Derrick Rose Accused of Drugging and Gang Raping Ex-Girlfriend

Status
Not open for further replies.

CoRP

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2007
9,457
The Epicenter
DrewDawg said:
Yeah, that account is fucked up. And that "sex therapist", well, she's kinda fucked up too.
 
And Friend C, I mean, why not let the girl crash with you that night or take her home first?
Th sex therapist is beyond fucked up. She's dangerous.  
 
Also, please everyone lock your doors, especially in an apartment complex with a front door that is left propped open. Holy cow.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
nighthob said:
Well she did accuse him of deflating his balls all over her.
 
If you're going to make the same Deflategate joke that's been made 1,000 times and package it with a rape joke, at least try to make it fucking funny.  Did you laugh as you typed that up, or pat yourself on the back a bit afterwards?  I'm genuinely curious.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,089
Tuukka's refugee camp
Pointing out that none of us REALLY know what happened yet is a classic rape culture tactic.
Does this mean we jump to a conclusion or just not talk about it? I understand the general premise but it makes it sound like we shouldn't talk about it because that is the reality, unless anybody here is friends with Rose or the woman.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
No, it means that pointing out that we don't know all the facts serves no purpose other than casting doubt on the accuser, and in cases like this, that's stepping into muddy water. It goes without saying, so leave it unsaid.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Snodgrass'Muff said:
No, it means that pointing out that we don't know all the facts serves no purpose other than casting doubt on the accuser, and in cases like this, that's stepping into muddy water. It goes without saying, so leave it unsaid.
 
Actually, it serves another purpose. That purpose is pointing out the obvious.
 
You're saying that someone saying "we don't know what happened", which is 100% accurate and true, is now verboten. That seems off to me. It is NOT the same as saying "She shouldn't have worn that dress". It's only in this situation in which a statement that is said out of caution is turned around. Every other time something happens, from a shooting, to a demonstration/riot that's getting out of hand, etc people are told to wait until more info is out there, wait until more is known, because we don't know everything yet. But here that turns accusatory?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Snodgrass'Muff said:
No, it means that pointing out that we don't know all the facts serves no purpose other than casting doubt on the accuser, and in cases like this, that's stepping into muddy water. It goes without saying, so leave it unsaid.
If you want to say I'm perpetuating rape culture through my comment, I'll be cool and hear you out, but I need more than a throwaway line or two from a place of assumed authority.

In this instance, im treating rape like anything else under the sun, especially any legal matter, and saying all facts need to come to light. It's meant as neutral toward accuser and accused. If im missing something Id sincerely like elucidation, but my first impression is this is an example of what Rev calls liberals eating their young.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Marciano, the way you phrased it was different than the usage I was thinking of from earlier in the thread. In the context of ypioca's post, it was problematic. He's since gone back and removed it, so I'm not trying to keep poking him about this. Just clarifying where I'm coming from.

As in anything else, context is important. I should have been more clear in my response to kennycb that it was not the general use of those words so much as the use of those words coupled with a bunch of other things that chip away at the believability of the accuser that make it a problem.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I appreciate that. It's definitely something I want to be sensitive to, but to internalize it I need to fundamentally understand and the way I interpreted your post struck me as perhaps a bridge too far.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,684
where the darn libs live
That filing is fucking horrifying.
 
If she's making it up (and the odds say she isn't my a fucking hefty margin), that's one hell of a detailed story.  My sister works with women who have been reported being raped and her view is simple: if she says she has, my sister believes her, mainly because it's the very rare case where it's not true.  And yes, those rare cases are horrible when the man is punished, but as a society we need to realize how many rape cases go unreported and unpunished.  A woman who reports a false rape is likely suffering from mental problems, and shouldn't be looked upon with scorn -- but with pity.
 
That this Jane Doe's filing is so detailed is stomach turning.
 
I hope she's making it up.  I really do, because I like Derrick Rose a lot and I love how he plays basketball.  I hope she's deranged, and I hope she gets help if she is.  But if she's not?  Holy shit, Derrick Rose is an actual monster.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
Marciano490 said:
If you want to say I'm perpetuating rape culture through my comment, I'll be cool and hear you out, but I need more than a throwaway line or two from a place of assumed authority.

