your crazy psycho ex had beaten you up and was a threat to your life, you might perhaps want some actual evidence of this, rather than expecting people to just take your word for it that s/he said all this crazy shit.

    Really, all you needed to make the post completely typical was "Just sayin'."

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Arlington wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I'm not sure your post really offers a counter to his argument. Can you think of a socially acceptable situation where a white person calls a black person a Nigerian. I can't. In other words there is no acceptable context.

    This whole tangent seems pretty interesting in the context of people questioning baby mama's motives etc.
    Yeah it isn't really much of a counter to his point because it isn't meant as such. I'm just giving my perspective, which I distinguish from his as being expressed in more nuance.

  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited July 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »

    Note where I said his antics were unacceptable. Note that the conversation over the previous pages was touching on her violation of the court order to not release. Note how many people have mentioned that we are only hearing one side of the story. Note how I never said she deserved it, but rather that she was manipulating the situation. Note how I said "it would not surprise me if..." Note how I said that he needs help for his issues.

    Now please correlate that with giving him a pass, blaming her or justifying his physical and emotional violence.

    Already did.

    Based on nothing more than "going out on a limb" and a selective view of a handful of completely unrelated people, you went off on a wild-ass guess about how she probably was abusive and/or provoked him into this behavior and was "manipulating the situation". Never mind that nothing on the tapes or anything else we know about this situation supports such an inference. Never mind that, hey, if your crazy psycho ex had beaten you up and was a threat to your life, you might perhaps want some actual evidence of this, rather than expecting people to just take your word for it that s/he said all this crazy shit.

    Really, all you needed to make the post completely typical was "Just sayin'."

    Newsflash: Suggesting an explanation does not equal justification or endorsement.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    I mean I wouldn't be angry or offended. There is zero history in which the term "cracker" was used to oppress or even remotely insult white people. It's a term with no teeth. You might as well call me a "table."
    Now you're just posting something that is untrue.

    There is a history to the term. In a competition of historical relevance as a derogatory term it would lose to any other, but there is a point to the term being used.

    I hope I'm not blowing your mind, but there are people out there that don't like you mainly because you're white. Cracker is probably not their top word to express that. And I respect you for not being offended by any of that, as long as you're so because you're oblivious.

    But even if someone calls me "table" and means "you suck because you're white!", I'll still be offended.

    I don't mind being offended. I don't mind other people being offended. Sometimes it's the right feeling.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »

    Note where I said his antics were unacceptable. Note that the conversation over the previous pages was touching on her violation of the court order to not release. Note how many people have mentioned that we are only hearing one side of the story. Note how I never said she deserved it, but rather that she was manipulating the situation. Note how I said "it would not surprise me if..." Note how I said that he needs help for his issues.

    Now please correlate that with giving him a pass, blaming her or justifying his physical and emotional violence.

    Already did.

    Based on nothing more than "going out on a limb" and a selective view of a handful of completely unrelated people, you went off on a wild-ass guess about how she probably was abusive and/or provoked him into this behavior and was "manipulating the situation". Never mind that nothing on the tapes or anything else we know about this situation supports such an inference. Never mind that, hey, if your crazy psycho ex had beaten you up and was a threat to your life, you might perhaps want some actual evidence of this, rather than expecting people to just take your word for it that s/he said all this crazy shit.

    Really, all you needed to make the post completely typical was "Just sayin'."

    Newsflash: Suggesting an explanation does not equal justification or endorsement.

    It begs the question why you've bothered to generate this fantasy, though. Are you unwilling to accept that Mel is just crazy without provocation? Or do you think that women/humans are, in general, manipulative and so we should just assume the worst in everyone in the absence of evidence?

    This is what I find fascinating. I know themightypuck thought I was being passive-aggressive but I can't wrap my head around this kind of perspective - your perspective.

    Please explain to me how you jump from zero evidence of Oksana doing anything bad to going out on a limb and presuming manipulation on her part. You may not be endorsing Mel Gibson here, but that doesn't mean you're not still being a misogynist.

    steam_sig.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »

    Newsflash: Suggesting an explanation does not equal justification or endorsement.

    Newsflash: offering an opinion backed up with your own personal experiences is not merely playing devil's advocate, 'suggesting an explanation', or whatever backpedaling you're currently engaging in. "I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that she's manipulating this for personal gain" is not merely a suggestion; it's an expression of an opinion.

