You know you're in for a doozy of a Rachel Dozeal conversation when the other person says NCAA instead of NAACP and "well, white is a color".
So... -She's actually white -She has "identified as black" since she was 5 -She sued her college for discrimination against her, because she was white -She then began to tan and change her hairstyle to appear black -She's never said she was black -She's never said she WASN'T black ....is transracial really the word, or is she racefluid?
Let's be clear about something. I can't speak for everybody on this board, but I tend to believe the vast majority of people around here in no way, shape, or form, condones rape. I'm very sorry that you had some bad shit happen to you, and that you are (quite understandably) very sensitive around this subject. But. I will always reserve the right to question claims that people make, especially when those claims are being made publicly to the world. There is no subject that has any kind of "it didn't happen to you so you can't question it" trump card that can be played in any situation; race, rape, whatever. You are basically saying that we don't know what happened, so we can't judge, when the exact same thing can be said to you. You don't know what happened in her case, only your own, and it seems to me as if you are transferring our skepticism/comments about her case to your own, and are lashing out at us as if we're saying that stuff about you. Please understand that we are not doing anything of the kind. To me there is no relationship at all between the two situations... they are each separate and independent. I have the deepest sympathy and empathy for you and your past trauma, but I don't for hers, because quite frankly, I don't believe her. As I am "allowed" to do. When I looked into her particular case, it doesn't make sense, so I'm skeptical, and I question some of her actions. I'm not calling her a liar, but I am questioning it. She is making this very public, so I have every right to question her claims in public. She may FEEL like she got raped, which is perfectly legit, but when it comes to impacting the life of another with those claims, I'm sorry, but her feelings aren't enough. What if she felt raped because someone looked sideways at her... she felt emotionally violated and raped... is that enough to then charge the guy who looked at her with rape and fuck his life over? Her actions after the fact also make me question the objective validity of her claims... unfortunately I've known a few rape victims (including my ex-wife), and NONE of them wanted to talk about it, never mind publicly to the world's press, or make a scene about it. It would be inconceivable that they would go out and produce and star in a porno recreating the event. I'm sorry, but that is not at ALL normal... and saying "everyone handles bad stuff differently" is a bullshit cop-out, because by and large, normal people DO tend to respond to real, traumatic events in the same way. The investigators in the case looked at the evidence they had, such as she only started to claim rape after she was ignored days after the fact. And how the story changed slightly as more and more media attention fell upon it (which was a direct result of her actively seeking out that attention). Again, there's a lot of shit that doesn't add up to what is reasonable and normal behaviour, never mind the fact that NOBODY here is at all involved directly with this case and knows the details... we're seeing it through the eyes of the media, so NOBODY here can say it did or didn't happen... we're only voicing our opinions on what we've seen. Hopefully you can distinguish the difference, and respect our right to have and voice those opinions.
She's a manipulator who's getting caught in her own lies and doesn't know what to do. Watching her in interviews is almost painful... she's trying to figure out shit on the fly, and she's nowhere near smart enough to pull it off. She KNOWS she's done something wrong, and is doing everything in her power to not admit it. I'm waiting for the "you oppressed me as a while woman because you wouldn't let me be black" statement.
According to the Matt Lauer interview she just didn't correct the local media when they reported she was black or biracial. So it's really their fault you see.
There is quite a difference between "reserving judgment about what happened" and "calling her a lunatic and a liar." Also, setting aside what you think is or should be normal, there is nothing everyday about this case. People plastered her campus with posters calling her a liar. Thousands of strangers are very vocally using her sexual proclivities to suggest she automatically consented. Dozens of twitter accounts exist for the sole purpose of trying to make her feel terrible about herself. The fact that she made a video art project of what happened may not be common, but neither is anything else about this case. I know I'm not ready to call her a liar because she reacted unusually to unusual circumstances. We also know that the dude was accused by three different people. It's no longer a matter of disbelieving one very vocal person -- it's also a matter of disbelieving multiple other people, neither of whom carried a mattress anywhere. Obviously you're allowed to disbelieve her. You're allowed to call her a fucking skank liar, if that was your choice (which it's not). It's your board and you keep the lights on around here. But if growth is your goal here, and healthy discourse, and an environment where a wide range of people feel safe sharing and talking and joking, it's worth interrogating the knee-jerk skepticism that crops up whenever empathy is even suggested.
