mike carey

A Ten Commandments app sorta rings alarm bells for me!

A Ten Commandments app sorta rings alarm bells for me!

If you're on a Windows device look for Character Map in the programs. Some computers have keyboard short cuts but I can't make them work. In the mean time, à á â ç è é ñ ï ó

I'm a little questioning of the whole idea of cultural appropriation, and if it is a thing, where does it start and end. Some cultural expressions may be seen as defining a particular cultural group, but others are just something that members of the group like. Anglo-Australians and -Americans have 'appropriated' food culture from every immigrant group. What is the line, if there even is one, between cultural appropriation and adopting and adapting an idea? Can it be respectful, or is it always a type of theft? Oh, and on dreads, who do they belong to? Are they Afro-Caribbean culture that African Americans have appropriated? Are they part of an Ethiopian culture that Jamaicans appropriated? Or are they all of the above as well as being a hippy cultural artefact used by all sorts of people? I think in Bieber's case it is an affectation.

I'm a little questioning of the whole idea of cultural appropriation, and if it is a thing, where does it start and end. Some cultural expressions may be seen as defining a particular cultural group, but others are just something that members of the group like. Anglo-Australians and -Americans have 'appropriated' food culture from every immigrant group. What is the line, if there even is one, between cultural appropriation and adopting and adapting an idea? Can it be respectful, or is it always a type of theft? Oh, and on dreads, who do they belong to? Are they Afro-Caribbean culture that African Americans have appropriated? Are they part of an Ethiopian culture that Jamaicans appropriated? Or are they all of the above as well as being a hippy cultural artefact used by all sorts of people? I think in Bieber's case it is an affectation.

I'm a little questioning of the whole idea of cultural appropriation, and if it is a thing, where does it start and end. Some cultural expressions may be seen as defining a particular cultural group, but others are just something that members of the group like. Anglo-Australians and -Americans have 'appropriated' food culture from every immigrant group. What is the line, if there even is one, between cultural appropriation and adopting and adapting an idea? Can it be respectful, or is it always a type of theft? Oh, and on dreads, who do they belong to? Are they Afro-Caribbean culture that African Americans have appropriated? Are they part of an Ethiopian culture that Jamaicans appropriated? Or are they all of the above as well as being a hippy cultural artefact used by all sorts of people? I think in Bieber's case it is an affectation.

I'm a little questioning of the whole idea of cultural appropriation, and if it is a thing, where does it start and end. Some cultural expressions may be seen as defining a particular cultural group, but others are just something that members of the group like. Anglo-Australians and -Americans have 'appropriated' food culture from every immigrant group. What is the line, if there even is one, between cultural appropriation and adopting and adapting an idea? Can it be respectful, or is it always a type of theft? Oh, and on dreads, who do they belong to? Are they Afro-Caribbean culture that African Americans have appropriated? Are they part of an Ethiopian culture that Jamaicans appropriated? Or are they all of the above as well as being a hippy cultural artefact used by all sorts of people? I think in Bieber's case it is an affectation.

Je ne suis pas Miss Piggy!

Josh - There are ambiguities in the Strauss-Kahn situation, but unlike the Duke case (or, imo, Tawana Brawley's case), we don't know conclusively that rape didn't occur. (There's a significant difference between cases where it can be shown that there was no sexual contact between the parties, like the Duke and Tawana Brawley cases, and ones where the defense alleges consent.) Ditto with Kobe Bryant, Patrick Kane, and a whole host of other celebrities accused of rape.
 
It's not a matter of man-bashing. It's a matter of assuming that rape accusations are untrue unless the evidence is irrefutable or the circumstances so heinous a scapegoat is needed (the Central Park "wilding" case, for which a group of teens was wrongfully convicted). Here's another article on the case SundayZip mentioned:
 
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/12/16/an-unbelievable-story-of-rape#.8GNJXIVGH
 
When we read about arrests for other crimes, we don't generally have the same skepticism. And the most recent studies, which have been careful to only treat allegations that have conclusively been shown to be untrue, show a low rate of demonstrably false accusations - around 5%. Sadly, the above case, where a rape victim was not only pressured into recanting but pled guilty to false reporting, thus leaving her rapist free to rape others, would at one time have been counted as a confirmed false allegation.
 
Not only is this an issue of general concern, it's not as though men can't be raped or that women can't be rapists. That very skepticism gives predators cover to continue to operate, whether they're your average garden-variety rapist or a pedophile like Jerry Sandusky or, apparently, Dennis Hastert. I say "apparently" because to the best of my knowledge, the person Dennis Hastert paid off hasn't gone on record as to why he was being paid, thus there are no allegations.
 
Even if all rape victims were women, it's not as though gay men (which even if all three women who post here left is not the entirety of this forum anyway) live in a vaccum. You're part of society, too. It could even have personal application; we all had at least one female relative in our lives, and most of us have female friends. They're all potentially subject to this too.
 
I would also like to point out that I was not the one who brought up the topic of rape (as opposed to child porn) in the first place and that the gist of my post was that Strauss-Kahn wasn't a particularly good example to support the argument. Also, it seems a little disingenuous to in one breath say the topic that I didn't bring up in the first place is irrelevant to gay men and in the next accuse me of bashing (straight) men.
 
In any event, if my opinions or participation in the forum are truly that bothersome, as opposed to you having a bad day and taking it out on me, the ignore button is your friend.
 
