| |||||||||||||
Less NOT MoreLess NOT MorePosted Dec 2, 2010 14:46 UTC (Thu) by jackb (subscriber, #41909)In reply to: Less NOT More by brianomahoney Parent article: The dark side of open source conferences
Women and GLT are entitled to the same respect and protection under the law as anyone else, no more, no less.Of course that's not enough. It never will be until all the wrongs are set right and atoned for. Of course when someone has a carte blanche to keep inventing new wrongs the process will never be complete. Only in ivory tower academia or government circles are views like this taken seriously any more. The rest of the culture has moved on and doesn't give the people who spout off that kind of BS much credibility.
(Log in to post comments)
please stop. Posted Dec 2, 2010 19:17 UTC (Thu) by wingo (subscriber, #26929) [Link]
Please stop, both of you. You are attempting to smear the people you disagree with as being out-of-touch, but do yourself a favor and count the number of commenters here that agree with you.
I live in Europe, work in industry, and agree with Val.
Thank you.
please stop. Posted Dec 3, 2010 6:28 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
See, but you're only counting the people who feel safe posting on an anonymous internet bulletin board. You need to also count the lurkers who support him in email.
please stop. Posted Dec 5, 2010 16:12 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Likewise, very strongly. In fact in Europe I'd hope that these things were stamped on much harder than in the US. Certainly there are longer legal teeth in some countries, but I'm not sure about cultural ones: the EU is culturally diverse and in some places, e.g. Italy, all sorts of appalling things appear to be acceptable if one uses the antics of political leaders as an indication of what is marginally tolerable.
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 11:57 UTC (Tue) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link] I live in EuropeConsidering how your enlightened European laws are sufficiently accommodating to arrest Julian Assange on trumped up charges I'm not sure that's something worth bragging about. Coincidentally, did you notice that the crime he's being accused of only exists because of the radical feminist doctrine that women can retroactively withdraw consent? (men, of course, do not have this privilege)
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 14:23 UTC (Tue) by vaurora (guest, #38407) [Link]
"Can retroactively withdraw consent" - bullshit, this is not an accurate description at all. I think this quote sums it up well:
"The New York Times reported that the two women claimed that "each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual.""
Basically, they started have sex, she said, "Okay, time for the condom!", he said, "Condom, schmondom" and proceeded against her wishes. Sorry, folks, but even after everyone has taken off all their clothes and are getting all snuggly, it's still possible to commit rape. Just imagine any number of things you would not like to have done to yourself while naked in bed. Go on, I'm sure you can think of something. Now imagine your next sex partner decided to do them to you and wouldn't take no for an answer. Also imagine that your sex partner is bigger and stronger than you and a worldwide hero and that thousands of self-righteous internet commenters will come to their defense.
If you think this is an okay way to have sex, do, please, post your name and photo so we can avoid you just as assiduously as Julian Assange. Thanks.
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 14:33 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Before you make concrete in your mind that version of events, you may wish to read this alternative account of the events that lead to the accusations around Assange: http://t.co/K4SIHRP
(Warning for those who don't have an istyosty plugin installed: It's a dailymail link, but this one is at least interesting, and its author claims to be basing it on the actual police charges, combined with talking to associates of those involved. The latter of course not infrequently turns out to be highly biased / unreliable, but the author at least seems to try to differentiate what info came from what kind of source).
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 15:58 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
You can use actual links on lwn.net, you know. It's not Twitter -- you don't have to fit within 140 characters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks...
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:36 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
A better link would be via istyosty (a proxy), to minimise the clicks given to the Daily Hate: http://istyosty.com/2r1
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:30 UTC (Tue) by vaurora (guest, #38407) [Link]
Oh, my mistake - they had sex with a condom, then they want to sleep, then he had sex without a condom against his partner's wishes. In the other incident they had sex with a condom, the condom broke, and he went on to have sex without a condom against his partner's wishes.
I'm afraid this doesn't change my disagreement with the original poster at all. No consent was withdrawn retroactively, it was not given at the time of the act.
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:40 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Do you always automatically take accusations against people as true? The precise nature of consent is at best unclear, and there are no allegations of force or duress of any kind (least none public at least).
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 16:47 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Ah, and just after I wrote that, details of charges come out in the court hearing and they include use of force. Still, needs to be tried before judgment...
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 17:07 UTC (Tue) by jackb (subscriber, #41909) [Link]
A actual rape victim does not go out the next morning, buy food, cook breakfast for her attacker, eat it with him and only later deciding to file charges.
It's a sham that only makes sense under the twisted ideology of "all men are automatically rapists".
Of course it's all geopoliticaly motivated but the incident does serve to illuminate just how outrageous those laws have become.
please stop. Posted Dec 7, 2010 17:33 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
We seem to have gotten pretty far afield from the topic of the article. I imagine there are plenty of places to discuss Wikileaks/Assange and the charges against him. Howzabout we stop discussing it here?
thanks,
jake
please stop. Posted Dec 10, 2010 12:15 UTC (Fri) by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063) [Link]
They may be trumped up. They may not be. We (random people on the internets) certainly don't have enough information to say one way or the other. They are certainly serious, though.
What we have are courts to hear the evidence and come to a conclusion. Largely open courts, whose decisions can be scrutinised by the press and public.
Mr Assange is attempting to avoid the confrontation with the courts. He believes he is in danger of either a miscarriage of justice or extradition to the US. These things may be true, but the world will be watching carefully.
Anyway, this is something of a digression from the topic of the article, but your automatic assumption that the women involved must be lying simply because his arrest is convenient for various governments certainly won't endear you to other readers. And you are somewhat undermining your earlier argument about how the police are the right people to deal with issues at conferences given how little faith you apparently have in European legal systems.
Less NOT More Posted Dec 3, 2010 19:39 UTC (Fri) by AdamW (guest, #48457) [Link]
This is an interesting fallacy because it becomes so clearly absurd if you apply it to, well, any other area at all.
To make it clear, the fallacy is 'the only rules of conduct that matter are the law of the land. Nothing else matters'.
So, let's see. Would you go to a church, stand up in the middle of the service, and yell "YOU'RE ALL MORONS! GOD IS DEAD!"
Would you consider that acceptable behaviour? Even if you don't believe in God? *I* don't believe in God, and I wouldn't do that.
But it's not illegal. So, why wouldn't you do that (assuming you wouldn't)? Because you recognize that it would be outside the accepted code of behaviour in that environment. It would be rude.
If you did this, the church in question would likely ask that you not attend any events there in future. Would you say they would be unreasonable to do so?
Okay, more examples. Would you sign up for LKML and send five hundred messages discussing the NFL? Again, this isn't illegal at all. But would you think it would be a reasonable or polite thing to do? Would you be surprised if you were banned from the list for doing it? But it's not illegal! What right does LKML have to enforce its cruel and arbitrary standards of behaviour on you when you're not breaking the law?
See, it *really* doesn't stand up at all. But for some reason, you think it's fine to apply the bizarre idea that behaviour can only possibly be wrong if it's illegal to the sphere of sexual harassment.
|
|||||||||||||