home
Struggles of the Exonerated to Rebuild Their Lives | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well to take Ann Althouse for example... (none / 0) (#14)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:21:37 AM EST
I've probably had more comments deleted by Ann Althouse than anyone else....  But she lays her ground rules out, and she warns you many times.  And her notion of banning is to tell you "you're banned - go away" and that's it.  I've been banned there.  I still post very rarely there, about once every three months or so.

The question is not if people delete comments.  The question is if there is in general an atmosphere of free and open discussion, and I can attest that while Althouse and her groupies will pile on, in fact, pretty much anything can be said.  Althouse is terribly wrong in many ways, but she is far more open to criticism, discussion, and dialog than almost any of her detractors, which actually makes her right in many ways as well.

[ Parent ]

What you said (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:56:53 AM EST
in fact, pretty much anything can be said.

Is true for Pandagon as well, YMMV.

[ Parent ]

My mileage does vary... (none / 0) (#18)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:43:43 PM EST
I have had the privilege of being banned by Ann Althouse, Amanda Marcotte, and at Feministing, Shakesville, Creek Running North, as well as at Hot Air, Patterico, Protein Wisdom.

I haven't been banned at LGM (though they don't like me much), nor at Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Atrios, TL, FDL, Digby, TBogg, Brad DeLong's...

I say pretty much the same thing at all of these blogs, and I can definitely tell you that Ann's deletion and banning policy is very different from the others.  Professor Althouse's policy is much more similar to Professor DeLong's policy which for the most part permits open discussions of just about anything and attempts to keep threads on track.  Professor Althouse, and again, I know this from experience and long time reading, has probably banned at most, ten people.  At most.

Amanda seems to ban people on a regular, if not daily, basis, and it's not for obscenity, threats, libel, defamation, etc.,  In my personal experience and judgment it's for making effective and persuasive arguments.

[ Parent ]

It would seem that you have a martyr complex (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 01:32:34 PM EST
and like most martyrs, have found places to help you with it.

The banning on a daily, if not regular basis is bullhockey, from my own experience.

Of course, you've been a little less nuanced on other websites:

I find she shares far more with the fascist right than the liberal left. She is a bully pushing her own form of politically correct feminism. I think it is a shame that liberals look to her to see how we should think about feminism.

Also, you haven't commented on how my excerpt put the lie to your earlier assertion about her:

demonize men and strip them of due process and equal protection.

You really aren't good at this, are you?


[ Parent ]

I've addressed ALL of your points! (none / 0) (#20)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 02:07:11 PM EST
How is what I wrote at DeLong's at variance with anything I've written here?

demonize men and strip them of due process and equal protection.

I didn't address this?  Glenn Sacks writes specifically of the abuses of restraining orders and how they are used to strip men of due process and equal protection, Amanda says he just wants to make it okay to beat women, and you think she is somehow defending men's rights to due process and equal protection?

See also, her views on false allegations of rape and how they are too low to be measured.

And see her avid defense of equal protection and due process for the Duke students.

Oh yeah, she still thinks they're guilty!

DarkAvenger, I am sure in your casual contributions (over 313) to Pandagon, you've seen a few of these examples by now.

[ Parent ]

Again, what you write about her (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:14:02 PM EST
is at variance with what she's written:

-banning restraining orders, giving abusers full access to victims, and criminalizing self-defense--come into play. If you sincerely care about male victims of domestic violence, you shouldn't want them to be stuck in the hellhole that the pro-abuse men's rights advocates are trying to recreate for women.

See also, her views on false allegations of rape and how they are too low to be measured.

That's the problem you're already having here, I've already quoted what she's written, you've so far been making allegations without direct quotes from her blog to support them.  The only thing you've been correct about is that she deleted and revised her position re: the Duke rape case, which of course has never happened before or since in the history of blogdom, and that may be related to why she left the Edwards campaign.

If you can't quote her directly about "false rape allegations too low to measure", then you'll have proven my point. I'm a guy, BTW, and I don't like false allegations against anyone, FWIW.

My position is that folks should go to her blog, poke around with Google since her archives are broken, and see for themselves. Depending on your second-hand allegations and distortions isn't the path to wisdom.

[ Parent ]

pro-abuse men's rights advocates are trying to rec (none / 0) (#24)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 04:48:20 PM EST
Wait, you have the gall to quote Amanda saying "pro-abuse men's rights advocates" when I explicitly gave you her quotations from Glenn, and Glenn's responses and links showing how she is misrepresenting that, and you haven't addressed any of her mendacity or misrepresentations?

And you want me to give you a direct quote from her on something that I never claimed was a direct quote?

I can't find everything via google, because her site has lost many of its old records, and she admits that, and also because well, not every search has exactly the right words in it.

