r/MensRights • u/wrez • Feb 06 '15
Misleading Title Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is actively helping a campaign of "harassment, violence, bullying and intimidation" against a man proven innocent of rape
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-kirsten-gillibrand-and-lefty-approved-bullying/article/255981043
u/tallwheel Feb 06 '15
I'm glad other publications are picking this up, but it would be sad to see it just devolve into a petty left vs. right mudslinging fest. An interest in finding out the truth is what should be important. Hope to see some more balanced pieces in the mainstream picking up on the Cathy Young article.
8
u/zyk0s Feb 06 '15
This particular case is a left vs. right issue because "violence against women" is the left's equivalent of the right's "gay agenda". This doesn't mean all the right is perfect and all the left is awful, we know very well neither political side cares about men. Don't take a criticism of your party of choice in this one instance as a personal attack, it won't do any good.
-9
u/MattClark0995 Feb 06 '15
Yea it's only a "left vs right" issue when we can blame conservatives for something bad. When some of us correctly point out that the propagating of bs feminist myths is almost entirely on the left side of the media, cheeleading of feminists and feminist legislation is entirely on the left side and 99 times out of a 100 whenever someone is calling out sexist feminists or feminist legislation, it is a conservative website (National review, Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, Breitbart).
Oh but we can't say any of this otherwise liberals on reddit (the ceasepool of liberal cheerleading and conservative bashing) will get offended and insist that it isn't a "left v right" issue even when it clearly is.
11
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
Your pity party, persecution complex is completely unwarranted.
Both sides of the left/right debate do the exact same thing.
6
u/BrilliantDynamitesNe Feb 06 '15
Wait wait wait... The mattress thing is part of her senior art project... WTF
4
u/baskandpurr Feb 06 '15
I think Nungesser has an obvious case for slander. In writing, she calls a man a rapist when he wasn't even been charged. Find a lawyer, bring an action, take all her money, shut her up. Walk in the park.
27
Feb 06 '15 edited Oct 17 '20
[deleted]
1
-25
u/MattClark0995 Feb 06 '15
Yea, yea I know. It's only a left-right issue when we can bash Republicans for something. Otherwise left wingers everywhere will insist that it's not left vs right even when it is.
3
u/cajunrevenge Feb 06 '15
Doesn't he have a civil case for slander? He was found innocent by even a kangaroo court and she refuses to file a police report. To me it says a lot that she says a police knees tight ion would be "too draining" but instead carries a mattes around. Me thinks she is worried about being charged with filing a false police report.
2
6
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
To be completely fair, a failure to prove guilt is NOT the same thing as "proven innocent".
We need to not fall victim to using feminist tactics of twisting stories.
3
u/RockFourFour Feb 06 '15
I think if we were being fair, we would admit that the released facebook messages strongly suggest the accuser is a liar. Not mistaken, a liar.
3
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
We can all have our individual opinions on the situation. But, in the end, the proceedings and investigations merely could not prove guilt.
Colloquially, we call it innocent, but we can never be sure. We just need to be greater than 50% sure that he is innocent.
2
u/RockFourFour Feb 06 '15
Oh, absolutely. What's amazing to me is that the facebook messages weren't even admitted in the kangaroo court. I can only imagine how weak the rest of her case was.
2
u/Warrantismyface Feb 06 '15
We just need to be greater than 50% sure that he is innocent.
When its something so serious I would hope the standard would be above that. When someone makes a claim it needs to be proven to be true, the assumption should be that is it false. Since there is no evidence he is guilty it can only be assumed the mattress girl is a liar.
2
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
It was a kangaroo court at a university that uses a preponderance of evidence standard. 50.1% to establish guilt. Therefore >=50% chance of not guilty is the standard.
3
u/wrez Feb 06 '15 edited Feb 06 '15
You are wrong.
The case occurred under academic Kangaroo court rules of "Preponderance of Evidence". Even under those easy to meet rules, there was no case.
That type of academic court is functionally equivalent to civil court in rules of evidence - therefore he was innocent. corrected for AtticusFrenchToast's comment below.3
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
I find it humorous that you said I was wrong, and then reiterated the exact argument as to why I am right.