Empathy was not suggested, it was demanded. Big difference. I'm a very empathetic person, despite what you might think. But I believe in empathy through education, not preaching. If someone makes an off-colour remark about something (like calling her a skank liar), then have the common courtesy to limit your judgment to the person who made the comment, not use it as blanket judgment of everyone in the thread. I never said anything of the kind, I simply said I didn't believe her based on her actions and what I've heard of the situation. And you might find that article I posted an interesting read, because when it comes to rape cases, he states that the "believe every accuser" stance is actually detrimental in the long run, and I tend to believe him. As to feeling "safe to discuss" things around here, either join in or not, I don't care. But nobody will be coddled, and I don't care if they feel "safe" to discuss a topic... that's their issue, not mine. I won't condone personal attacks, or threats, but if you feel unsafe talking about a topic then don't fucking talk about it. Opinions are always welcome, even if they're batshit insane... but articulate them well. Stomping your foot and demanding we feel the same way about something is never going to work, especially if you play the victim card. If growth is the plan (like there is even a plan at all), then I want this place to grow being what it is, not introduce forced empathy to better appeal to the masses.
Again all Im suggesting is that the government is spiking the water with powerful hallucinogens and we live in the matrix.
Prior to this discussion in this thread, I had not heard of this case or the mattress carrying. So, I Googled. The first article I saw was this one: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html One of the very first things I saw was the reference to the fact that Columbia has a "Office of Gender-based and Sexual Misconduct." If they got that office (which it turns out, has slightly different name) shown on this Sexual Respect page of "Columbia's Online Portal About Sexual Respect": http://sexualrespect.columbia.edu/gender-based-misconduct-policy-students/campus-resources Good lord, that certainly makes it look like it is quite "everyday" or at least a common enough problem to establish this portal. What the fuck? Don't rape. I honestly don't know enough about what actually happened in this case (and watching her entire reenactment video didn't interest me). But, I don't need a portal to know that whether a girl has just give me a BJ or not, if I get on top of her or behind her, and she says "no. Stop." then I don't get to keep going. I think Clutch mentioned that there aren't black & white rules, and I sort of get what you mean, but there certainly are some black and white rules for me: if she says no, then it's no. I don't know. It wouldn't be the first time that I something was remarkably simple to me, that somebody else thought was more grey.
I didn't mean to imply that you did call her a skank -- I meant to say the exact opposite of that. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I actually read the article right away. I didn't find it particularly interesting or compelling, but that's a different discussion entirely. If anybody is coddled around here, it's the people parroting the same bland jokes and thought-free takes. Any time people are called out for their opinions which belie very basic misunderstandings of the issues at hand, somebody pouts about the PC police taking over and ruining their fun. Because god forbid that somebody feel as invested in race or sexual orientation as people do in video games and tv show characters. Once again -- I don't think empathy should or can be enforced. I just think that people should be able to be called out on their shitty opinions without whining and thread-locking.
Just like I think people should be called out for their whining. And I made a point of unlocking the thread. You'll notice I have a history of NEVER banning or punishing someone for having a different opinion than I do... only when they take it to a personal place or are being absolute shitheads. It's all about respect. You could be Hitler and come in and argue for the Holocaust, and I'll let you post if it's well articulated and discussed. But be careful about the holier-than-thou "I get the issues and you don't" headspace... that's pretty fucking annoying, and reeks of condescension. Just because we interpret issues differently doesn't mean we're wrong. That's where you need to educate, not preach.
Sure. I just can't imagine that too many Jewish people are going to be interested in having reasoned, intelligent discussions over whether Hitler was right, though, or frequenting a place where it's treated as a subject for objective discussion. They will particularly be annoyed if the try to have the discussion and are told that their Jewishness is not of import, and that they are wrong for suggesting they know more than a guy who fell asleep in front of a WW2 documentary last night.
The announcement y'all have been waiting for: http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/Chris-Evans-to-lead-new-Top-Gear-line-up-2016-06-16 Oh wait.