Because it’s just self-satisfied virtue signaling.
Nah, I don’t need someone to “correct” a Jewish director’s near 40-year-old, Nazi punching homage to 1930’s adventure serials. The movies are fine. They’re fun.
It’s okay to just enjoy stupid, fun shit without breathlessly signaling how unproblematic you are.
Thank you.
Nah. We can still have the Nazi punching and shit. But essentially she kinda talks to her great gramps, and when she brings to him what happened, Indy realizes “Oh wow. I didn’t know I did that much harm. If you want, you can fix my mistakes. Thank you.”
And then her hijinks ensue with companions of thembo AMAB who she’s been close to for 7 years, token cishet boy who funds this expedition purely for adventure and is on thin ice, and another one of the girls who’s randomly culturally versed and autism coded with her special interests.
He. Did. No. Harm!
And fuck off with that crap in the second paragraph. The virtue signal is blinding.
You’re just mad at the idea of good writing that doesn’t glorify appropriating ancient shit
You think slapping a bunch of labels ob cardboard is good writing.
Ancient shit from already dead people and civilizations would be getting destroyed right this second if it wasn’t in a museum. Ask the taliban how they’re doing.
There’s another thread telling about how Indie actually doesn’t steal from anyone and the last movie was explicitly RETURNING the ancient shit.
First movie: Fertility Statue from long dead civilization that even the locals didn’t know about. Also, the Arc, which no person should have, ever.
Second movie: returnes the sacred stones to the people who worship them
Third movie: becomes worthy of the grail, therefore owning it officially, and even leaving it behind once he didn’t need it anymore
Fourth movie: literally about returning the skull.
You certainly sound heated over a movie concept with a colourful cast.
Have you considered not getting so pissy over someone else’s ideas of entertainment? I mean, it’s not like we’re asking for a Hallmark movie, another movie about some stupid sport like football, or some half-baked feel good family movie with zero plot.
Or do you just hate the idea of diversity in movies and entertainment adjusting to the modern day’s awareness of things like some overly sensitive status quo tool?
Have you considered actually watching and understanding movies before complaining about how problematic they are and that “insert woke here” has to self-righteously fix them?
By all means, make a movie, but don’t use it to discredit and devalue an already existing franchise. And you are exactly asking for that. Make a new franchise or stay true to the original.
Funny how you dropped the argument on the previous movies in favor of “just let us have fun”. Well, you can have fun on the fanfiction site of your choice, but leave the canon alone.
To add to this:No one would have an issue with a female archeologist and a colorful cast that dowork to recover ancient artifacts and restore them to their rightful place, possibly fighting Nazis on the way. I daresay it’s a great premise for a movie, hell it’s an even better premise premise for a TV series that could go for several seasons.
But the moment you say ‘…And fixing this series!’ is when people are going to defend the original series and your idea is revealed not as something fun and exciting for you, but as yet another weapon to tear down something beloved by all.
What’s infuriating about OPs post is the insinuation that Indiana Jones would never do that of his own accord when in reality
Indiana Jones and the temple of Doom the second movie in the series stats out with Dr. Jones giving the remains of a Chinese emperor to a Chinese business man Shanghai in exchange for a large diamond which has no cultural relevance. And the movie ends with Indiana Jones bringing the stone that the Thuggie cult stole from the Indian village along with all of their kidnapped children
Yeah, that will help. School shooters will check in by phone first… Dumbasses. Allow staff to carry. Get rid of gun free zones
No. Wrong. There is way too much about that idea that doesn’t work and isn’t helpful. We’re talking about institutes of learning for children, not warzones.
…not warzones…. Someone needs to let the nut jobs doing the shootings know that. This is what amazes me about you people, your complete inability to accept reality over your ideas of utopia. It worked before you made schools gun free zones. It works were they are allowed to carry now. The only place it doesn’t work is were people like you say it won’t and they get shot up…. Ridiculous.
I am in the middle of writing a piece on this but instead of waiting for that to be finished I will ask you to please then explain the fact that after private citizens were banned from buying dynamite because of the Bath school bombing in 1928, there have not been any more school bombings.
Yeah, that will help. School shooters will check in by phone first… Dumbasses. Allow staff to carry. Get rid of gun free zones
No. Wrong. There is way too much about that idea that doesn’t work and isn’t helpful. We’re talking about institutes of learning for children, not warzones.
If you are going to say that maybe The Left needs to ease up and increase police funding then for those of us who don’t have the brain of a goldfish you should include some measures to ensure that the police are under civilian control.
We’re way up on murders. Even the Vox article celebrating a reduction in the number of police kills admits that there were way more murders than the police kills were reduced by.
If I make no change to the police rules and simply get rid of the Progressive DAs who let so many violent guys roam the streets that they had to invent #StopAsianHate to cover it up and conflate 55 incidents of Trump being rude with violent assault, then I’ll come out ahead on the total number of deaths.
And we could change the police rules, but the problem is that it won’t change the underlying difference in the crime rates. And since it won’t change the underlying difference in crime rates, and it’s impossible to get perfect police performance, we’ll still have left-wing claims that police are “racist” and pressure regardless.
I feel like expanding on that conflation today.
In nominally serious sources, for example TIME Magazine, we see this sort of j*urnalism: (bold mine)
As we continue to witness violence against Asian Americans–including, in the past month, the punching of a Bay Area father pushing his baby in a stroller; the assault on two women with a cement block in a Baltimore liquor store; and the stabbing of two women, ages 85 and 65, at a bus stop in San Francisco–my social media feeds are frequently filled with messages imploring people to recognize and challenge anti-Asian racism.
