The first point I think we can safely disagree on without needing to dig further. We can both think of examples of very irrational, angry feminists and we can both think of examples of rational and grounded feminists. I am sorry that your experience tends mostly toward the first, whereas mine tends mostly toward the second; so many people that I know personally or that I see in media are happy to call themselves feminist that to me it's starting to mean absolutely nothing.

Masters and associate masters (nicholas and his wife, respectively) have some kind of non-teaching support role in relation to the campus and the student body. They're not deans, but more sort of community and relations managers. Without excusing the rudeness in the video, I think it would a whole different principle if these were, for example, students shouting down a professor in one of their classes (which I'm sure has also happened). The master's role is different.

"The point being, you said white men don't need protection because they can just shrug it off or, to quote..." They don't need as much protection from inflammatory comments, but they need job protection, protection against threats, protection against libel, protection against violence, etc., like anybody else. What we see in the video is a PR guy (public relations between the university and the student body) being caught up in a PR shit storm. He's not getting this shit because he's male but because he's the face of student relations. His wife got a lot of shit as well. I don't think he deserves getting shouted down by anybody, but my point is that this isn't the same as a feminist making a generic blog post about how all men are shitty people; it's a specific shit storm playing out around racism at Yale, his role and his wife's role as responsible for student relations, and about what students believe they are entitled to from the school staff. It's a very specific, very different situation, where the students thought they had a right to expect something from him which maybe wasn't part of his role. (I would bet a reasonably large amount of money that he's more PC than you or I would ever care to be).

Finally, I don't know what you are asking if I would "say to a man who has been raped by a woman" Would I say to them that they should ignore shitty feminist blogs about how men are shit? Absolutely. Somebody who has suffered sexual violence should stay far away from that kind of toxic bullshit. But maybe that isn't the scenario you're presenting - let me mirror it and see if I understand what kind of scenario you want me to consider: if a friend of mine has been robbed by a black man, and then dismisses all black civil rights activists as criminals and thugs, would I try to argue with him? I hope I would, though it would be difficult as hell.

If I knew a man who had been raped by a woman, I would try to support him in getting through that, and not blame all feminists. If I knew a woman who had been raped by a man, I would try to support her in getting through that, and not blame all men's rights activists. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

Oops. Sorry. A well formatted post does not a correct argument make....it did look nice though. ;-)

You are incorrect, the majority of ACTIVE feminists today DO make derogatory, often actionably libelous statements about men. They have absolutely taken over as the voice of 'feminism', and real Feminists (like myself) find them disgusting and actually worse than those they rail against, because they are complaining about something while trying to become that thing at the same time. They don't want to end inequality, they just want to be on the side with more power.

Your' 'bullet points' have been 'destroyed' by @enoch...so I'll ignore them....except to say FUCK YOU BUDDY, because men ARE raped MORE than women, but your answer...."We can pretty much take it; we as a group already have most of the money, most of the privilege, and most of the presidents. We don't need a safe space." What utterly ridiculous, short sighted, unthinking bullshit.
I should have Babette and friends come by and rape the fuck out of you with a broom handle, then see how your 'safe space' makes it all just go away. Perhaps then you might see the ridiculousness of your statement.

@Lawdeedaw

so if someone is just repeating slander,or conspiring to get others to repeat that slander.if it is not from the original accuser,then it is not slander or libel?

is that true?
i had no idea.

seems all you have to do nowadays is accuse...sit back and watch the disintegration of your targets life and then rejoice in the wreckage.

and then pay zero consequences.

hooray for social justice warriors!

*ps-you and newt need to start making out,but we get to watch.
segsy bastards.
segsy opinionated bastards.
like me!
ok ok..lets all make out!

I heard them say 'not libelous', and 'not sexual'. I didn't hear 'not threatening'....and this is an opinion piece, making it not fully trustworthy, especially in it's conclusions...on either side.
I would like to see the tweets and make up my own mind, not hear other people's impressions of them, people trying to make up my mind for me.
Now if SHE said in open court he never sent anything threatening...WTF is this about then?!?

@newtboy irt "I have to think there's something missing here....like what he actually posted that he's being charged with. Did he make threats? "

The video notes that the complainant in the case admits that the accused did not send her anything libelous, threatening or sexually related. That kinda covers all bases on harassment grounds, so if the only offense is "sending tweets", I would humbly suggest that she doesn't use twitter where.. people send you tweets... = \

@krelokk

I removed the last line of your post. You're entire rant/spiel/manifesto sans the dig about the accused perfectly describes the state of play with feminism as the bully. Irony is delicious... =)

@enoch irt your description

I think the difference between the racist and this guy the scale of consequences to the act they committed.