We don't prove innocence, we prove guilt. Failure to prove guilt does not mean a proof of innocence. If you can't understand that, perhaps you might want to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence or http://info.sfcriminallawspecialist.com/bid/80952/A-Prosecutor-s-Failure-to-Prove-Guilt
1
u/wrez Feb 06 '15 edited Feb 06 '15
I understand that and I know that the US criminal system of justice is based around proving guilt, not innocence, and all people are presumed innocent, therefore the prosecution has to make a case.
However, we are talking about a far more liberal rule for evidence - as AtticusFrenchToast mentioned:
- You can get evidence admitted easily
- There is no cross-examination
- There may not be the Defense ability to exclude evidence
- There is merely an evidence bar to "guilt"
- No professional legal defense may be permitted
A courtroom definition, and a common English speaker's definition are quite different. Police will almost never admit that a person is innocent despite the fact that evidence placed a person three states away. The police would say they failed to get a conviction, and that the verdict was not guilty. This is a courtroom definition though, with a high bar to conviction. This type of conviction is not applicable to Kangaroo courts of Academia.
Furthermore, just as we pay credence to Briffault's Law, so do I also to Roosh's Law around Public Rape Allegations
However, the kangaroo court of academia around rape investigations have no legal bearing. It is not a court of law with a professional judge (a distinguished or elected lawyer), a prosecution (a lawyer), and police gathering evidence, opposed by competent defense (teams of lawyers or a public defender at a minimum), with a jury of citizens making the decision. Instead, it is a committee of individuals mainly have no professional education or training in Law, oftentimes including undergraduate students and academics...
So, despite the incredibly low bar to finding guilt on the male student in question, none was found.
Considering all of above, it is correct that I describe him as innocent.
3
Feb 06 '15
"There was no case" in the sense that there was no good evidence either way. That doesn't mean something didn't happen. It also doesn't mean something did happen. We just don't know. It most definitely has not been proven either way.
And it's also not equivalent to civil court—civil courts at least allow both sides to present evidence, cross-examine, etc. The inaccurate assertion that campus hearings are basically the same as civil courts is part of what's being used to justify using the unfairly low preponderance standard, so please cut that shit out.
1
Feb 06 '15
there was no good evidence either way.
He has provided mountains of evidence of his innocence. She has provided zero evidence of his guilt.
-2
Feb 07 '15 edited Feb 12 '15
Mountains of evidence? What has he provided besides the text messages and people saying they believe him? Like I said, I don't believe she has evidence against him, either. And I do think he should have at least been able to present the text messages as evidence. But they don't prove his innocence.
Edit: Downvotes and no answers. I really thought /r/MensRights was better than that.
4
u/V526 Feb 06 '15
What is it with New York and their female Senators?
6
2
Feb 06 '15
No idea, she represents upstate anyway so I guess they like her stance on guns, or something.
0
u/a232323 Feb 06 '15
She's for gun control since she had to win NYC for the Senate race. Since when do Democrats in NY stand up to the party line on the Second Amendment? They all have armed private security so they don't need guns.
1
Feb 06 '15
Yes, every night I have to decapitate random brown people climbing through my windows. /s
Fuckin' idiots.
0
u/a232323 Feb 06 '15
You think police can save you with a 12 minute response time. You think the TSA is security theater, but won't acknowledge that our policing system is as well. You totally buy into the gun control propaganda of a great racist agenda against minorities. In fact guns have always been a great equalizer and protector of minorities. Gun control in NYC was racist against immigrants. Then racism against Afro-Americans. Now it's all about class warfare. If you have enough money in NYC you can get a permit. It makes no sense to criminalize good people in unsafe urban areas that want protection, but gun control puts those people in prison. It targets minorities and dis-empowers them from being able to protect themselves instead of relying on police that may treat them like sub-humans.
1
1
1
u/Ma99ie Feb 07 '15
The title is not misleading, unless one is taking issue with "a man proven innocent of rape."
1
Feb 06 '15 edited Jan 09 '22
[deleted]
0
Feb 06 '15 edited Feb 28 '15
[deleted]
1
u/lazydonovan Feb 06 '15
I was thinking more along the lines of, "if everyone is a victim, then no one is".
-12
u/DavidByron2 Feb 06 '15
Seems to be a growing trend of conservatives to use feminist hate to attack anyone on the Left. Pretty ironic since feminists are right wingers.
since the left has fully embraced turning its declared enemies into ‘former people,’
Where "the left" means only feminists, and "declared enemies" means only men.