It’s clear why, as many are apparently unaware. A recent survey found that 37% of white Americans had not even heard about the spike in attacks on Asian Americans (with 42% of respondents unable to name a single prominent Asian American). Another survey revealed that Asian women were targeted in 65% of incidents in which the victim’s gender was reported, and when demographic information was available, a majority of perpetrators were reported to be white and male.
The “another survey” points to a PDF from a professional-looking organization calling itself the Virulent Hate Project. It’s off to a bad start from page 1:
Youreviewed news articles? That’s going to get you trends in media coverage, you buffoons, not trends in anti-Asian racism. You should know this.
I have legitimately no idea how one can make a long post and somehow still get information on the article wrong. It’s quite… remarkable in many ways. None of them good. Well, at least I’m going to assume that there’s some kind of misinterpretation here. The alternative would be bad faith. This is going to be very long because it’s a response to something that was already pretty long. However, I’ll include a shorter TL;DR as well.
TL;DR: This post can be broken into several component parts:
There is no evidence that using news articles is a bad way to get the data, and you do not provide any reasoning. It’s an unstated assumption that needs to be proven
There is no bait and switch. Virulent Hate Project claims to be about Asian racism, is used in a two-part claim about racism against Asians, and the survey report is about anti-Asian racism
The Virulent Hate Project breaks down its data into both harassment incidents and political incidents. It then provides the raw data for each in every stage of the survey report. It doesn’t attempt to combine the two save in counting overall numbers of incidents
The political statements being racist need to be taken in the context in which the statements were said. Context is key. In the context of the Coronavirus pandemic, calling something the “China virus” or the “Wuhan virus” or the “Kung-flu” is different than in other contexts and can be interpreted differently
I encourage everyone to read the original “read more” as I’ve decided largely not to quote directly so as not to make this any longer. Once everyone is familiar with the arguments, we can begin.
First, the Virulent Hate Project (VHP) survey is one of several surveys/ studies that are sourced in the Time article (here is another from LAAUNCH for example with entirely different methodology and somewhat similar conclusions). To conflate the entire article, which is fairly well-sourced with just this one survey is misleading. However, the main problem with your post isn’t in its conflation to the Time article (and therefore to journalism as a whole), but rather its critique of the source itself.
You claim that reviewing news articles is going to get you trends in news coverage rather than racism proper. This is correct as an inherent matter–that is to say that reviewing news articles about racist incidents will obviously give you information about news coverage of said incidents. However, you fail to prove the second portion of your statement–namely that information about news reporting around racism is not going to give accurate information about the prevalence of that racism. In order to make this argument in a way that will actually help your point, you would need to argue that incidents of racism are either over or under reported on by the media. You don’t do this here (though you do implicitly do this later with over-reporting). Therefore, this argument is currently incomplete. We’ll come back to it as we continue through the post. But I’m sorry to say that it’s not going to get any more right as we continue on either.
You next make the claim that the VHP is engaging in a bait and switch in going from incidents of pure physical harassment, which are “relatively important”, to incidents of (1) harassment and (2) stigmatizing statements made by politicians/ stigmatizing policies against Asians, which are (presumably) less relatively important, before collecting demographic information. This is patently untrue. The VHP in its methodology section explains that it grouped the kind of hate it was analyzing into two broader categories: (1) harassment and vandalism, and (2) stigmatizing and discriminatory statements, images, policies, and proposals. So, there is no bait and switch by the VHP unless the bait and switch has occurred before the analysis (i.e. the VHP says this report is about something that it’s not, or the report was originally designed to be about something that was not covered here). Let’s look at that possibility, shall we?
The TIME article is about anti-Asian racism. The citation to the VHP is claiming that (1) Asian women were targeted in 65% of situations in which the victims gender was reported, which gels with the data, and that (2) offenders tended to be white when the offender’s race was reported. So first, I think we need to dismiss the argument that there’s any kind of bait and switch going on with the topic. The VHP was meant to discuss anti-Asian racism, and it’s pretty clear that it does that because I don’t think that “racism” is limited to just acts of physical violence or harassment. That being said, we still need to determine if claims (1) and (2) are supported by the survey. You don’t really talk about claim (1) at all, so I am going to assume that you either agree with the claim or are willing to assume it’s true. So, we’re done with that one. You also don’t really directly address claim (2) as such, but it’s clearly relevant to the rest of your post, so we’re going to be primarily focusing on that from here on.
However, I would personally think it is a bit of a stretch to call a project focusing on anti-Asian racism that clearly focuses on anti-Asian racism releasing a report dealing with anti-Asian racism being potentially misquoted by a publication, or perhaps skewing their data as a bait and switch. In the former case, it’s a knock on TIME and its journalism. In the latter, it’s bad faith by the VHP. Neither is really a bait and switch. If it’s bad faith, it’s more just flat-out lying. Thankfully, neither appears to be the case as we will see later.
Your post then explains that the VHP reduces their list of 1,023 incidents of anti-Asian racism to a mere 183 incidents in which demographic information about the perpetrator was reported. You then further point-out that 55+ of these incidents came from Donald Trump and other politicians and this reduces the validity of the data. This is perhaps correct, and is also pointed-out by the VHP. As in, the VHP continues to separate harassment and vandalism from the political statements/ policies that you are discussing. In the report itself on p. 15-16 breaks down the race of the perpetrator (where reported) in incidents of harassment and vandalism (in all of its component subcategories). I don’t know if you missed that, or just did not think it’s important, but in every single subcategory most of the harassment was performed by white people. Seeing as these numbers are offered as a refutation to the common claim that anti-Asian racism is being driven by black hostility, this is a pretty big mark against that and a valid use of the data.