In this instance, im treating rape like anything else under the sun, especially any legal matter, and saying all facts need to come to light.
But here's the thing: this isn't a legal matter if you're not in the courtroom. This is a social matter. And, from a social perspective, sexual violence does have different issues that you have to take into account. Most crimes are rather difficult to dismiss through social pressure in the face of the testimony of the accuser and physical evidence--the "he was asking for it" doesn't really apply to, say, vehicular manslaughter, you know? And here's the worst of it: even if the accuser is legally unable to prove the case, even if the accused walks with a not guilty verdict, that doesn't mean the accuser hasn't had their life ruined, psychologically (by an event that is, to them, traumatic on a scale I personally cannot fucking envisage) or socially ("she was just a slut"--who thinks worse of a robbery victim if the robber is found not guilty?) by what they feel was rape.

And to get the favorite sinecure of the shitbag out of the way: yes, there are some false rape accusations, made up of whole cloth. Sometimes, fucked up people make shit up. It happens. But by any metric one would wish to offer, they're a fuckin' rounding error compared to the ones that happen. And the ones that happen and are never reported. The public perception of sexual violence (and not all sexual violence is rape) is lost, chiefly by the victims, in the but-waits and well-actuallys. The in-theory-benign middle viewpoint is, as Snod mentions, an implicit attack on the position or credibility of the weaker party (who is, contrary to the ideas of monstrous assholes like Paul Elam, usually the accusing female, not the oppressed male), as most support of the status quo usually is. And you are, of course, technically correct. But the accuser is vastly disadvantaged compared to the accused and already has an uphill battle ahead of her; your attempts at neutrality are representative of the kind that can and do make victims of sexual violence--and this is not theoretical to me, this is a slight rephrasing of what I have been told by a rape survivor who never reported it--go "jesus, if people are going to smarm about how being fair means they must actively doubt the story of somebody being raped, why should I put myself through that?".

Note: not "the courts". People. People like you, dude. And you're a good dude, I don't believe you're at all malicious in this, but the way we--dudes, mostly, but some ladies for sure--are brought up makes it so fucking hard to see this until it clicks, and then you can't not see it. I promise you, it's there, and it's fucking all of us up in ways I don't think any of us can fully grasp from inside our heads. So I would argue that this is where airing that technical correctness fuels a way bigger, way uglier problem that we must try to see, because not seeing it hurts people we love.


(Also, clear out your PM box or something. I've got a couple things I think you'll be interested in, but they're off-topic.)
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Thanks for that.  It's a lot to think about and digest and I'll certainly turn it over in my mind. 
 
And my PM box is clear, but do not send more spider pics.  Please?
 

Freddy Linn

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,151
Where it rains. No, seriously.
FWIW, the first word out of ESPN legal eagle Lester Munson's mouth about the lawsuit was "scurrilous" and that the timing was very suspicious.

Edit: Lester is an awful lawyer and human being and a contrarian indicator of truth.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
Here's a question, the answers to which might be illuminating: why do we have the stereotype of a father sitting at home with a shotgun while his daughter's out on a date?

Here's another: how are little girls taught to interact with men they don't know? How are boys?
 

CoRP

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2007
9,457
The Epicenter
Please tell me you're not bringing stereotypes into a discussion about an NBA player being accused of rape to illustrate your point.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,781
Somerville, MA
Blacken said:
Here's a question, the answers to which might be illuminating: why do we have the stereotype of a father sitting at home with a shotgun while his daughter's out on a date?Here's another: how are little girls taught to interact with men they don't know? How are boys?
Because as a country we have a screwed up double-standard ideal of purity when it comes to women and what they do sexually?
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
IdiotKicker said:
Because as a country we have a screwed up double-standard ideal of purity when it comes to women and what they do sexually?
 
Or that women/girls can't be trusted to wield their own sexuality properly, so an authoritative man has to protect them against any possible fallout of that failing.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Freddy Linn said:
FWIW, the first word out of ESPN legal eagle Lester Munson's mouth about the lawsuit was "scurrilous" and that the timing was very suspicious.

Edit: Lester is an awful lawyer and human being and a contrarian indicator of truth.
 
I wonder what line Munson has to cross (or how many times he can be monumentally, colossally, staggeringly wrong in his analysis) before ESPN cans his ass?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,673
Miami (oh, Miami!)
CaptainLaddie said:
(snip)
 
That this Jane Doe's filing is so detailed is stomach turning.
 