    Isn't this Glenn Beck's shtick, anyway? Offer wild speculation, and then when you get called on it, indignantly insist that you were just asking questions?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Hoz wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I mean I wouldn't be angry or offended. There is zero history in which the term "cracker" was used to oppress or even remotely insult white people. It's a term with no teeth. You might as well call me a "table."
    Now you're just posting something that is untrue.

    There is a history to the term. In a competition of historical relevance as a derogatory term it would lose to any other, but there is a point to the term being used.

    I hope I'm not blowing your mind, but there are people out there that don't like you mainly because you're white. Cracker is probably not their top word to express that. And I respect you for not being offended by any of that, as long as you're so because you're oblivious.

    But even if someone calls me "table" and means "you suck because you're white!", I'll still be offended.

    I don't mind being offended. I don't mind other people being offended. Sometimes it's the right feeling.

    There's nothing wrong with being offended by someone hating you because you're white. In fact, you're very right to be offended by that.

    But there is little valid comparison between a white male being offended by anti-white racism and a black male being offended by anti-black racism in a global perspective. Racism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Fundamentally, racism is wrong. Specifically, though, the n-word is a much more damaging pejorative than any white-racist term will likely ever be.

    steam_sig.png
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I dunno. She took the initiative to record him. One might be inclined to assume from this actions, and her reserved demeanor on these calls, that she might have felt that blackmail would be an appropriate response. IF she is of this mindset, it's possible she's been manipulative and psychologically abusing him for years, but it's simply not evident from the information at hand.

    See how that works? It's clearly a much better story. What was once only fit for CourtTV is now Made For TV Movie material!



    Once Again:

    Saying she's completely innocent is naive; no one is completely innocent.

    Assuming the nature of her transgressions and motivations is stupid; there is no evidence to back up your claims.

    Saying anything she might have done justifies his actions is insane, and you need to seek professional help.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Houn wrote: »
    I dunno. She took the initiative to record him. One might be inclined to assume from this actions, and her reserved demeanor on these calls, that she might have felt that blackmail would be an appropriate response. IF she is of this mindset, it's possible she's been manipulative and psychologically abusing him for years, but it's simply not evident from the information at hand.

    See how that works? It's clearly a much better story. What was once only fit for CourtTV is now Made For TV Movie material!



    Once Again:

    Saying she's completely innocent is naive; no one is completely innocent.

    Assuming the nature of her transgressions and motivations is stupid; there is no evidence to back up your claims.

    Saying anything she might have done justifies his actions is insane, and you need to seek professional help.

    Really? So when someone gets raped, they are always partially to blame? When someone gets their teeth knocked out, they are always partially to blame? When someone gets murdered, they are always partially to blame? When someone gets mugged or robbed from, they are always partially to blame? No one is ever 100% victim? No one is ever 100% innocent?

    I disagree with you. It's not naive. Without any evidence to suggest that she was being manipulative (and taping someone who is threatening to kill her doesn't even remotely fit the bill without more context or evidence than we currently have), she is - as far as anyone has a right to assume - completely and totally innocent.

    While I appreciate your stance that nothing she did would justify his actions, and anyone promoting that is insane, I feel the "nobody is innocent" philosophy to be completely wrong.

    Sometimes, people are completely, totally, 100% innocent in a given situation.

    steam_sig.png
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm known to be pretty cynical. It's largely unimportant, though, because as I said, it doesn't really matter if I think she contributed in any way to the situation or not, because we'll never know one way or another.

    I'm a pragmatic cynic.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I mean I wouldn't be angry or offended. There is zero history in which the term "cracker" was used to oppress or even remotely insult white people. It's a term with no teeth. You might as well call me a "table."
    Now you're just posting something that is untrue.

    There is a history to the term. In a competition of historical relevance as a derogatory term it would lose to any other, but there is a point to the term being used.

    I hope I'm not blowing your mind, but there are people out there that don't like you mainly because you're white. Cracker is probably not their top word to express that. And I respect you for not being offended by any of that, as long as you're so because you're oblivious.

    But even if someone calls me "table" and means "you suck because you're white!", I'll still be offended.

    I don't mind being offended. I don't mind other people being offended. Sometimes it's the right feeling.

    There's nothing wrong with being offended by someone hating you because you're white. In fact, you're very right to be offended by that.

    But there is little valid comparison between a white male being offended by anti-white racism and a black male being offended by anti-black racism in a global perspective. Racism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Fundamentally, racism is wrong. Specifically, though, the n-word is a much more damaging pejorative than any white-racist term will likely ever be.
    What you just did now is completely agree with the original post I made that you originally tried to rebut, in order to knock down a point you imagine me to have made when I didn't in my last point.