It seems like you either (1) didn’t see/understand this data and therefore assumed that the data was being corrupted/skewed by the political data, or (2) ignored this data because you deemed it to be irrelevant and instead focused on the political data as it helped with your point. I don’t know which of these happened, but it’s clear one of them did. Both of them are wrong, but for different reasons.
Also, we can now fully evaluate claim (2) that the offender’s race tended to be white when it was reported. Seeing as the VHP fully admits that due to the lower data sample results might be skewed, and offers those results as a data point against common theories (that seem to be based on a misconception), and further seeing as the TIME article seems to basically quote the VHP directly, I can’t really find fault with claim (2). So, this completely ends any possibility of a “bait and switch” here.
And now we circle back to the implicit claim about over and under reporting. You make the, again mostly unsupported, claim that the survey was supposed to be about violence and has now pivoted to discussing Trump tweets because Trump is more visible and therefore easier to count. However, based on the fact that VHP has continued to count incidents of harassment, and that these incidents of harassment also support the conclusions, this is flawed. Furthermore, even in the abstract in the survey that you quoted it doesn’t say that the survey is about violence. It says it’s about racism. Would you say that the President of the United States using racially charged language does not fall into the category of racism?
Perhaps you might seeing as you make an unexplained implicit point about how location-based disease names are common. This is a misleading point. Whether or not the location-related name is offensive depends on the context both of the statements and around the statements. For example, let’s take Rocky-Mountain Spotted Fever, or RMSF. No one would say that calling a disease “Rocky-Mountain Spotted Fever” is offensive to anyone. But that’s more because of the context around the name than the name itself.
Let’s say Rocky-Mountain Spotted Fever becomes more common. People who lived in the Rocky-Mountain region began to be profiled as potential carriers of the disease. There is an increase in acts of harassment (either verbal or physical) against people who have lived, or who are suspected to have lived, in the Rocky Mountains. Rocky Mountain dwellers’ shops are vandalized, they are ostracized socially and told to go back to the Rockies and stop making everything unclean around them. Politicians begin talking about how it is those who lived in the Rocky Mountain’s fault that Rocky-Mountain Spotted Fever has spread and begin calling for the Rocky Mountain states to “take responsibility” for the fever and “apologize” to the rest of the country and the world for spreading it. This is recognized as a problem by the scientific community (and most media sources) who begin to use the acronym RMSF as opposed to calling the disease Rocky-Mountain Spotted Fever (or who change the name of the disease completely into “Wood Dog Tick Spotted Fever” or something like that. The new name really doesn’t matter here). In that context, a politician not from the Rocky Mountains who is completely and totally aware of this situation either through actual or constructive knowledge decides to not only call the disease “Rocky-Mountain Spotted Fever” but also “Colorado fever” and “Rocky fever.” In that context, don’t you think that the people from the Rocky Mountain region would have at least a little right to be concerned about that politician? What if that politician was the President of the United States? Do you not see how that could be a little isolating? Do you not see how that choice of language could conceivably either indicate the prejudices of the speaker, or at the very least indicate society’s acceptance of those prejudices?
This is the scenario that Asian people are in when it comes to calling COVID-19 or the coronavirus the “China Flu” or the “Wuhan Flu” or the “Kung-Flu” (something that is not a location based disease name and wholly inappropriate, though perhaps a funny pun in a joking context). All of those terms (well, maybe not Kung-Flu) would be fine in isolation. But when the name of the disease is COVID-19, and you call it something else that seems to signal its connections to Asians in the above context, I think it is at the very least fair to question your motives for why you are doing so, and to have one of those underlying reasons be racism/prejudice. Especially a person who has repeatedly and unabashedly blamed China for causing COVID-19. So, in context I think it’s totally appropriate for VHP to decide that this is racism and report on it as such. Even if it’s not Trump’s own racism, it’s certainly a societal acceptance of some prejudices given the context of the statements.
Oh, and ignoring the context of the statements is also kind of a sign of prejudice. And before you accuse me of trying to Kafkatrap you, consider that the statement “those Jews are dirty” has a different meaning when said by a mother looking at a group of muddy children and a speaker at a white supremacist rally. Context is very important.
You then make the erroneous claim that VHP doesn’t count demographic information in other areas. This is wrong. If you read the report, they count the demographic data in all categories and even separate that data by subcategory. So, if you want to discard all of the political data, you absolutely can and are even provided with the means to do so. Doing so also does not change the conclusion (namely that white people are more likely to be the offender than any other race), and does not damage the use of the data against the misconception that racism against Asians is coming predominantly from black animosity.
All-in-all, this was a misguided attempt at criticism of the source. It seems like you got caught up trying to make data fit a narrative as opposed to correcting a narrative based on the data. That’s ideology. Not logic. Common misconception on this website. However, that does not make it correct. If you’re going to criticize something make sure you read it. And if you read something make sure you understand it before you try to criticize. Otherwise, you just make arguments that are rebutted by the very thing you’re trying to attack.
Breath play is fine so long as its done safely which is what this is about… Unless you want people to have dangerous uninformed sex?