I hope she's making it up.  I really do, because I like Derrick Rose a lot and I love how he plays basketball.  I hope she's deranged, and I hope she gets help if she is.  But if she's not?  Holy shit, Derrick Rose is an actual monster.
 
I'm not barred in CA, but FWIW, in most places a Plaintiff *and* their attorney can be financially sanctioned for making claims that are not supported by known facts, or by alleging false facts in a pleading.  Attorneys have a duty to investigate claims before writing and filing a complaint.  It may be different in CA, but I'd be surprised if that were so.  
 
Tactically, I'd also be very surprised if the attorney plead details that weren't verifiable; I expect the cab driver, roommate, co-worker, and church friend have all been located and interviewed.   There are some details that don't seem to make much sense to me: the unlocked apartment, the roommate who ignores the strange man in her apartment, the random confessional call, the lack of physical evidence - specifically, "what appeared to be condoms"?.  On the other hand it's a pretty compelling narrative that holds together.  Her case will be all about her (and her witnesses') credibility.   
 

Bozo Texino

still hates Dave Kerpen
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
11,729
Austin, Texas
Blacken said:
But here's the thing: this isn't a legal matter if you're not in the courtroom. This is a social matter. And, from a social perspective, sexual violence does have different issues that you have to take into account. Most crimes are rather difficult to dismiss through social pressure in the face of the testimony of the accuser and physical evidence--the "he was asking for it" doesn't really apply to, say, vehicular manslaughter, you know? And here's the worst of it: even if the accuser is legally unable to prove the case, even if the accused walks with a not guilty verdict, that doesn't mean the accuser hasn't had their life ruined, psychologically (by an event that is, to them, traumatic on a scale I personally cannot fucking envisage) or socially ("she was just a slut"--who thinks worse of a robbery victim if the robber is found not guilty?) by what they feel was rape.

And to get the favorite sinecure of the shitbag out of the way: yes, there are some false rape accusations, made up of whole cloth. Sometimes, fucked up people make shit up. It happens. But by any metric one would wish to offer, they're a fuckin' rounding error compared to the ones that happen. And the ones that happen and are never reported. The public perception of sexual violence (and not all sexual violence is rape) is lost, chiefly by the victims, in the but-waits and well-actuallys. The in-theory-benign middle viewpoint is, as Snod mentions, an implicit attack on the position or credibility of the weaker party (who is, contrary to the ideas of monstrous assholes like Paul Elam, usually the accusing female, not the oppressed male), as most support of the status quo usually is. And you are, of course, technically correct. But the accuser is vastly disadvantaged compared to the accused and already has an uphill battle ahead of her; your attempts at neutrality are representative of the kind that can and do make victims of sexual violence--and this is not theoretical to me, this is a slight rephrasing of what I have been told by a rape survivor who never reported it--go "jesus, if people are going to smarm about how being fair means they must actively doubt the story of somebody being raped, why should I put myself through that?".

Note: not "the courts". People. People like you, dude. And you're a good dude, I don't believe you're at all malicious in this, but the way we--dudes, mostly, but some ladies for sure--are brought up makes it so fucking hard to see this until it clicks, and then you can't not see it. I promise you, it's there, and it's fucking all of us up in ways I don't think any of us can fully grasp from inside our heads. So I would argue that this is where airing that technical correctness fuels a way bigger, way uglier problem that we must try to see, because not seeing it hurts people we love.
 
God damn, Blacken.  That was excellent.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Blacken said:
But here's the thing: this isn't a legal matter if you're not in the courtroom. This is a social matter. And, from a social perspective, sexual violence does have different issues that you have to take into account. Most crimes are rather difficult to dismiss through social pressure in the face of the testimony of the accuser and physical evidence--the "he was asking for it" doesn't really apply to, say, vehicular manslaughter, you know? And here's the worst of it: even if the accuser is legally unable to prove the case, even if the accused walks with a not guilty verdict, that doesn't mean the accuser hasn't had their life ruined, psychologically (by an event that is, to them, traumatic on a scale I personally cannot fucking envisage) or socially ("she was just a slut"--who thinks worse of a robbery victim if the robber is found not guilty?) by what they feel was rape.