    The relevant points in checklist form!

    - I post initially that I am offended when someone tries to use my race to insult me, with the word that describes my race. You can go back to this post and read it in whole to see that I mention things like me not being offended if I were called "cracker" as a joke but I would understand if a black person was offended if called the n word as a joke. I even use that damned word context.

    - By your latest post, you affirm that it is ok to be "offended by someone hating you because you're white."

    - You point "But there is little valid comparison between a white male being offended by anti-white racism and a black male being offended by anti-black racism in a global perspective."

    - No valid comparison was made by me between global anti-white racism and anti-black racism. I just pointed out that there is anti-white racism.

    I guess we agree despite you being a pointless contrarian.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Houn wrote: »
    Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm known to be pretty cynical. It's largely unimportant, though, because as I said, it doesn't really matter if I think she contributed in any way to the situation or not, because we'll never know one way or another.

    I'm a pragmatic cynic.

    Is that code for "yes, I believe both parties always share blame when a crime or moral transgression is committed"?

    I would really like to know if you think the victim of rape, robbery, and murder are always partially to blame, even if it's 1% or whatever fractional system you use. It's binary: Either you believe people can be 100% innocent in given situations, or you don't.

    I personally find that almost as distressing as if you were to absolve Mel's threats of violence and racist ranting based on anything Oksana did.

    steam_sig.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Hoz wrote: »
    I guess we agree despite you being a pointless contrarian.

    I disagree.

    steam_sig.png
  • Bacon-BuTTyBacon-BuTTy Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I was mugged a month ago, and they took my wallet, my phone and punched me in the face.

    But then, I guess I shouldn't have been outside of my house! So, I'm partially to blame.

    Automasig.jpg
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »

    Note where I said his antics were unacceptable. Note that the conversation over the previous pages was touching on her violation of the court order to not release. Note how many people have mentioned that we are only hearing one side of the story. Note how I never said she deserved it, but rather that she was manipulating the situation. Note how I said "it would not surprise me if..." Note how I said that he needs help for his issues.

    Now please correlate that with giving him a pass, blaming her or justifying his physical and emotional violence.

    Already did.

    Based on nothing more than "going out on a limb" and a selective view of a handful of completely unrelated people, you went off on a wild-ass guess about how she probably was abusive and/or provoked him into this behavior and was "manipulating the situation". Never mind that nothing on the tapes or anything else we know about this situation supports such an inference. Never mind that, hey, if your crazy psycho ex had beaten you up and was a threat to your life, you might perhaps want some actual evidence of this, rather than expecting people to just take your word for it that s/he said all this crazy shit.

    Really, all you needed to make the post completely typical was "Just sayin'."

    Newsflash: Suggesting an explanation does not equal justification or endorsement.

    It begs the question why you've bothered to generate this fantasy, though. Are you unwilling to accept that Mel is just crazy without provocation? Or do you think that women/humans are, in general, manipulative and so we should just assume the worst in everyone in the absence of evidence?

    This is what I find fascinating. I know themightypuck thought I was being passive-aggressive but I can't wrap my head around this kind of perspective - your perspective.

    Please explain to me how you jump from zero evidence of Oksana doing anything bad to going out on a limb and presuming manipulation on her part. You may not be endorsing Mel Gibson here, but that doesn't mean you're not still being a misogynist.

    Why does it have to be one of your two options? Mel could be crazy without provocation. She could be completely innocent. Maybe she recorded the calls to protect her life, or to use in court for custody. That we're getting it trickled out in daily doses from a celebrity gossip site after a court order to not release the tapes invites speculation though, and I happen to think that this all feels a bit too staged, a bit too crafty to be so blatantly one-sided. Thinking that a woman might be leveraging this doesn't make me misogynistic. Thinking a woman might be capable of counter-abuse doesn't make me misogynistic either.

    Note that I said I wouldn't be surprised if we later found that out, not that I'm certain it to be the case.

  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited July 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »

    Newsflash: Suggesting an explanation does not equal justification or endorsement.

    Newsflash: offering an opinion backed up with your own personal experiences is not merely playing devil's advocate, 'suggesting an explanation', or whatever backpedaling you're currently engaging in. "I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that she's manipulating this for personal gain" is not merely a suggestion; it's an expression of an opinion.