Translation:choking a woman is safe because I’m the one doing it….you can’t stop me from attempting to murder my girlfriend so you should teach us how to batter women properly
Hey Western men you are exactly like the Muslim men you disdain
@such-justice-wow telling people that choking is safe is encourage “dangerous, uninformed sex”.
I didn’t say it was safe I said if it was done safely
The words are literally right there
Radfems can’t read
You know the annoying part is every time I see radfems say this shit I know it’s because they more than likely have skeletons in their closet
What are you implying?
That usually when radfems try to police the sexual acts other women like it’s usually because they wanna seem morally superior when they are into the same thing or possibly something stranger not to mention that an I might blow your mind with this but lesbians enjoy bdsm an choke play too and hold on an get ready here but there are gals called dominatrix’s and a thing called femdom so in your attempts to claim men are some evil sexually violent force you seem to forget it’s a fetish that anyone can have be they man or woman an the original tweet that is up there being replied to by a known terf talks about how to be safe while enjoying a fetish you may not like but those people do an they wanna be safe about it
Silence rapist
That usually when radfems try to police the sexual acts other women like it’s usually because they wanna seem morally superior when they are into the same thing or possibly something stranger
This is a pretty stupid argument. Let’s say it’s true: we all like being strangled during sex. This means it’s wrong for us to inform other women of the dangers because…why? Exactly? It’s like saying a mother is wrong for telling her daughter that her boyfriend is bad news because she’s with an abusive man herself. You can want other people not to get hurt even if you can’t extend that compassion to yourself. But I guess these people are of the “If I’m suffering, so must everyone else” variety. Not at all surprising.
@such-justice-wow there is no way to safely choke someone. Its not safe period therfore its also not sane
There are. Not breathing for a few seconds won’t kill you. The article in that tweet is literally about this kind of thing and what you can do to make it safe.
Thats not actually true. It takes a small amount of pressure to crush a windpipe and a few seconds of air/ blood loss to the brain to cause irreversible brain damage. Stop lieing to people (which totally takes the consent out of it) just because you think hurting women is sexy. No sane person will ever want to hurt their partner.
Brain cells don’t start dying until several minutes of oxygen deprevation and not breathing for a few seconds won’t cause this because you still have oxygen in your blood.
If that was the case way more people would die from trying to hold their breath for 30 seconds to see if they could.
As for the windpipe crushing that’s down to hand placement and strength which can be learnt to be avoided and should be before you attempt any kind of breathe play.
Also again with the gendering. I’m a woman. I have consensual sex which is frankly none of your buisness and you have no place to tell me how I can have sex.
Calling kinky sex insane is so fucking stupid and demeaning to the men and women who consensually have sex and incredibly infantilising towards adults who are able to make their own informed decisions.
People self harm for all sorts of reasons. What part of putting your Sexual partner in danger from dieing is kinky? A little butt spank sure. But men are out there killing women and then being like woopsie she liked it rough and i went a little to far. That is not ok and its not sexy. You say informed yet plug your ears and scream prude. Chokeing is abuse https://www.biausa.org/public-affairs/media/strangulation-domestic-violence-and-brain-injury-an-introduction-to-a-complex-topic someone finding abuse to be a turn on should be a giant red flag. And news flash this aint just about you. And it aint about your bedroom if you are actively spreading misinformation thats gonna get women killed and help men get away with it.
If someone beats someone to death with a golf club that doesn’t make golfing homicide.
Disgusting people will use whatever they can to excuse that behaviour. This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Except there’s almost no bathwater.
You dont generally beat things with golfing clubs. But strangling itself is dangerous. The action isny safe and there is no actual safe way to deprive someone else of oxygen. Its dangerous and repeated strangulation leads to death 80% of the time. Its not a game. You are excuseing the behavior of strangulation. Especally when you say things like oh theres no bathwater when strangulation is the #1 intimate partner violence. You are the dispicable one hiding abuse under the guise of sexy fun and games so spare me your bulldhit pear clutching you are actively harming others with your misinformation. And actively defending violence.
Again you’re comparing things which aren’t comparable.
Stabbings and making a nice fruit salad both use knives but one is a crime and the other is cooking.
Also id really like to know where you got that 80% because that sounds absolutely ridiculous and severely unlikely for one of the most common kinks to be performed.
You are conflating abuse with consensual behaviours. Pay attention to what you are actually saying. You even admitted that spanking is fine. You can spank someone and cause damage of you’re strong enough and an absolute idiot about it.
I wonder what these feminists would think of men who like being choked
Considering Celty says women can’t rape at all, I’m guessing she’d ignore or deny those men’s existence.
Also, killing someone by accident isn’t murder, Walsh.
Ok, but why are you engaging in an activity that you KNOW could kill someone? In any other scenario, putting your hand around someone’s neck is felony assault. The only reason someone would actively do it is because they want to get off on pretending to kill someone. When did society get so twisted? I though sex was supposed to be an act of love. If someone is going to risk ending your life to get off then they don’t love you. They don’t even like you. They could not care less about you, or the family that is going to have to take care of you after brain damage. Pls everyone, act sane for once.
> In any other scenario, putting your hand around someone’s neck is felony assault.
Like many martial arts?
> The only reason someone would actively do it is because they want to get off on pretending to kill someone.
Or because the bottom is into it and specifically asked for it, as MC pointed out above. The person doing the choking doesn’t actually have to like it.
> I though sex was supposed to be an act of love. If someone is going to risk ending your life to get off then they don’t love you.
Or they love you and have very poor risk assessment.