And to get the favorite sinecure of the shitbag out of the way: yes, there are some false rape accusations, made up of whole cloth. Sometimes, fucked up people make shit up. It happens. But by any metric one would wish to offer, they're a fuckin' rounding error compared to the ones that happen. And the ones that happen and are never reported. The public perception of sexual violence (and not all sexual violence is rape) is lost, chiefly by the victims, in the but-waits and well-actuallys. The in-theory-benign middle viewpoint is, as Snod mentions, an implicit attack on the position or credibility of the weaker party (who is, contrary to the ideas of monstrous assholes like Paul Elam, usually the accusing female, not the oppressed male), as most support of the status quo usually is. And you are, of course, technically correct. But the accuser is vastly disadvantaged compared to the accused and already has an uphill battle ahead of her; your attempts at neutrality are representative of the kind that can and do make victims of sexual violence--and this is not theoretical to me, this is a slight rephrasing of what I have been told by a rape survivor who never reported it--go "jesus, if people are going to smarm about how being fair means they must actively doubt the story of somebody being raped, why should I put myself through that?".

Note: not "the courts". People. People like you, dude. And you're a good dude, I don't believe you're at all malicious in this, but the way we--dudes, mostly, but some ladies for sure--are brought up makes it so fucking hard to see this until it clicks, and then you can't not see it. I promise you, it's there, and it's fucking all of us up in ways I don't think any of us can fully grasp from inside our heads. So I would argue that this is where airing that technical correctness fuels a way bigger, way uglier problem that we must try to see, because not seeing it hurts people we love.


(Also, clear out your PM box or something. I've got a couple things I think you'll be interested in, but they're off-topic.)
 
 
You're thinking about this as a rape case that happens to involve a celebrity, as opposed to a lawsuit against a celebrity that happens to involve rape.
 
Personally, I'm not sure which is the right way to think about it. But I'm pretty sure it's not fair to lump people who take the latter approach in with the so-called "men's rights" assholes.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
The only people I'm making fun of for being MRA shitbags are MRA shitbags. That doesn't mean that otherwise well-intentioned people aren't being harmful, in the large, through their actions. "Let's wait for both sides" is an implicit attack on the credibility and the personal worth of the accuser. In many situations, the social calculus makes that acceptable, and even desired; in some, and these are among them, I assert that that harms the people most in need of societal help.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,204
Blacken said:
The only people I'm making fun of for being MRA shitbags are MRA shitbags. That doesn't mean that otherwise well-intentioned people aren't being harmful, in the large, through their actions. "Let's wait for both sides" is an implicit attack on the credibility and the personal worth of the accuser. In many situations, the social calculus makes that acceptable, and even desired; in some, and these are among them, I assert that that harms the people most in need of societal help.
 
I get your point that victims may be deterred from reporting an assault because they have to prove their claims but that is the criminal legal standard we have.  
 
Its funny because even without statistics, I tend to believe the victims because simply reporting sexual assault is such a huge step in and of itself.  Its dehumanizing in just about every way.  It boggles the mind that people have to go through that after going through what might be the most horrific crime out there (I know murder is more final but I would argue that sexual assault is worse because the victim has to live with the scars of the crime for the rest of their lives).  
 
The fact that this case involves a rich, powerful young athlete only serves to reinforce my prejudice but I am not sure that is a fair way of looking at things either.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
And yet a significant percentage of such allegations are demonstrably false (lots of studies about this that I linked above).  I hope pointing out that FACT doesn't get me in trouble with the thread police.
 
The Kaepernick thread is funny, because literally the first reply is "I think he did it" - so much for not jumping to conclusions.  So, I guess pointing out that we shouldn't jump to conclusions is not so trivial or obvious.
 
Any woman who has actually been assaulted has their credibility reduced proportionate to the perceived percentage of women who file false complaints.  They are the ones who are actually hurt the most.  The UVA frat false allegation hoax had some pretty horrifying details that now reduces the credibility in my mind of highly public future allegations with horrifying details.
 
Therefore, for the sake of women, I'm hoping this actually happened & they find him guilty.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
ALiveH said:
And yet a significant percentage of such allegations are demonstrably false (lots of studies about this that I linked above).  I hope pointing out that FACT doesn't get me in trouble with the thread police.
 
The Kaepernick thread is funny, because literally the first reply is "I think he did it" - so much for not jumping to conclusions.  So, I guess pointing out that we shouldn't jump to conclusions is not so trivial or obvious.
 