Sincitymix - Those photos were always child porn irrespective of your age. Teenagers who have sent explicit photos of themselves to others have been prosecuted under child porn laws. As terrible as it was to destroy a piece of your past, it was probably wise to destroy that photo.
 
Unicorn - I think our attitudes toward sex and consent are fucked up. That includes our attitudes toward people who say they've been raped.
 
When it comes to legal process, it's a different mater. I would have dropped the case against Strauss-Kahn. I would have acquitted the New York City cops accused of raping a woman they escorted home from a club because she was too drunk to get there on their own even though I believe they did it because there was no conclusive physical evidence and she was so intoxicated she could barely remember anything.
 
I also differ with those who think advising young women not to get drunk at parties is victim-blaming. Getting drunk makes things easier for predators. (See previous paragraph.) I see not getting drunk as a risk reduction technique no different than locking a car or front door to prevent theft and other crimes.
 
I'm saying that with rape allegations, the inclination is to assume they're false until conclusively proven true. I'm saying let's start off assuming they're true and then try to confirm them, in the process of which we hope unsupportable cases will fall apart. If I really felt accusation equals indisputable fact, I would never have characterized the Duke or Brawley allegations as false. Also unsupportable cases need not involve false accusations. They can be cases that the prosecution feels it's unlikely to win. Acquaintance rape (which is what the majority of rape cases involve), which usually involve the defense alleging consent, are notoriously hard to prove.
 
I've never said shakedowns are impossible. I've said they're not usually the reason why rape accusations are made. Where we disagree is that in the kind of high-profile allegations that get discussed here, it's always your first theory. I would be interested to know why you haven't been fulminating against people for assuming that Dennis Hastert was paying off a victim of child sexual abuse without proof or even an accusation on the record. That seems inconsistent. Is it because child victims are more believable than adults? Or more sympathetic? Or that since the statute of limitations on any crime has passed, it's okay to speculate?
 
In any event, I appreciate the vote of confidence that I'm not motivated by hatred of men.

I disagree with this characterisation. @quoththeraven is not a man-basher nor do I think she takes the view that accusation equates with guilt. Without putting words in her mouth, I read her take on this as taking issue with the frequent dismissal of rape claims as the alleged crime being somehow the victim's fault or that critics deny the power differential between alleged perpetrator and alleged victim. I don't think QTR was talking about the specifics of this woman's claims, but rather the immediate reaction to dismiss her claims before any further information came out. The power differential is relevant and real, 'She should just say no' should not be the default reaction in such cases. The discussion was about how to deal with rape accusations in general, not about the merits of this specific case. 'This woman lied so all rape cases are questionable' is not a reasonble position to take. (And of course not all rape victims are women.)

That is wildly inappropriate. Proving an accusation is false is almost impossible and if the evidence doesn't stack up it's easy enough for the police or the [crown/state/district] prosecutor to say so and not proceed. If the police don't believe a claim they have no right to insist that the complainant recant their complaint. As in this case, the prosecutors should keep the details on file in case better evidence comes up.

I was disagreeing with the characterisation that QTR says "accusation" = "indisputable fact", the rest of the quote was for context. I thought what I meant was clear, sorry that it wasn't clear to you. And yes, I should have thrown in an 'alleged' before victim as well as saying alleged crime. The purpose of my post was to express the view that people often make unwarranted assumptions and judgments when allegations of sexual assault are raised, and more commonly when the complainant is a woman. (There is a different set of negative dynamics when the complainant is a man.)
 
The flip side of the Duke/Bryant/DSK cases are cases like the Cosby accusations and those against Jimmy Saville at the BBC that were widely dismissed because they were 'just not possible'. (DSK had a disadvantage too, in that so many people thought it was perfectly in character.)
 
Judges in the Commonwealth of Australia are appointed by politicians, for criminal courts by state governments. Judges are not shy to object to political 'interference' in judicial processes, including objecting to minimum sentences enacted by parliaments. For lower courts prosecutors are usually police, for more serious cases the police hand the brief of evidence to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The prosecutors in the DPP are called Crown Prosecutors and are appointed by the Attorney-General. Neither judges nor prosecutors are party-political appointments.

TruHart1

Je ne suis pas Miss Piggy!

Je ne suis pas Miss Piggy!

Yikes! This is all too real! Dog parent here.

That is wildly inappropriate. Proving an accusation is false is almost impossible and if the evidence doesn't stack up it's easy enough for the police or the [crown/state/district] prosecutor to say so and not proceed. If the police don't believe a claim they have no right to insist that the complainant recant their complaint. As in this case, the prosecutors should keep the details on file in case better evidence comes up.

I disagree with this characterisation. @quoththeraven is not a man-basher nor do I think she takes the view that accusation equates with guilt. Without putting words in her mouth, I read her take on this as taking issue with the frequent dismissal of rape claims as the alleged crime being somehow the victim's fault or that critics deny the power differential between alleged perpetrator and alleged victim. I don't think QTR was talking about the specifics of this woman's claims, but rather the immediate reaction to dismiss her claims before any further information came out. The power differential is relevant and real, 'She should just say no' should not be the default reaction in such cases. The discussion was about how to deal with rape accusations in general, not about the merits of this specific case. 'This woman lied so all rape cases are questionable' is not a reasonble position to take. (And of course not all rape victims are women.)