why aren;t people talking about the rape rather than how important it was to get rid of two people who were crap at handling a discussion about it – because its much simpler
That’s a really good question John.
(I think it’s mostly because people keep starting conversations about how terrible it was that they were stood down, for six weeks, probably on full pay, because that’s terribly important and a violation of their rights. Why do you think it is?)
[Edited to add quote and note that I realise John gave his theory for why. I think he’s wrong though.]
Agree with what? That there are rape apologists, enablers active in these conversations? Well, obviously there are. Rapists even. Are you claiming there aren't?
Or were you called a rape enabler and are you now taking the opportunity to make sure your feels aren't ignored?
Same sort of people as post on here, same sort of comments. Patronising, smug and condescending
I dunno dude, I think this whole thread is a giant derail, so not too worried about this tangent…
You start your contribution by insinuating that multiple teenagers might have lied about being raped by multiple teenagers who might have lied about being rapists (which is what you did, even if it wasn’t your intent), go on to call everybody who had already commented and everybody like them “patronising, smug and condescending”.
Maybe you shouldn’t be surprised that people disagree with you, even strongly.
And it doesn’t prove your point, it proves that people don’t like massive obnoxious derailments.
People are strange.
Yeah, teenage girls, always with the lying about rape. Now that that's dealt with, shall we talk about important man stuff?
I would also note that discussion of Roast Busters is being used by me as a springboard to a wider discussion about a variety of speech aimed at silencing (or reducing the reach) of others.
Damn it, was going to mention that using a discussion about rape and misogyny to springboard to a 'wider' discussion about silencing people has resulted in a discussion that's 5% women - which is maybe something to think about. But then there was a fire alarm and when I got back it had gone up to 8% women. Progress.
Because if online voting (that is voting online from your home) can verify who the voter voted for to the voter it can also verify that to the person standing behind the voter telling them who to vote for.
Which is much less of an issue (though not completely a non-issue) in a voting booth with officials and scrutineers and other voters around.
I'm more concerned about my children hurting others than being hurt themselves. There's been no sexual abuse, to the best of my knowledge, but there was some pretty nasty text bullying by 'friends' a few years ago, and one of the things I came away with was, my child isn't a bully. Bullying isn't my child's responsibility.
Weirdly, I didn't think to explain that she shouldn't give her phone number out, or that she shouldn't have a phone, or shouldn't have friends - though any of those options would have prevented the abuse.
I know that my children are less at risk from strangers than from people they trust - partners, friends, and - statistically speaking - me. And the only way to protect them from that is to teach them love and respect and decency and hope they end up attracting and being attracted to the same.
Yeah, alright, I'm going to label you as an insensitive clod with your "any father would worry about these things."
Also, if you're worried about words being put in the mouths of others, please don't claim to speak for all fathers. Thanks.
Thank you all for this discussion, it's given me and probably a whole bunch of other lurkers a whole lot to think about.
Helen, especially, thank you for sharing that, it was brave and generous, and wrenching.
Hi Barnaby, did you see that 'apology' article in a hard copy paper? Cos I've only seen it online (and not exactly highly placed), and have looked for it in print.