Any woman who has actually been assaulted has their credibility reduced proportionate to the perceived percentage of women who file false complaints.  They are the ones who are actually hurt the most.  The UVA frat false allegation hoax had some pretty horrifying details that now reduces the credibility in my mind of highly public future allegations with horrifying details.
 
Therefore, for the sake of women, I'm hoping this actually happened & they find him guilty.
 
Do you have this formula handy so I can review it?
 

CoRP

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2007
9,457
The Epicenter
Blacken said:
The only people I'm making fun of for being MRA shitbags are MRA shitbags. That doesn't mean that otherwise well-intentioned people aren't being harmful, in the large, through their actions. "Let's wait for both sides" is an implicit attack on the credibility and the personal worth of the accuser. In many situations, the social calculus makes that acceptable, and even desired; in some, and these are among them, I assert that that harms the people most in need of societal help.
And anyone who disagrees with any of this is obviously a rapist. Well-framed narrative.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
I'll just say that this sounds pretty depraved. Bill Cosby seemed like an unlikely serial rapist once upon a time, too.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
CoRP said:
And anyone who disagrees with any of this is obviously a rapist. Well-framed narrative.
Stop projecting. You waving the think-of-the-rapists flag when you're not waving the black-people-are-genetically-inferior flag is your own hill to die on.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
 
I get your point that victims may be deterred from reporting an assault because they have to prove their claims but that is the criminal legal standard we have.  
 
Its funny because even without statistics, I tend to believe the victims because simply reporting sexual assault is such a huge step in and of itself.  Its dehumanizing in just about every way.  It boggles the mind that people have to go through that after going through what might be the most horrific crime out there (I know murder is more final but I would argue that sexual assault is worse because the victim has to live with the scars of the crime for the rest of their lives).  
 
The fact that this case involves a rich, powerful young athlete only serves to reinforce my prejudice but I am not sure that is a fair way of looking at things either.
 
I'm not sure murder is better than sexual assault. Living with your scars is still living. Dead is certainly worse. Both crimes are reprehensible, of course.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
ALiveH said:
And yet a significant percentage of such allegations are demonstrably false (lots of studies about this that I linked above).  I hope pointing out that FACT doesn't get me in trouble with the thread police.
 
The Kaepernick thread is funny, because literally the first reply is "I think he did it" - so much for not jumping to conclusions.  So, I guess pointing out that we shouldn't jump to conclusions is not so trivial or obvious.
 
Any woman who has actually been assaulted has their credibility reduced proportionate to the perceived percentage of women who file false complaints.  They are the ones who are actually hurt the most.  The UVA frat false allegation hoax had some pretty horrifying details that now reduces the credibility in my mind of highly public future allegations with horrifying details.
 
Therefore, for the sake of women, I'm hoping this actually happened & they find him guilty.
 
Your FACT has far less teeth than you might hope. The Wikipedia link should be ignore because 1. it's Wikipedia and 2. the data it points to is mostly from before 1993 when Marital Rape was still not a legal thing and all of it is from before the very recent changes to the definition of rape, which drop the requirement of force. (These changes are for the better, by the way.) Additionally, the Wikipedia data includes the US, UK and New Zealand which means it is incorporating three sets of legal definitions while still not controlling for changes to those definitions over time.
 
The study you link to also fails to account for changes to the definition over time or the culture in which the claims of rape they were pointing to were made in. Again, prior to 1993 a man was not legally capable of raping his wife in some states. Prior to the mid 1970's he was not legally able to rape his wife in any state. He could assault her, but except in cases where there was physical evidence of assault, there was no legal recourse for women who were raped by their husbands, and sadly, in many of those cases, their accusations went nowhere anyway as spousal abuse was not pursued legally very often even when there was evidence. That the paper doesn't account for this undermines it entirely.
 
Even if it didn't, the fact that it doesn't account for the existence of non-violent sexual encounters that are still rape also undermines the point they are trying to make. Plus, it was published in 1994, just one year after it was finally illegal in every state for a man to force his wife into having sex with him. Considering the changes in our culture and the changes to the definition of rape that have happened since then, I'd argue that this study is completely outdated and that the findings are rendered meaningless at this point.
 
In short, maybe you should ease up on the use of caps lock and look for something a little less dated and a little more relevant before using it as a justification for taking a stand on this particular situation.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
GBA said:
I really hope this is a joke I missed but just in case. https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html
 
Oh no, he's a big fan of the The Bell Curve. Or was that more trolling? It's hard to be clear when CoRP's just having his version of fun and when CoRP's seriously advocating things like "women/African-Americans are inferior". I mean, he's always wearing the clown shoes, so I guess kidding?
 