    Isn't this Glenn Beck's shtick, anyway? Offer wild speculation, and then when you get called on it, indignantly insist that you were just asking questions?

    I don't know Glenn Beck's shtick, so I couldn't say. Regardless, it's not wild to say that she's manipulating the situation. Her private recordings, edited into nice 5 minute sound bites with no context, are being leaked to a celebrity gossip site. In the middle of a custody fight. Against a court order.

    If these came unedited from the court or a 911 tape I don't think I'd have the same opinion.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    If these came unedited from the court or a 911 tape I don't think I'd have the same opinion.
    I'm sure you would give it your best.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am also offended by the use of dick, cock and bastard. Anyone who has ever used those words is a total man-hating asshole.

    ...

    That one's okay, right? Because both sexes have assholes? Oh shit, now I'm getting confused...

    That's gonna be a tough sell unless you want to argue that men are an oppressed class. Not to say some people won't, but around here we call those folks "silly gooses".

    It's not necessary that all those terms be precisely as derogatory as <insert whatever term you want to get up in arms about>.

    I mean, yeah, "n*****" is one of the worst terms you can call someone in terms of sheer social and personal harm. That doesn't mean that all lesser terms are completely unoffensive. It doesn't mean I'm going to not mind if you call me a big jerk, because it's still a derogatory term used to offend.

    But how much damage a slur does is a separate (though related) question from whether we should consider it offensive to begin with. If someone calls me an ass, I'm going to take offense, because the intent is probably to offend me.

    Similarly, calling someone a "cunt" is offensive because it's meant to create a negative association between the recipient and a bit of female anatomy. Just as "dick" creates a negative association between the recipient and a bit of male anatomy.

    Is "dick" as bad as "cunt"? No, though in the UK it seems to be used practically as punctuation. Are males oppressed? No. If you are grossly offended by the mere word "cunt", irrespective of whatever context it might be in, are you a tremendous hypocrite if you don't also find the use of "dick" or "cock" or whatever offensive? Yep.

    Really, though, "bastard" is an even better example. It was once used specifically to denigrate poor folks who were born out of wedlock. They were certainly an oppressed class, once upon a time. So "bastard" should be offensive, yes?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    I guess we agree despite you being a pointless contrarian.

    I disagree.

    I lol'd

    sigtk.jpg
  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    It begs the question why you've bothered to generate this fantasy, though. Are you unwilling to accept that Mel is just crazy without provocation? Or do you think that women/humans are, in general, manipulative and so we should just assume the worst in everyone in the absence of evidence?

    Are these the only two choices? That's pretty damn narrow, if so.

    First of all, who says that this is a fantasy? It is very possible that she did do something to provoke him now and in the past. That doesn't excuse him from what he did, but that means in this instance she may be partially responsible for what happenened to her--you don't get eaten if you don't jump into the lion cage.

    Second, of course he may be crazy. There are lots of crazy people out there--he may be one of them. But if that's true, that still doesn't mean she didn't provoke him.

    Third, your last statement is ridiculous. Some people believe this--see: no innocents--but saying that someone with a potential motive couldn't possibly be guilty of something because not everyone is a psychotic asshole is just silly.

    Motive doesn't mean guilt, but being a victim doesn't mean you're innocent. Ignoring either of those facts is goosery.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Wait

    Why does the innocence or guilt of the second party enter into the discussion?

    Unless the person he was screaming at was some sort of demon whose unsummoning involved chanting racist epithets, it's unrelated.

  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    So who heard the 5th, and final piece?

    Because this is the real part if you ask me. Why? Because this is the one in which he actually hurts Oksana. In the first 4, he's going nuts with superficial and insane comments. In the last piece he starts slamming her abilities as a mother. You can hear in her voice that those comments are the ones that really get to her. Then she ends the call.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    This thread has shown me that society at large must adhere to the Glorious Edict™.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • KonovaKonova Registered User
    edited July 2010
    Wait

    Why does the innocence or guilt of the second party enter into the discussion?

    Unless the person he was screaming at was some sort of demon whose unsummoning involved chanting racist epithets, it's unrelated.

    Just Asking Questions?

    "It's not murder, it's surprise death!"
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Well, that seems pretty ludicrous.Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Nucker wrote: »
    If it is entirely unfounded, then it should not be legally pursued. If someone is using it as an excuse for what Mel did--not appropriate. But that's not what's going on.
    Are you shitting me.

    The guy up there just said he thinks she's manipulating him for personal gain based on his gut feelings and basically no evidence.

