Newspaper drops George Will after his rape column

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Jun 19, 2014.

  1. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,154
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +377
    Faux outrage at its finest.

    Hats off to gatorjd95 and others. You tried to explain. They see what they want to see.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,526
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,640
    so you claim he doesn't really say, then post the quote of him saying exactly why he thinks they're doing it. damn

    Let me try to put this into an example conservatives can understand.
    An opinion: When you pay people not to work, more people will not work.
    Now, look at that sentence and see if there's a reason given why more people are not working?
    "Gosh, nope. Nothing there, not a clue in the world ..."
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. ncbullgator
    Offline

    ncbullgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,178
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +302
    A better comparison would be the entire staff at MSNBC. Bigoted Morons.
  4. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,296
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +275
    This is just another attack on anyone who is not toeing the line. Free speech and thought are no longer allowed in this country or you shall be SILENCED.
  5. lacuna
    Offline

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,885
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +700
    "Attack"? Seriously? You might want to look up the definition of attack.

    Several people posting on this thread criticized George Will's column but no one attacked him. To imply he was attacked for what he wrote reeks of a perverse attempt to make him a victim. Absurd.

    I do wonder what Mr Will would have to say about that. I doubt very seriously he would want to wear that hat.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
  6. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,603
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,286
    I wonder too. But I'd also like to know why more people, news papers and sports networks across the country aren't concerned and the FSU co-ed that got raped buy famous rapist.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  7. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,886
    Likes Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +807
    Your question to me was obviously intended to be rhetorical--so answer it yourself (if you can; which normally wouldn't be necessary--or oughtn't, anyway-with a 'rhetorical question').

    According to George Will's article--the one that got his column pulled for being offensive--what 'privileges', or 'coveted status', is actually enjoyed by actual rape vics? Per the article--please cut and paste the passages, or cite them specifically-- that you are relying on for your answer.

    All I see is one ambigous throwaway line (which I cited) that is mere premise to the actual point of the article.

    At worst, Will is guilty of clumsly journalism.

    It's not like he said "...gosh it must be nice to have been raped...you get all these perks, just for getting laid!"
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  8. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,687
    Likes Received:
    3,629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,908
    a combination of rush limbaugh, and some old dude shaking his fist at kids and yelling 'hey you kids!!! GET OFFA MY LAWN'
  9. vertigo0923
    Offline

    vertigo0923 night owl mod VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    37,687
    Likes Received:
    3,629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    sec country
    Ratings Received:
    +4,908
    he said 'legitimate rape' (versus 'non-legitimate rape)
    what i got from that was, say, a violent attack/rape by a person unknown to the victim. i think that's what he means by 'legitimate rape'.
    and the 'non legit'? i'm guessing he's referring to 'date rape'.
    which maybe has been abused before (you guys mention the duke lacrosse team, i think of william kennedy smith's case), but it really does happen and it happens when a girl says no, and the guy doesn't stop.

    and the guy you're talking about how it ruined his career, well, he was 'ruined' because he was also an idiot. he was the one that 'in the event of a legitimate rape, the female body has 'ways to shut that whole thing down' which was the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. i mean, where the heck did he even get information like that????
  10. northandsouth
    Offline

    northandsouth Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2012
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +69
    Dear river...

    Never again accuse Faux News of creating a fake outrage to avoid a real scandal.

    For roughly a year you have expresses your outrage that conservatives have falsely created some impossible story that anyone in Washington had anything to do with the IRS targeting right leaning groups or that right leaning groups were even targeted.

    Now we have clear and convincing evidence of the both and you are suddenly mute on the topic. But Fox News and a very amateurish mischaracterization of a column brings you to life? Really.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. lacuna
    Offline

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,885
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +700
    I'm not clear on what you mean by "clumsly" journalism, but the column does leave the reader with a bit of uncertainty as to what he specifically meant when he wrote, "when they [colleges and universities] make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

    Though further down Will takes on the move to assign "trigger warning" labels to assigned reading or lectures the faint of heart might find distressing.

    The article by Christina Hoff Sommers is more detailed and lays it out better. Often the accused has lost the very moment the accuser lays the charge. Even when it is false. http://chronicle.com/article/In-Making-Campuses-Safe-for/127766/


    "We will use all of the tools at our disposal including ... withholding federal funds ... to ensure that women are free from sexual violence," Ali told NPR last year. One such tool is the standard of proof that college disciplinary committees use when determining guilt. Many colleges employ a "beyond a reasonable doubt" or a "clear and convincing" standard. (Roughly speaking, "beyond a reasonable doubt" requires a 98-percent certainty of guilt; clear and convincing, an 80-percent certainty.) Ali, however, orders all colleges to adopt the far-less-demanding standard of "preponderance of the evidence." Using that standard, a defendant can be found guilty if members of a disciplinary committee believe there is slightly more than a 50/50 chance that he committed the crime. That standard will make it far easier for disciplinary committees to try, convict, and punish an accused student (almost always a male).