Sex is also, often, an act of pleasure.
> They could not care less about you, or the family that is going to have to take care of you after brain damage.
You are making an awful lot of assumptions here, and none of them are correct. Why do you assume the choker is just going to leave if the chokee gets injured?
And I say this is someone who thinks this kind of thing is dangerous, and would never do it.
Nice try. Any kind of strike to or grabbing of the neck is banned in boxing, karate, mma, taekwondo, judo, and wrestling. If straight up combat sports consider strangulation to be too dangerous, that’s kind of all you need to know. These are sports where you can punch someone in the face and then pin them to the ground. Yet they consider a strike to the neck as going too far. By choking a partner, you are being even more violent towards them then would be allowed against an mma opponent. Please don’t talk about things you don’t understand.
People still die in martial arts even with all those rules.
Also, judo, you say?
Sure looks like he grabs the neck to me. Unless you meant a specific type of grip.
Your logic is like going “people aren’t supposed to drink while driving or operating heavy machinery, therefore nobody should drink at all, in any context whatseover.”
Also, good job addressing a single point, ignoring all the rest, and acting smug.
Yup. Chokes, totally banned in martial arts competitions and in no way so common you can find a dozen compilation videos of people winning matches with them in a couple of seconds.
This is bad from all sides and all angles.
TL;DR: Breath play is common but inherently dangerous. That does not mean that it can never be done safely, but it does mean that it can never be entirely safe. The article in question actually agrees with this point. MMA/martial arts comparisons are weird, but there are chokes (mostly blood chokes) in MMA/martial arts. However, directed strikes to the throat are banned under the unified rules of MMA and in most martial arts competitions. Likewise, a head/neck throw are not the same as an attack on the neck, and furthermore an MMA fight really isn’t comparable to a breath play scenario.
First, yes breath play is a common kink. However, as the article itself says, there is no entirely safe way to perform breath play. If you participate in breath play you are always putting yourself in a position in which you can harm or even kill your partner. It doesn’t matter if you deprive them of oxygen for 10 seconds, 30 seconds, over 1 minute or if you’re shooting for the Guinness Book of World Records for holding your breath–depriving someone of oxygen is depriving someone of oxygen. Commonness does not mean that it is ever fully safe which is unique among common kinks. Instead, proper breath play focuses on risk mitigation to bring that chance of harm or death as low as possible.
But unlike other forms of kink, if you’re doing any kind of choking whatsoever, it will never be zero. In fact, the article in question actually recommends a form of breath play in which one partner holds their breath and the other tells them when they are allowed to breathe again (while the partner holding their breath may of course breathe earlier if they need to). This sort of “breath play” is perhaps the only real way to do it entirely safely; however, I would argue that this barely (if at all) qualifies as breath play. Otherwise, any kind of breath play takes one immediately out of Safe Sane and Consensual (SSC, or fully safe kink) into the realm of Risk Aware Consensual Kink (RACK or risk-mitigated kink). That is substantial and deserves more play than some of the pro-breath play people are giving it in this post.
However, just as RACK implies, not all types of breath play are created equal in terms of risk. For example, ligature strangulation, or any kind of strangulation in which the partners are not facing each other are more dangerous. That is not to say that they automatically result in death. That’s the wrong lesson to take from this. Rather, it just means that these types of play are more dangerous and therefore more likely to result in harm or death. That’s all. Anything else would be to overstep. It’s still possible to consent to these forms of play (and even to have them be done as safely as possible), but in my view that consent definitely needs to be risk-aware for it to really count.
Onto the argument (I guess?) about MMA and neck strikes and the like. Directed strikes to the throat are banned under the unified rules of MMA. So any kind of attack targeting the neck needs to be something other than a strike. That is not to say that one cannot touch someone’s neck. In fact, a rear naked choke, a very common finisher in MMA, is entirely predicated around using a blood choke by pushing someone’s head/neck into your arm and choking them until they tap or pass out. This is definitely a form of strangulation (though the real choke isn’t the lack of air but stopping the blood in the arteries even with the airway unobstructed, which is why it’s more of a blood choke) so any argument about a lack of strangulation is just incorrect. . Here’s an example of how to perform a rear naked choke from Bas Rutten.
However, there are no submission holds that I have seen in MMA (or most forms of competitive martial arts) that have any kind of manual strangulation like you’d see in a horror movie (or in most breath play). So, that’s a valid point as well. Likewise, in MMA, there is a referee who is specifically supposed to watch for and break-up submissions once the opposing fighter has tapped or passed out. This isn’t typically the case in most breath play scenarios, so I wouldn’t necessarily compare the two.
Oh, and neck throws are more like headlocks than any kind of gripping around the neck. If you watch how the judo throw is done, the grip is actually on the opponent’s gi rather than on their neck. So, any throw using the neck/head doesn’t really seem to have any attack on the neck or choke added to it. Therefore, I don’t think that’s the best rebuttal to the idea that directed throat strikes and attacking the neck are banned/limited in many martial arts (which is in fact true).
Honestly, I don’t have any positive or negative feelings toward the article in question. And I wouldn’t necessarily discourage people from participating in breath play so long as they know the risks. However, they absolutely need to know those risks, and to know that there’s no way to eliminate them entirely if there’s going to be any strangulation involved.
I think pedophiles, rapists and male murderers should be executed
no i am not taking suggestions
I was going to ask why not female murderers but the tags say it all, don’t they?