Losing a job because of a racist spiel openly given to a video camera = probably disproportionate, but it's the companies choice over who it hires, right? He has not been charged from what I could see (being a racist prick isn't a crime in the US right?), although I suspect his facebook page is gone because it got jumped on.

Losing a job, huge legal bills, facing jail time and a permanent record as a convict for having a difference of opinion = yeah, entirely disproportionate.

Activism is not inherently evil, much like a large gathering of people isn't inherently evil. It's when it get's abused.

One hopes the judge in this case sees sense and that the accused can sue the complainant for the damage she has caused to him.

@krelokk
what the fuck are you talking about?
WHO or WHAT is evil in this scenario?
WHO was being a bully here?
WHO was being bullied?

are you implying that because elliot had the audacity to call guthrie out for her hypocritical,unsubstantiated bullshit that somehow translates to EVIL?

in what fucking reality do you live in where that makes even the slightest bit of sense?

is my disagreeing with your comment somehow mean I am now evil?

you need to define your terms sir,because i may need to purchase you a dictionary.

who is the bully?

is it the relatively unknown video game creator,who had SIX followers on twitter and worked in a restaurant?
THAT guy is a bully?
seriously? that guy is bully?
who was later the focus of an online witch hunt which not only contacted his employer but also his friends and family?who received a constant barrage of phone calls,emails and twitters admonishing the man for creating a video game that has had ALL kinds of people as its focus,but since HIS game featured sarkesian this must,therefore translate to him hating women,while simultaneously ignoring the hundreds of other face-punch games which feature people from beiber to hillary clinton.

but THIS guy is a bully?
do you even know what bully means?
talk about cognitive dissonance.

or is it elliot?
where guthrie found it within her rights to abuse a court system to prosecute and ruin a man to make a political point?
THAT guy is a bully as well?

they got the man fired.
he is 80k in the hole due to legal fees,yet never once threatened guthrie (she admitted this in open court).never made sexual comments (again guthrie admitted this as well) and yet guthrie and her followers made spurious and unsubstantiated claims that elliot was a pedophile (which guthrie later retracted) with absolutely ZERO consequences.

and THIS guy is the bully?

your assertions make absolutely zero sense and are intellectually and morally inconsistent.

hey,it is totally within your rights to support whomever you wish,but at least have the honesty and decency to be morally consistent.

because if you want to hold to your ideology that words have effect and therefore consequences,(which i agree with) then by that metric guthrie is JUST as evil and guilty as burr and elliot.according to your logic this whole bunch should be prosecuted for "evil" and "bully" behavior.

"siccing" the internet on an individual or group of individuals and utilizing your political popularity and weight to harass,attack and disparage is,quite frankly,fucking bullying.

calling a person a pedophile and then requesting that be retweeted as a form of punishment is not only bullying,but it is slanderous and criminally libel.

so again,
when you use terms like "evil' and "bullying",
i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

Wait a second- what's wrong with the actual Frozen?

Have you seen it? From your libelous words, it seems you haven't, but you're missing out. It's a pretty great movie, especially for being made by Disney.

I'm definitely not seeing any actual legitimate censorship issue and no legitimate point or argument--and certainly no censorship "rule." There is no rule or law against showing nipples on the internet. The decision to blur the photograph was made entirely by this V Magazine at their own discretion for their own reasons.

Compared to many western countries, the United States is relatively light on censorship precisely because of the codification of the first amendment. There are very few circumstances in which the federal government uses criminal law to enforce censorship, and using civil law to do likewise (such as in cases of libel) is relatively hard. Naturally, the truth on the ground is always more complex, because of all of the ways you can sneak sort-of-censorship into local and state laws such school boards determining public school curriculums, shady contracts, and discriminatory public decency laws. That last, which is really more what this guy is arguing about in a ham-fisted way.

I certainly don't believe there should be different laws for men and for women. If a bare-chested man in public is acceptable, I believe a bare-chested woman should be just as acceptable. In this case, I'd go so far as to say I believe that should be federal law, but that can likewise backfire in ways I don't agree with (eg, I believe wether to allow concealed handguns should be a local decision), so I'm not quick to make blanket statements.

Certainly the US is socially and psychologically backward in many, many ways, but it's also better in that respect now on balance than it has ever been in the past.

Some of the more disturbing aspects to divorce court:

1)No right to trial by jury and no right to representation by a court appointed lawyer if you cannot afford a private attorney. Your fate is solely in the hands of one judge.

2)Lawyers are essentially completely immune from prosecution for fraud, libel, defamation, excessive litigation and more.