    You think it's okay to just speculate about those type of things, no harm done, lol women? Or what.

    Speculate? Yes. I think that's okay--in fact, I think it's appropriate. Why is it right to assume that a victim has no fault whatsoever because they're a victim, regardless of the crime?

    What is not right is to forgive or excuse the perpetrator of a crime because a crime was committed against them--that goes both ways.

    What is not right is to legally assume that the victim is at fault for the perpetrator's actions--that's ridiculous unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and even then it doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed against the victim.

    Read this again.
    mrdobalina wrote:
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that she's manipulating this for personal gain.

    His antics are still beyond acceptable, but I would not be surprised to find out she was an active participant in a codependent abusive relationship. Having known a fair share of mutually abusive couples, I wouldn't bat an eye if we later found out she attacked him and his "you deserved [a punch in the face]" was because she was clawing at his eyes at that moment.

    Getting help in a situation like that is hard enough, I can't imagine how much harder it is when millions of people are listening in and there's an entire industry dedicated to making money off of publicizing your failure. Charlie Sheen and Tom Sizemore both got to avoid the scrutiny because there was no tape to speak of.

    There is no excuse, no apology here. Only a proposed explanation. You take this to a court? Nothing happens. But what if it did happen and no one bothered to look because we all assumed that as the victim she had nothing to do with the perpetrator's behavior? Is it right or helpful to society that we looked the other way?

    You think it's right and helpful to engage in victim blaming (because let's not beat around the bush, saying "BUT WHAT IF ITS HER FAULT HE SAID THOSE THINGS" is victim blaming).

    I don't care if you're in court or out of court, it's not right and helpful to do that. In fact, it is harmful and discourages victims from coming forward in the first place.

    NOPE.
    Vd0n7Bk.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    It begs the question why you've bothered to generate this fantasy, though. Are you unwilling to accept that Mel is just crazy without provocation? Or do you think that women/humans are, in general, manipulative and so we should just assume the worst in everyone in the absence of evidence?

    Are these the only two choices? That's pretty damn narrow, if so.

    First of all, who says that this is a fantasy?

    I do.

    A story without evidence is fantasy.

    Nucker wrote: »
    It is very possible that she did do something to provoke him now and in the past.

    It's also possible, I suppose, that a magical space fairy will sprinkle stardust on the Earth tonight and tomorrow we will all turn into Elves. Without any supporting evidence, I guess just about any story if feasible.

    Nucker wrote: »
    That doesn't excuse him from what he did, but that means in this instance she may be partially responsible for what happenened to her--you don't get eaten if you don't jump into the lion cage.

    Humans are quite different from lions. There is no human analog for jumping in the lion's cage, not when it comes to domestic abuse. You seem to be drawing a weird analogy between Oksana potentially getting punched in the face, or at least physically threatened by Mel, and someone jumping into the cage of an animal with animal instincts. Mel is visible enough in the public eye that I think we can dispel any myth wherein his actions are nothing more than animal instinct.

    Nucker wrote: »
    Second, of course he may be crazy. There are lots of crazy people out there--he may be one of them. But if that's true, that still doesn't mean she didn't provoke him.

    We don't know if she did or didn't do. As we don't have any evidence to suggest she did, I find it bizarre that people would err on the side of provocation. But the point is that it is wholly irrelevant. Even if she did provoke him. Even if she jiggled her tits in front of all his friends while singing "neaner, neaner, neaner," it doesn't justify anything he's done.

    Nucker wrote: »
    Third, your last statement is ridiculous. Some people believe this--see: no innocents--but saying that someone with a potential motive couldn't possibly be guilty of something because not everyone is a psychotic asshole is just silly.

    What? I literally mean "what?" because this doesn't follow what I said in any way and doesn't really parse into a sensible thought.

    Nucker wrote: »
    Motive doesn't mean guilt, but being a victim doesn't mean you're innocent. Ignoring either of those facts is goosery.

    Nah.

    steam_sig.png
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User
    edited July 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    Who else has defended Gibson/assumed the women recording is culpable?

    Show yourselves, so I may pigeonhole you.

    Pretty sure nobody, though it seems people enjoy beating that strawman to death.

    A few people had the audacity to suggest that the woman might not be completely innocent based on some suspicious details about the recordings and the release thereof, but turns out they are all misogynistic. So don't do that, it's like suggesting that America wasn't perfect right after 9/11. "How dare you say that after what just happened!"

    Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.

Sign In or Register to comment.