I’d also ask about female rapists and pedophiles, but something tells me OP will just pretend those don’t exist.
because most female murderers are acting in self-defence. most male murderers are not at all. why are y’all this pressed over someone wanting rapists & pedos dead tho?
“Most”. Debatable, but let’s roll with it.
What about the others?
what others?
The other female murderers. The ones that don’t do it out of self-defense. Even though self-defense ISN’T murder.
women who kill in self defence are still prosecuted for murder a huge portion of the time, bc to get away from abusers they often need to find a moment when said abuser is for example sleeping, which is not recognised by most courts as self defence, despite it being so.
and what about the other female murderers? i said nothing on them. i only theorised why op probably specified with male murderers, but didn’t specify with rapists nor pedophilea. op probably didn’t want to wish death on female murderers as a group when a large portion of them have been found, time and time again, to have been acting in self defence.
That’s bullshit
it’s not. already provided evidence months back which you can find in the notes :). but since u felt the need to bring this up months later instead of scrolling a little in the notes to find the sources:
these sources prove the following: a huge portion of female murderers do so in self defence.
there is little consideration in court for female self defence due to the difference in how women defend themselves and the chances they get to do so.
and women are often convicted despite it being self defence.
> bc to get away from abusers they often need to find a moment when said abuser is for example sleeping, which is not recognised by most courts as self defence, despite it being so.
Yes, killing someone who is not presenting an imminent deadly threat and physically can’t keep you from leaving or assault you in any way is generally not considered self-defense.
This is the equivalent of that lady in Chicago going
>these sources prove the following: a huge portion of female murderers do so in self defence.
Which links, specifically, do that? To choose at random, that Irish women’s aid one doesn’t seem to have any sources, except themselves, and that “Femicide watch” PDF starts by implying men can’t kill women in self-defense, ever. And also that men are the only people who kill women worth talking about.
As if the title wasn’t a hint of bias. The term and usage “femicide’ implies any woman murdered by a man must’ve been killed out of misogyny, which is not how murder works. It also claims;
“ A review of Femicide by the World Health Organisation (WHO), found that an intimate partner commits more than 35% of murders of women worldwide. In comparison, the same study estimates that an intimate partner commits about 5% of all murders of men. The same report also showed that women killing their male intimate partners was often an act of self-defence following ongoing violence and intimidation.”
Okay. And how many of those women are convicted or even accused of murder, specifically? Or charged at all. Doesn’t say, and I can’t be arsed to look up a third study, which will probably be just as biased as the rest.
I also can’t seem to find the part in your link - the “Impact Report” - where they claim women are incorrectly sentenced for self-defense. Which would be a tad hypocritical when Page 5 says intimate relationships should be considered aggravating factors for men who are charged.
Also, have you ever heard of a Gish Gallop?
Also, I like how you backpedalled to “i only theorised why op probablyspecified”, even though your first post was a direct, unequivocal statement with no qualifiers.
You also backpedalled from “most female murderers” to “a huge portion”, which is much less specific. And it would still include “most”.
To me, it seemed pretty obvious OP wasn’t talking about legal criteria, because pedophilia is not illegal. That would be thoughtcrime. You have to actually dosomething with those desires to go to jail.
So, it’s very obvious to me that SYABM and others who are reblogging this don’t understand Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS) and the associated legal arguments. I covered most of this in an earlier response to this post here, but I’ll restate the prevalent parts again after quoting.
Yes, killing someone who is not presenting an imminent deadly threat and physically can’t keep you from leaving or assault you in any way is generally not considered self-defense.
Right. No one is disagreeing with this. This isn’t a response. Menalez and many others recognize that this is a fact. Their argument is that it shouldn’t be. Yours an implied “it should be” but just stating the facts as everyone accepts them is not an appropriate response to the contention that the facts shouldn’t be true. That’s like responding to someone saying “you should have used more salt” with “but I didn’t.” You’re dodging the question and saying things that everyone agrees on.
Now, onto the actual contentions. As I summarized in my post, and as you stated here, the current standards for self-defense usually don’t cover most instances of BWS. I think that’s a mistake. Some instances of BWS look like State v. Norman where a woman endured repeated abuse from her husband over years including (but horrifyingly not limited to): Punching, kicking, having cigarettes put out on her, facial scarring and disfigurement, having hot coffee thrown at her naked body, having glass broken against her face, forced prostitution for money (her husband did not want to work), humiliation of the defendant to her family and friends, food deprivation for days, sleep deprivation for weeks, etc. Now forgive me, but I think a woman snapping after 20 years of this treatment and killing her husband is a little different than someone murdering a business partner or a complete stranger in cold blood.
However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina disagreed. he court held that despite the horrible abuse that the defendant endured, and the distinct possibility that had her husband lived she would have been subjected to yet more horrible abuse, the fact that she shot her husband while he slept meant that there was no reasonable, objective fear of imminent harm. Mere subjective belief from the defendant of the inevitability of future acts, regardless of the strength of evidence to support these conclusions was insufficient. And while the defendant’s abuse was terrible, and there was abuse the day before the murder, there was no abuse in the period directly before her husband fell asleep. That seems like there’s a little bit of a weird standard there to me–possibly some sexism involved in how the legal system determines what is or is not “reasonable” in terms of self-defense–but you might disagree.
However, if you do, I want to hear why. Why is a woman who killed her husband in his sleep after being subjected to 20 years of what we would call a crime against humanity if inflicted on a broader population the same as a cold blooded murderer who premeditatedly kills a stranger because he or she wants to? Show your work.