    Ali's job as assistant secretary for civil rights is to protect the civil rights of all students, both alleged victims and the accused. Her letter provides detailed guidelines on the steps colleges should take to "minimize the burden on the complainant." Not a word about the burden on the accused or his rights. And it goes to remarkable lengths to discourage colleges from trying to diffuse and ameliorate volatile "he said, she said" confrontations. "In cases involving sexual assault," she instructs, "mediation is not appropriate even on a voluntary basis." The letter is suffused with the notion that college authorities must not use their judgment and discretion but rather become enforcers of legal procedure and harsh justice.

    Being a victim of rape is uniquely horrific, but being accused of rape is not far behind. If the person is guilty, then the suffering is deserved. But what if he is innocent? To be found guilty of rape by a campus tribunal can mean both expulsion and a career-destroying black mark on your permanent record. Such occurrences could become routine under the Ali dispensation.

    Deans at institutions including Yale, Stanford, and Brandeis Universities and the Universities of Georgia and of Oklahoma are already rushing to change their disciplinary procedures to meet the Education Department's decree. Now, on campuses throughout the country, we face the prospect of academic committees—armed with vague definitions of sexual assault, low standards of proof, and official sanction for the notion that sex under the influence is, ipso facto assault or rape—deciding the fate of students accused of a serious crime.

    The new regulations should be seen for what they really are. They are not enlightened new procedures for protecting students from crime. They are a declaration of martial law against men, justified by an imaginary emergency, and a betrayal of the Title IX equity law.


    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...istics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture


    In January 2010, University of North Dakota student Caleb Warner was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student. A UND tribunal determined that Warner was guilty of misconduct, and he was swiftly suspended from school and banned from setting foot on campus for three years. Yet the police – presented with the same evidence – were so unconvinced of Warner's guilt that they refused to bring criminal charges against him. Instead, they charged his accuser with filing a false report and issued a warrant for her arrest. Warner's accuser fled town and failed to appear to answer the charges.

    Despite these developments, the university repeatedly rejected Warner's requests for a rehearing. Finally, a year and a half later, UND reexamined Warner's case and determined that their finding of guilt was "not substantiated" – but only after the civil liberties group FIRE intervened and launched a national campaign on Warner's behalf.

    Unfortunately, Warner is not alone in his grievances. Across the country, students accused of sexual assault are regularly tried before inadequate and unjust campus judiciaries. At most schools, cases of sexual misconduct are decided by a committee of as few as three students, faculty members or administrators. At Swarthmore College, volunteers are now being solicited via email to serve on the Sexual Assault and Harassment Hearing Panel. Such a panel is far more likely to yield gender violence activists than impartial fact finders. In a court of law, we rely on procedural safeguards to ensure unbiased jury selection and due process. But on the college campus, these safeguards have vanished.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,526
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,640
    he didn't say what special privileges, simply that victims (both real and not) enjoy "coveted status and special privileges." And because of that, he claims, we're getting more false claims of rape.
    He says it quite clearly and simply, despite claims here otherwise. "Sun in the east? Where? I don't see any sun coming up in the east!"
  13. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,665
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,445
    Good lord man, one newspaper dropped Will's column, and they replaced it with Michael Gerson's, another conservative.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,886
    Likes Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +807
    LOL! Sorry....where????

    You were supposed to C&P or actually cite actual quotes from the actual article, River.

    Instead you took liberties with what he wrote, in order to conform your interpretation, to your narrative.
    "Victims"? "enjoy"? "Special"?

    Try 'victimHOOD'; no where does he say 'enjoyment', nor 'special'--though those latter 2 are as benign as Will's alleged, egregiously insulting line.

    So we've established that the entire offense comes down to one, relatively ambiguous statement (that requires elaboration), in the article.

    Now, let us move on to the allegedly offensive nature of the comment--what about that one comment, is supposedly so offensive--even viewed through your (and OP's) interpretation?

    IOW, if, FTSOA--we accept that Will said '...that [rape] victims (both real and not) enjoy "coveted status and special privileges." Where does the offense come in?

    Is it that it is untrue? Blatantly false? That colleges and U's don't exalt rape victims?

    Or is it that they should be afforded such a status, and that Will is being mean spirited for suggesting otherwise?

    Or some other basis?

    (No need to C&P here; you are free to elaborate as you see fit).