But here are two posts for you in which she takes explicit care to downplay the significance of false allegations and then having done that, never once says anything like: of course, even these are serious and need to be treated seriously.

Read these posts, and then tell me: are the posts there to demonstrate she takes false accusations seriously, or to show that she thinks they can be ignored.

But Dark Avenger, if you have any intellectual honesty, you owe me an answer to my posts where I point out how she defames Sacks and his positions and he rebuts them.

including the FBI's statistics that set the false reports rate at 8%. As Ampersand points out in that post I linked, false reports are not false accusations. The majority of cases I've ever read about are Tawana Brawley-type situations where the alleged victim is using a rape claim to weasel out of some other problem, and doesn't finger anyone in particular. From what I understand, her case only turned up actual suspects because of the amount of politically motivated doggedness behind it, which is probably why rape and murder cases also have a problem with false accusations. Anyway, I don't know what the statistics are on it, but it seems to me that false reports are correlated with the most terrifying and stereotypical kinds of rape. But the myth is that false reports are correlated to the more common acquaintance rapes, and that the motivation is strictly an unwillingness to admit that one's self is a dirty slut. My feeling is that men who make this blase statement about false reports are showing more their feelings about the dirtiness of women who have casual sex and projecting that onto women.

and

Culture of fear (Regarding this post, it's not clear who wrote it, Amanda or BlitzGal, I think BlitzGal wrote it, but many people, probably mistakenly say Amanda did because Amanda's name appears right under it, but no one corrects these folks, so, maybe not.  BlitzGal's blog has disappeared so it's hard to say.  Regardless, this sort of post appears at Pandagon all of the time.)

Now, since you feel that Amanda is in favor of protecting men's rights wrt domestic violence and false allegations, maybe you can show me all of those posts of here where she has discussed that, and how important it is to do that, and not just used her claims as a way to actually reduce men's rights.

And yes, I do think you owe me a response to the posts I put up showing that Marcotte has defamed Sacks time and again.

[ Parent ]

Admitting ignorance of statistics (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:09:45 PM EST
as she does in the part you quote:

Anyway, I don't know what the statistics are on it, but it seems to me that false reports are correlated with the most terrifying and stereotypical kinds of rape. But the myth is that false reports are correlated to the more common acquaintance rapes, and that the motivation is strictly an unwillingness to admit that one's self is a dirty slut.

isn't the same as saying

her views on false allegations of rape and how they are too low to be measured.

and you fail quote the context of the thread:

The students said no, and then one of the sheriffs told the students that "70-80% of rape reports are illegitimate" and that women only file rape charges because they regret some drunken sex. No doubt most of you are familiar with the ubiquitous nature of these myths, which persist in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, including the FBI's statistics that set the false reports rate at 8%.

And yes, I do think you owe me a response to the posts I put up showing that Marcotte has defamed Sacks time and again.

No, as a commentator on the Culture of Fear thread stated:

If I am reading this right, the 40% stat has nothing to do with women pretending to be raped. Rather, DNA evidence shows that about 20% of the time the woman misidentifies the rapist, which is hardly surprising considering the traumatic nature of the crime, and another 20% of the time the DNA evidence doesn't clearly identify the accused as the criminal. In no case does the report suggest that these women were not raped. Misidentifying the rapist does not mean no rape occurred.
      This is a reprehensible misuse of data, which allows the abusive crime to be dismissed, or at least unfairly casts doubt on victims.
      And it allows certain kinds of men to cast all women as liars.

As I stated, I trust that reading the Pandagon blog will demonstrate the falsity of your claims.

[ Parent ]

Amanda: The FBI says this, but it's this, and this (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:29:39 PM EST
No doubt most of you are familiar with the ubiquitous nature of these myths, which persist in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, including the FBI's statistics that set the false reports rate at 8%. As Ampersand points out in that post I linked, false reports are not false accusations. The majority of cases I've ever read about are Tawana Brawley-type situations where the alleged victim is using a rape claim to weasel out of some other problem, and doesn't finger anyone in particular. From what I understand, her case only turned up actual suspects because of the amount of politically motivated doggedness behind it, which is probably why rape and murder cases also have a problem with false accusations. Anyway, I don't know what the statistics are on it, but it seems to me that false reports are correlated with the most terrifying and stereotypical kinds of rape.

She won't take the FBI's account.  She first drops it with Amp's info, and then she goes off on her wild speculation specifically of how it occurs only when the victim is trying to get out of something else and it just doesn't happen at other times.

She has no evidence for that last, and it doesn't fit what we see in other studies.

And then at the end, her point is, specifically, we don't have to worry about these cases.  When men say this, she says, it's more about the men's misogyny.  She says, it doesn't occur.

And the posts about Sacks are below (or above) where she specifically says that Sacks is trying to defend abusers.