As for the murder charge/conviction rate, I don’t know the actual number off the top of my head, but it’s pretty high. Self-defense usually means that there’s a murder charge, and if it’s a BWS case, the murder charge is even more likely because it means that the self-defense claim is itself conditional on the jury’s belief/ the veracity of the BWS claim. Which… is not super likely to be believed. According to April 2021 update to the American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, between 60-70% of women claiming BWS who are convicted are affirmed on appeal regardless of the convincingness of their expert testimony (Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 1 (originally published in 1983) (April, 2021 ed)). Plus, there are further issues with establishing BWS including the total number of events that need to occur before claiming BWS, limitations of self-defense claims even after BWS is proven, etc. It’s a very complicated area of the law. You clearly don’t understand it, which is fine, but it warrants a little more than just a couple paragraphs of dismissal.
And you only got to the impact report because you dismissed the first source (a seminal piece of legal scholarship) and the second source (a strong piece by the law firm Linklaters) to try and find a weaker source that you can attack. And you did it. That’s a bad source. Doesn’t prove your argument seeing as you have no source and have yet to respond to the first two sources which are better.
You’re using the claim of Gish Gallopping wrong as well. A Gish Gallop really doesn’t work in this kind of setting, and if it did would require more sources. Likewise, when someone is legitimately asked for sources and provides them, you can’t then turn-around and accuse them of a Gish Gallop in good faith. You (or at the very least your side) asked for the information. If you can’t be assed to read it then that’s on you. And that did happen. If you go through the notes, it happened quite a lotactually.
The first post actually does have a qualifier? The word “most” is a qualifier. Without it, it would refer to all female murderers. Now it’s just referring to “most” (which we’ll assume is some percentage over 50% but probably not up to 90%). By definition, the qualifier removes at least 10% of female murderers from discussion. Also, it’s entirely possible that Menalez doesn’t agree entirely with the OP–just as I don’t agree entirely with Menalez. We’re not talking about “all” female murderers like the OP said. We’re now talking about “most” female murderers. And personally, I wouldn’t classify “a large portion” as a retreat from “most” based on my reading of the sentence, but that’s subjective.
It’s fine to point out that Menalez doesn’t totally agree with the OP. That still doesn’t respond to her point. Maybe you don’t want to do that. Maybe you just want to respond to the easier claim that all female murderers are different from all male murderers. If so, then Menalez moved the goalposts. If not, and you actually want to respond to the points being raised, then the one moving the goalposts is you.
So, after literal years of people demanding bodycams, this organization is suddenly complaining about their use?
Also, how is this a “civil rights” issue? “Communities of color” (IE poor black neighbourhoods) are “disproportionately surveilled” because that’s where a lot of crime happens. Black people have a higher chance of being murdered than any other racial group. By other black people.
“ So, after literal years of people demanding bodycams, this organization is suddenly complaining about their use? “
What is “Reducto Ad Absurdum”?
They’re pointing out that the purpose of a Police’s Body Camera is to have an impartial objective record that can contradict a Police’s Written or Spoken statement, which is then used to confirm/deny whether or not that cop’s testimony is credible.
For example. before the police interrogate a prime suspect, they will carefully collect and review multiple forms of camera footage and eyewitness testimony.
They will NOT offer to show said footage or testimony to that suspect before interrogating them. This is so that the suspect freely present their own perspective, and if they then contradict any of said camera footage, then interrogators are then able to call them out on their lies, red-handed, and invalidate their testimony in a court of law.
These Viral videos from JCS are a great example of this technique at work:
When we allow cops free reign to review their own body camera footage before they give any written or spoken statements, we’re giving a dishonest cop the opportunity to cover their ass, and construct an airtight narrative, when they would otherwise provably lie to save their own skin.
I guess the Average Conservative can’t read above an 8th Grade level, and assumes this is some sort of contradiction, instead of basic police procedure… just applied to cops.
Which part of that Gish Gallop makes this a civil or constitutional rights issue? Or a racial one?
That’s a good fucking question. :/
I’m sorry but I still refuse to believe that we’re worse off having video evidence of these interactions than not. Maybe being able to review the camera before gives the police an advantage in interrogation or in the courtroom but they can’t change the objective reality of what’s going on in those videos. Let’s be honest, progressives pushed for these body cameras because they thought it would catch police misconduct or force a change in their behavior but the reality is more often than not it’s much more damning for the people they’re interacting with.
Oh good! The you effectively agree with the report in the article. The report isn’t claiming that it would be better not to have body cameras. It’s just discussing how body cameras alone, absent proper use policy, does not fix all of the problems with policing.
As you mentioned, being able to review the footage does give police an advantage, mostly in pre-trial, trial, and other assorted legal proceedings. Police reports are used as evidence of what the officer remembered/ the officer’s perception at the time of their action. Based on that perception, which is the only perceptions that matters for things like use of force where the standard is what the officer reasonably would have thought was appropriate given the circumstances, details that witnesses remember that the officer does not, or missing information can be used to impeach the credibility of the officer’s testimony. However, the ability to do that goes out the window if officers are allowed to review body camera footage before writing their official reports.
Furthermore, if officers are allowed to review footage before writing their official reports, they can include much more information than witnesses who are not afforded the same opportunity. That means that not only is it basically impossible to impeach the officer’s testimony based on the official report, but now that testimony might seem more reliable than would be warranted with the officer’s reflections without prompting. This is partially why police refuse to release body camera footage when specific actions are important–they don’t want to taint the witness’s own recollections with the information in the footage. The report is suggesting that this should apply to officers as well, and in most major police departments with body cameras it just… doesn’t. That’s all. Nothing more and nothing less.