Lastly, big ups to Blacken in this thread. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 
 

GBA

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
32
soxfan121 said:
 
Oh no, he's a big fan of the The Bell Curve. Or was that more trolling? It's hard to be clear when CoRP's just having his version of fun and when CoRP's seriously advocating things like "women/African-Americans are inferior". I mean, he's always wearing the clown shoes, so I guess kidding?
 
Lastly, big ups to Blacken in this thread. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
And here I was thinking The Bell Curve was largely discredited a decade or two ago.

Seconded on the newsletter.

To bring things back to Rose, never liked his game, guess I dislike the person now as well.
 

CoRP

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2007
9,457
The Epicenter
GBA said:
I really hope this is a joke I missed but just in case. https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html
I don't disagree with with the premise. The only people that do are typically divided in two camps. One camp believes that most non-black people are actively focused on and engaged in activities that keep black people down, the other believes that most black people are lazy. It's not dissimilar to the people that believe that most men actively support "rape culture".
 

GBA

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
32
CoRP said:
I don't disagree with with the premise. The only people that do are typically divided in two camps. One camp believes that most non-black people are actively focused on and engaged in activities that keep black people down, the other believes that most black people are lazy. It's not dissimilar to the people that believe that most men actively support "rape culture".
It's not that "most non-black people" are "actively" doing anything. The system/societal structure/whatever term you prefer is geared so that it basically takes care of itself.
 

Monbo Jumbo

Hates the crockpot
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
25,231
the other Athens
GBA said:
It's not that "most non-black people" are "actively" doing anything. The system/societal structure/whatever term you prefer is geared so that it basically takes care of itself.
 
related tangent - those fucking racist computers!
 
"What do you do when your algorithm notices things about people it's not supposed to notice? Call it biased, of course"
 
 
Computer Scientists Find Bias in Algorithms

Computer scientists have created algorithms to run all kinds of tests on big hauls of data. Powerful learning algorithms, like those that can predict septic shock, improve crop yields, and filter college and job applications, supposedly remove human error and bias. However, algorithms may be more human than we think.
 
Computer scientists at the University of Utah, University of Arizona and Haverford College in Pennsylvania created a method to both fish out and fix algorithms that may exhibit unintentional bias based on race, gender, or age....
 
 

GBA

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
32
CoRP said:
Ok, then what's the prescription?
Wish I knew. Huge societal shifts are rather difficult to implement and don't happen overnight. Improvements in education (including starting earlier and easier/cheaper access to higher Ed), policing and laws that don't target African American communities, improved sex ed, fairer access to banks/loans (bit chicken and egg here though). Tons of other stuff. Unfortunately soft racism is hard to eradicate and not always easily visible but still incredibly destructive.

A friend of my father's (black guy) once told me how he never realized how racist society was till he had kids (white mom and light skinned) and heard about their experiences when people thought they were white and so acted "normally".
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Blacken said:
The only people I'm making fun of for being MRA shitbags are MRA shitbags. That doesn't mean that otherwise well-intentioned people aren't being harmful, in the large, through their actions. "Let's wait for both sides" is an implicit attack on the credibility and the personal worth of the accuser. In many situations, the social calculus makes that acceptable, and even desired; in some, and these are among them, I assert that that harms the people most in need of societal help.
I have a personal friend who was raped (while we were both teenagers).  I listened, watched, supported, and cried with her as she dealt with what happened and the aftermath.  I have a personal friend who was falsely accused of rape.  I listened, watched, supported him while he dealt with what happened and the aftermath.  I personally believe that I am well-intentioned and fair to both parties when I hear a new accusation and I say "let's see what happens when all the facts are known".  Don't tell me that I am harming the rape victim when I (not in her presence) want to give the accused a chance to voice his defense and vice versa.
 
I get that in order to make change we need in many cases to make the pendulum swing on thoughts/statements/actions.  However it seems to me that in most cases that the pendulum swings too far and we end up switching the oppressed party from A to B instead of merely creating an even handed approach to things.  Telling anyone who says "lets not draw a conclusion until we know the facts" that they are harming the alleged victim/accuser is swinging the pendulum too far in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.