    Again, all I see, is a throwaway line, used to segway into the main point--that reported Col/U. rape numbers are grossly inflated, due to lowering standards of what constitutes 'rape'; a conflation of real, felonious, forced penetration rape, with 'unwelcome touchings', to prop bogus numbers up; that the root of these bogus numbers, is the cult of victimhood, championed by progressivism--AND THAT COL/U'S ARE NOW THE VICTIMS OF THE VERY PROGRESSIVISM THEY EMBRACED (via the threat to federal funding, should they fail to adhere to Fed'l Govm't's treatment of rape).

    Did you miss the multi-faceted reference of victimhood? He attempted to employ it simultaneously from the col./U perspective, from the progressive perspective, from the fed'l govm't perspective, and from real (and faux) rape vics' perspective. It was a clumsy play on words--an attempt to be clever, and perhaps efficient--which makes that one line ambiguous, and frankly, disposable.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  15. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,886
    Likes Received:
    296
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +807
    But Lacuna....

    ....you're dealing with the SUBSTANCE :eek:of what Will wrote about.

    This thread is a platform for the George Will lynch mob to wax on and sound off on the propriety of the MO. paper cutting him off as a columnist; of the righteous indignation triggered by [ONE LINE] of an article he penned!

    Please do not detract from the form of this thread, with unwelcomed tangents off into the substance of that same article Will penned...why that just confuses everyone...:confused:

    :D
  16. lacuna
    Offline

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,885
    Likes Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +700
    This is a unique case in that the accused is a well known athlete and celebrity in the Tallahassee area. The overall sympathy is for him because of who he is. His fame and popularity helps insulate him from further police scrutiny.

    Winston is no saint and he most certainly should have kept his pants on, but I'm not entirely convinced he did rape that girl as she has charged. Most certainly, at the very least, he took sexual advantage of an underage FSU coed who was likely intoxicated and according to witnesses at the bar entered the taxi cab willingly and went home with him that night. She was not dragged off kicking and screaming but she used very poor judgment, leaving herself vulnerable to a man who took advantage. Be honest with yourselves, under the sexual assault guidelines currently being used on campuses today, how many of you men would have been classified a rapist for having had sex with an intoxicated female when you were a student at UF or any other school?

    It's too easy for fans of FSU's rivals to insist Winston is a rapist because they want to believe it of a football player on an opposing team. But the fact is, that hasn't been decided in a court of law and it likely never will be. Aside from the fact the characters of Winston and Tebow are miles apart, think how outraged and defensive UF fans would be if Tim had been accused of rape on the same "evidence" by an underage drunken coed who followed him home after drinking in a local bar. Yes, we all know he never would have allowed it to happen, but if it had - protective fans would have been all over his accuser just as they have been in Tallahassee.

    *If you can't handle Tebow in that scenario, substitute Grossman or Leak.
  17. gatorjd95
    Offline

    gatorjd95 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +103
    Excuse my repetition, but I would like to hear from river/OBOB/etc. on whether they agree/disagree that police, prosecutors, judicial system, etc. should be the arbiters of whether rape/sexual assault has occured as opposed to some panel of faculty/staff/students. If we are truly addressing rape/sexual assault, is that not the jurisdiction of the authorities? If we are discussing something else (e.g., feelings, sensitivities, culture), then isn't that exactly what Will was writing about?
  18. Distant Gator
    Offline

    Distant Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    4,092
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Upstate, SC
    Ratings Received:
    +415
    I agree the comment was idiotic- everyone needs to choose their words very carefully when broaching this subject- esp. political candidates. And clearly he did not. He deserved to lose and deserves the ridicule heaped upon him for the idiotic comment.

    But the guy meant "forcible" rape. And from what I've read he is correct. Pregnancy is very rare from a forcible rape. But again- the guy should not have gone there.

    Back to OP-
    I grew up with a guy in California who went to a local doughnut shop as they were closing and raped the manager- I think at gunpoint. It was clearly a premeditated assault- one of the most heinous crimes I can imagine. The guy thankfully went to prison for many years. It makes me sick to know I counted that guy as my friend but looking back I could see some issues.

    So there's that- and there's the example Will cites of the longtime GF who "let the guy finish."
    And then there's groping, stares, etc.

    Surely there's a difference between these offenses, but not in the eyes of the gov't, according to Will's column. I think that's a valid point.
  19. gatorjd95
    Offline

    gatorjd95 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +103
    I think that should read "not in the eyes of the colleges." As far as I know, the gov't/police/courts still have the same definition of rape/sexual assault as a crime. Just a friendly comment.
  20. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,526
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,640
    Oh, good point. He said they get 'privileges' not 'special privileges.' Huge difference.:rolleyes:

    And, no, it's not a throwaway line. It's the key to is whole column. He's complaining that women are claiming to be victims when they're really not. And why does he say they're doing it?
    "when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.

Share This Page