And progressives (or at the very least most people who supported body cameras) never thought that the vast majorityof police interactions were misconduct. That would be ridiculous. Instead, the issue is that the majority of police misconduct is disproportionately done to POC and that POC are more likely to experience police misconduct. That’s the racial aspect here. The Constitutional aspect is about Fourth Amendment rights as well as just the general legal effects.
But, happy to hear that you disagreement with the report appears to stem more from misinformation and misunderstanding as opposed to actual substance. I’d recommend reading it. It’s pretty interesting.
So, after literal years of people demanding bodycams, this organization is suddenly complaining about their use?
Also, how is this a “civil rights” issue? “Communities of color” (IE poor black neighbourhoods) are “disproportionately surveilled” because that’s where a lot of crime happens. Black people have a higher chance of being murdered than any other racial group. By other black people.
“ So, after literal years of people demanding bodycams, this organization is suddenly complaining about their use? “
What is “Reducto Ad Absurdum”?
They’re pointing out that the purpose of a Police’s Body Camera is to have an impartial objective record that can contradict a Police’s Written or Spoken statement, which is then used to confirm/deny whether or not that cop’s testimony is credible.
For example. before the police interrogate a prime suspect, they will carefully collect and review multiple forms of camera footage and eyewitness testimony.
They will NOT offer to show said footage or testimony to that suspect before interrogating them. This is so that the suspect freely present their own perspective, and if they then contradict any of said camera footage, then interrogators are then able to call them out on their lies, red-handed, and invalidate their testimony in a court of law.
These Viral videos from JCS are a great example of this technique at work:
When we allow cops free reign to review their own body camera footage before they give any written or spoken statements, we’re giving a dishonest cop the opportunity to cover their ass, and construct an airtight narrative, when they would otherwise provably lie to save their own skin.
I guess the Average Conservative can’t read above an 8th Grade level, and assumes this is some sort of contradiction, instead of basic police procedure… just applied to cops.
Which part of that Gish Gallop makes this a civil or constitutional rights issue? Or a racial one?
…The part where it applies to people’s Fourth Amendment rights to not be unreasonable searched or seized (wherein an arrest constitutes a seizure)? The point of the report mentioned in the Newsweek article is that officer reports oftentimes serve as important evidence during pretrial, trial, appellate and post-conviction legal proceedings. I can actually attest to that. In working with the Innocence Project, I’ve dealt with a ton of official police reports as an evidentiary source for what a reporting officer knew (or claimed to have known) at the time compared to their trial testimony of what they swore under oath that they knew. If an important detail is left out of the officer’s official report, that lack of detail can be used to help impeach the officer’s credibility to the factfinder (i.e. the judge or jury) and to attack the testimony as less-credible.
The issue with body camera footage is that even if an officer did not notice a crucial detail at the time of their action (which is all that matters under the law in terms of police use of force. Whether or not the officer was reasonably in fear for his or her life at the time of the incident) they very well might notice it during the post-action review of body camera footage. If this happens before the officer writes the official report, the officer can add that detail that they observed through the body camera footage to the official report as something that they remembered from the incident itself. There would also be no real way to impeach this addition as the body camera footage would back-up the officer’s “recollection.” Basically, the idea of the report is that because the criminal justice system places such a premium on officer memory and the official reports as a source of evidence, officers should be required to write the official report before reviewing body camera footage in order to preserve the accuracy of the official report as a record of the officer’s recollections. I really don’t think it’s all that complicated to understand.
As for the racial aspect, I mean. It’s probably due to the fact that the current zeitgeist in criminal justice is calling out racial disparity based on disproportionate effects of police policy (e.g. because POC are more likely than white people based on population size to be arrested, any flaw in the criminal justice system is reflected ore substantially in those populations), but there are also studies and statistics that abuse of systems, and bad police practices are more likely to affect POC than white people. However, if you were to push-back and say “doesn’t this police practice affect everyone?” I don’t think that you’d get much of an argument from the authors of this study.
Also, where exactly is the Gish Gallop? There’s one source cited, and the argument itself is a direct response to the incredulity of your original post where you seemed exceptionally surprised that this organization, and other criminal justice reform organizations, aren’t supporting body cameras absent any kind of restrictive or restraining policy. The response is that it’s not the body cameras themselves that are a problem, but rather the policy around body cameras that is the problem. This organization does not want to get rid of body cameras. That would be hypocritical. Rather, this organization is calling attention to the fact that the mere addition of body cameras doesn’t solve all of the problems and can in fact create new problems (or reinforce old problems) if it’s not done correctly. It’s a call for better body camera implementation policy surrounding police reporting.
Pointing out that something that someone still supports has had unintentional consequences and lobbying to change the system to prevent those consequences is not shifting the goalposts in any way, shape, or form. Shifting the goalposts would be if the main goal of implementing body cameras was increased surveillance and the then was to claim “actually, we wanted to reduce discrimination against POC all along!” This is just a redefinition of the goal: The goal remains to provide greater police accountability and address bad police practices. There’s just another step to doing that based on the data from the report.
If you think that’s shifting the goalposts, then you’re either (1) engaging in bad faith here, (2) not understanding the argument, or (3) not understanding the fallacy. Pick your poison. But what you’re not doing is making a good argument. But you know that.