3)Family courts are not courts of law but rather courts of equity. This amplifies the risk and damage that a corrupt judge can do to you exponentially by giving that judge virtually unlimited power to interpret the law according to his or her opinion as to what is 'right' as opposed to what might be actually written in the law.

Kafka's The Trial pales in comparison to the reality of modern day family court.

Cheers DD-You were quite the cheek-pinchin' magnet back when...

And on an ironic and personal pet-peevish note, 'kiddy porn' at the end on YTubes grid of suggested links, since someone with special needs enjoys spewing libel in the form of accusatory pedophilia....

Oh yeah and BTW chicco, you keep calling me a felon on this site?? FYI, charged with a felony ain't the same as convicted now is it?? How bout you get yer cop stuff right, eh? False accusations get cops thrown in prison, and you know what happens to a cop in prison, right?? I've heard it ain't so good.

So in your mind, anyone can say anything about someone, offer no actual proof or veracity and should be allowed to get away with it as long as the person they're talking about is pretty poorly thought of? X D

You're using the same hyperbole (oh sweet irony) that reportage of this issue used, but even Get Up refuse to directly accuse him... (cos, ya know, libel...)

http://nofibs.com.au/2013/09/04/getup-update-murdoch-ad-ban/

"Already, 830,000 people have seen the ad on air or online — but now all three major TV networks are pulling it off air and refusing to run it.1. Some of the network representatives told us directly: they’re not running the ad because they don’t want to criticise Rupert Murdoch."

Not wanting to criticise him is not the same thing as HIM banning the ad...

@aaronfr Socialist nonsense. What crooked notion of free market do you have where government doesn't enforce property rights, contracts, and punishes fraud? Not understanding that is like implying free speech doesn't require protection from libel and slander.

I'm sick and tired of free markets being misrepresented by socialists, and dared to provide historical examples of something they claim never existed, but have no qualms blaming for every conceivable problem in the world economy.

"removing the government from the economy means removing the people from the economy"... If government = entire society to you, congratulations, you're a socialist. I'm not. Government, to me, is just the part of society that collects taxes as an excuse to provides services, most of which are dispensable and done poorly.

Your projections of what would happen in a free market is the typical delusion of your misconceptions. I can't argue with them, because I can't possibly fathom the disturbed scenarios playing out in your head.

>> ^shuac:

Rape an exception? No, sir. There are no exceptions because everything's on the table when you have the First Amendment. Your example set in France was sweet and everything but it is utterly moot when there's a land across the pond where no topic is verboten in debate, discussion, and/or comedy.
Let me put it this way. In a country where the Westboro Baptist Church is protected for doing what they do by the highest court in that country, you better goddamn believe that we'll joke about rape when and if we feel like it. Bank on it.
Don't like it? Great. Your like/dislike, approval/disapproval is not a hurdle the First Amendment has to jump. Debate about the merits of the joke and/or topic all you want. The outcome of that debate will also present no impediment to the First Amendment. Short of libel and slander, feel free to demonize the participants if you feel you must. That's a right you have and a right I'll die defending.
In conclusion, rape is not an exception because exceptions do not enter into it.
That is all there is to say.


You're arguing against a strawman. I'm pretty sure that when hpqp said rape is an exception he/she didn't mean it should be a legal exception. The argument is not that comedians making tasteless rape jokes should be fined, so nobody is attacking the First Amendment here. The argument is that certain sort of rape jokes should not be considered socially or morally legitimate. I think racism shouldn't be considered socially or morally legitimate, but I don't think the government has any business punishing racists.

So yeah, nobody disagrees with what you're saying here as far as I'm aware.

Rape an exception? No, sir. There are no exceptions because everything's on the table when you have the First Amendment. Your example set in France was sweet and everything but it is utterly moot when there's a land across the pond where no topic is verboten in debate, discussion, and/or comedy.

Let me put it this way. In a country where the Westboro Baptist Church is protected for doing what they do by the highest court in that country, you better goddamn believe that we'll joke about rape when and if we feel like it. Bank on it.

Don't like it? Great. Your like/dislike, approval/disapproval is not a hurdle the First Amendment has to jump. Debate about the merits of the joke and/or topic all you want. The outcome of that debate will also present no impediment to the First Amendment. Short of libel and slander, feel free to demonize the participants if you feel you must. That's a right you have and a right I'll die defending.

In conclusion, rape is not an exception because exceptions do not enter into it.

That is all there is to say.

Yeah, it looks pretty clear cut. But this sort of libel chill is undoubtedly done all the time with every network. I think the precedent is bigger and scarier than the obvious shot at Fox News in this instance.

>> ^Stormsinger:

So Fox News is the Pinky to Monsanto's Brain. That actually sounds about right...