You keep telling me to read Pandagon -- and clearly I do.  Now it's time for you to read Sacks and to quit evading the question for you about Amanda that I've asked three times.  Did Amanda grossly misrepresent Sacks' opinions and views?

[ Parent ]

In the passage you quoted: (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:03:48 PM EST
which persist in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, including the FBI's statistics that set the false reports rate at 8%.

you overlook the fact that she calls the FBI's statistics strong evidence which in my common-sense reading, means she agrees with their figure.

I have a suggestion for you.  Read the post like you've never seen it before, or ask a friend who hasn't read the passage in question and ask them what they think she's saying, not letting them know your position until they've read it

You still haven't come up with a post where she stated that false rape accusations are too low to measure.

DA: Read this post, and address it

Why, did you want another part of your anatomy on a silver platter besides the portion you've helped me serve up on this thread?

Did Amanda grossly misrepresent Sacks' opinions and views?

No.

[ Parent ]

She's not calling the FBI evidence strong (none / 0) (#31)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:45:10 PM EST
in and of itself, she's saying the cop lied to the students and said the false rate of 70%, which no one has ever claimed.

Then she says "no doubt you are familiar with these myths which persist in light of strong evidence of the contrary including...

She's not saying the FBI evidence is strong, she's saying she's a slew of studies that says the rate is not 70%.  Which it's not and no one claims it is.

In fact the common sense reading is that she thinks the myths out there present the false rape allegation rate at 70%.  But the studies Sacks presents show a range from 8% to 40%.

Her response to that is more like the other post which was or was not written by her.  And that is that those rates are too high as well, by doing exactly what she is doing here, picking at studies with speculation.

And frankly, let's accept the 8%.  That's pretty bad.  The false allegation rate for most crimes I believe is estimated at 2%.  Show me a single post, a single post, in which Amanda suggests that something needs to be done to lower that rate from 8%, or make amends to the people tossed in jail with ruined lives.

A single post.  You won't be able to do that.

Your single word response to me concerning Sacks is non responsive.

Please address comment 16.

[ Parent ]

Where did the 70% figure come from? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 08:37:26 PM EST
In fact the common sense reading is that she thinks the myths out there present the false rape allegation rate at 70%.

She's talking about what the cop said, which you admitted was a mythical statistic.

She's not saying the FBI evidence is strong, she's saying she's a slew of studies that says the rate is not 70%.  Which it's not and no one claims it is.

Except for the cop who did claim the rate was 70-80%, who I do realize isn't to be confused with Mr. Sacks.

She stated that there was strong evidence to the contrary, including the FBI statistic

But the studies Sacks presents show a range from 8% to 40%

Again, the latter statistic has been disproven:

Rather, DNA evidence shows that about 20% of the time the woman misidentifies the rapist, which is hardly surprising considering the traumatic nature of the crime, and another 20% of the time the DNA evidence doesn't clearly identify the accused as the criminal. In no case does the report suggest that these women were not raped. Misidentifying the rapist does not mean no rape occurred.

Show me a single post, a single post, in which Amanda suggests that something needs to be done to lower that rate from 8%, or make amends to the people tossed in jail with ruined lives.

Does this help?

I think there's a case to be made for the idea that people get a little hysterical far too quickly when dealing with the fear of child molestation, and innocent people get railroaded. The Satanic panics of the 80s are the most clear-cut example, but there's other stories out there of people getting bad charges against them for naked baby pictures and other innocous things like this.

So she's against innocent people being railroaded, and I find nothing to suggest that her POV is any different over WHY an innocent person is railroaded.

As for your precious post 16, your arrogance, repeated demand and
assumption of victory gives me more insight into your 'role' as a martyr.

You would do well to read Man Against Himself by Karl Menninger, he had some interesting things to say about the early Martyrs of the Christian Church, you might gain some insight into yourself.

[ Parent ]

DA: Read this post, and address it (1.00 / 0) (#27)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:30:38 PM EST
Post 16, currently right below this one

[ Parent ]
Dark Avenger: I accept your concession then... (1.00 / 0) (#30)
by jerry on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 07:36:59 PM EST
Dark Avenger,

For most of the day you've failed to address comment 16, while demanding all sorts of responses from me.

Since you have not addressed comment 16, and since you explicitly scored my last request of you a 1, I can only conclude you have no response for it, and you find it irrefutable.

I accept your concession then, though I think you've wasted all of our time with your demonstration.

Next time, you should probably just concede up front, and learn to be a bit more gracious about it.  Everyone will appreciate that.

Thank you.

[ Parent ]

AKA: pinata syndrome (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by squeaky on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:37:37 PM EST
It would seem that you have a martyr complex and like most martyrs, have found places to help you with it.


[ Parent ]

Struggles of the Exonerated to Rebuild Their Lives | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft