FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on June 14, 2014, 05:52:46 pm
-
Washington Post columnist George F. Will has suggested that the rate of sexual assault on college campuses is lower than commonly believed. He goes on to suggest that being a victim has been twisted into something to be proud of:
Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.
This has led to yet another hashtag campaign on Twitter: #SurvivorPrivilege. Introduced by rape survivor Wagatwe Wanjuki, its goal is to refute the latter claim.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/774/577/fd1.png)
-
An ironic hashtag huh? Interesting.
But yeah, the guy who suggested that this is even a thing should probably just go away.
Like, forever.
-
George Will come to regret saying this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI
-
I've actually seen a post with more of those tags. One of them was made a by a guy, too.
-
Nothing will happen to George Will, of course. In all of history, has there ever been a job entrusted with more responsibility and as easy with as little accountability as a conservative newspaper columnist? If he straight up suggested gassing Jews, the thing would blow over in a few days, assuming it wasn't actually done.
-
Can we just take everyone who takes hashtag spam seriously and fire them into the sun?
-
Send 'em to the sun, yes! At least their bodies would incinerate in the sun, rather stan ro on the moon. We wouldn't want to taint the beautiful moon with corpses.
SEND THEM TO THE SUN~
-
This is probably the stupidest thing I’ve heard all week. I don't know a single person at all, female or even male, that wants to get raped for this reason. That’s like someone wanting to be horrifically crippled so they can be at the front of the lines at Disneyland.
The sad thing is, George Will seemed pretty reasonable. True, he had some controversies, but he wasn't a horrible shithead like John Derbyshire.
-
This is probably the stupidest thing I’ve heard all week. I don't know a single person at all, female or even male, that wants to get raped for this reason.
Is that what he said, though? Reading the article, it appears his point is not "People want to get raped so they can experience the benefits of being a victim", but rather "People who have not been raped want to claim that they have, because calling yourself a victim gets you special treatment".
I should pre-emptively state that I don't agree with George Will's point either way. Regardless, it bothers me when a statement is rounded off to the nearest super-offensive position.
-
This is probably the stupidest thing I’ve heard all week. I don't know a single person at all, female or even male, that wants to get raped for this reason.
Is that what he said, though? Reading the article, it appears his point is not "People want to get raped so they can experience the benefits of being a victim", but rather "People who have not been raped want to claim that they have, because calling yourself a victim gets you special treatment".
I should pre-emptively state that I don't agree with George Will's point either way. Regardless, it bothers me when a statement is rounded off to the nearest super-offensive position.
So less offensive in the same way saying "I hate black people" is less offensive than saying "I hate niggers".
-
This is probably the stupidest thing I’ve heard all week. I don't know a single person at all, female or even male, that wants to get raped for this reason.
Is that what he said, though? Reading the article, it appears his point is not "People want to get raped so they can experience the benefits of being a victim", but rather "People who have not been raped want to claim that they have, because calling yourself a victim gets you special treatment".
I should pre-emptively state that I don't agree with George Will's point either way. Regardless, it bothers me when a statement is rounded off to the nearest super-offensive position.
Two points: due to his atrocious style, it's always difficult to be sure whatever the fuck George Will is yabbering about at any given moment. It's hardly our fault if ole' George writes to be misunderstood and nails his mark dead centre. A side point: why hasn't some editor taken him aside and made him write like not a wanker? Or, alternatively, how come some sub-ed doesn't just beat the shit out of his bile until it resembles normal-people English? Or, best of all, taken him out back and put a .22 between his eyes? This is a dude who is literally paid hundreds of thousands of dollars just to put some half-formed opinions onto a page in readable form and he still fucks it up. Come on. How many investigative journos could you afford not to fire if he just fell down the stairs one day?
Secondly, either way George Will is completely wrong, and being unbelievably offensive. No biggie.
-
Two points: due to his atrocious style, it's always difficult to be sure whatever the fuck George Will is yabbering about at any given moment. It's hardly our fault if ole' George writes to be misunderstood and nails his mark dead centre. A side point: why hasn't some editor taken him aside and made him write like not a wanker? Or, alternatively, how come some sub-ed doesn't just beat the shit out of his bile until it resembles normal-people English? Or, best of all, taken him out back and put a .22 between his eyes? This is a dude who is literally paid hundreds of thousands of dollars just to put some half-formed opinions onto a page in readable form and he still fucks it up. Come on. How many investigative journos could you afford not to fire if he just fell down the stairs one day?
Secondly, either way George Will is completely wrong, and being unbelievably offensive. No biggie.
Sure, the argument is poorly made. Still, I prefer it when people are criticised for what they actually said rather than some other thing.
I honestly had no idea who he was before this incident, so I cannot comment re: putting a .22 between his eyes. I'll take your word for it.
So less offensive in the same way saying "I hate black people" is less offensive than saying "I hate niggers".
I realise you're not actually asking for a response here, but: not really. Both those statements express the same idea, the only difference in offensiveness being choice of words. I hold that there is a meaningful difference in between what George said and what he was accused of saying, one of those statements is much more powerful outrage fuel than the other*, and the difference relies on content rather than word choice.
And that's more time than I expected to spend today discussing the various amounts of offensiveness of the poorly-made statements of this guy.
*And since this is the internet, that's the one that gets a hashtag.
-
I meant that while one statement is less offensive than the other, both statements are still ludicrously offensive. ( gas all Jews v. Gas some Jews )
Also, besides UP, everyone, including twitter, understands what he said.
To be honest, I have no fucking clue what he said, only that it was offensive.