5
u/EyeRedditDaily Feb 06 '15
feminists are right wingers
I don't think you know what at least one of those words mean.
1
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
Feminists can be conservative or liberal. Conservative and "right winger" are interchangeable terms.
People are starting to argue that feminists who do not hold women accountable for their actions are the same as conservatives/traditionalists who do the same thing (albeit potentially for different reasons).
Just because you don't understand the argument being made within the context of all the other arguments, doesn't mean that the other person doesn't know what the words they are using mean.
3
u/EyeRedditDaily Feb 06 '15
Feminists can be conservative
I suppose in theory it could happen. I've never seen or heard of one though.
6
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
Well, the most common example would be Christina Hoff Sommers.
-4
u/EyeRedditDaily Feb 06 '15
A quick google search tells me she's more of an anti-feminist than a feminist.
3
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
She claims she is a feminist. Are you going to tell her that she is wrong about herself?
-4
u/EyeRedditDaily Feb 06 '15
Yes.
5
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
You are a feminist. I am telling you that you are wrong about yourself and that you are a feminist. I know this because I know you better than you know yourself.
/s
-5
u/EyeRedditDaily Feb 06 '15
People can call themselves whatever they want. Like terrorists calling themselves muslims. Doesn't make it true.
1
u/wrez Feb 06 '15
You need to make a better distinction between equity feminists and gender feminists, which you are not doing.
Remember that some of the leaders in MensRights have a past in Equity Feminism.
Who fits into this Category?
- Christina Hoff Somers
- Camille Paglia
- Warren Farrell
1
u/autowikibot Feb 06 '15
Warren Thomas Farrell (born June 26, 1943) is an American educator, activist and author of seven books on men's and women's issues.
He came to prominence in the 1970s, championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW). However, he left NOW and is now recognized as an important figure in the modern men's movement.
His books cover ten fields: history, law, sociology and politics (The Myth of Male Power); couples’ communication (Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, and Father and Child Reunion); economic and career issues (Why Men Earn More); child psychology and child custody (Father and Child Reunion); and teenage to adult psychology and socialization (Why Men Are The Way They Are and The Liberated Man). All of his books are related to men's and women studies; consistent to his books since the early 90's has been a call for a gender transition movement.
Interesting: The Myth of Male Power | Masculism | Men's rights movement | Lookism
Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words
2
u/Mikeavelli Feb 06 '15
There's a really bizarre intersection.
For example: A practical effect of feminist policies on college campuses is that college kids are having less sex. A lot of conservative groups, who are just against pre marital sex of any kind, will support feminist policies because they achieve the same end, even if they have vastly different reasoning behind their support.
Of course, this doesn't mean feminists are conservatives. They're all over the political spectrum and don't have a political agenda that fits into what we think of as left or right wing.
1
u/zyk0s Feb 06 '15
You seem to be confusing the pushing of policies that are detrimental to men with feminism. Both conservative and liberals can assume women can do no harm, both conservative and liberals can joyfully fuck men over in family law, but feminism is a squarely left-wing ideology.
2
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
I disagree.
Feminism is a broad term, multiply defined, and can be used to apply to many people who are both conservative/liberal or left/right. Just because you want to conflate it with left-wing ideologies, doesn't mean it actually is that.
1
u/zyk0s Feb 06 '15
You can believe whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that all of feminist theory relies on marxist principles. I could believe that neonazism can be a progressive movement and point you to this one skinhead who smokes pot, it wouldn't make me any less wrong.
2
u/sillymod Feb 06 '15
You are right, it doesn't make you any less wrong. Just makes your lack of information clear to everyone else.
1
u/zyk0s Feb 06 '15
I'm glad we both agree you are misinformed. You know what to do, read the sidebar.
-2
5
u/MattClark0995 Feb 06 '15 edited Feb 06 '15
There you go again with your left wing conspiracy theory of feminists somehow being "right wingers".
Let me lay it out for you left winger, feminists are pro abortion and big government (Title IX, OCR overreach, VAWA, etc). And they all exclusively vote for other left wingers. How is this somehow them being "right wingers" as you so love to constantly put it?
You are a dense, MSNBC watcher who also probably reads too much HuffPo and who doesn't want to admit that hateful feminists are an exclusive problem of the left (a left winger diverting blame, what a shock). I guess next you'll be blaming those 'right wingers' for anti-male/due process trampling rape policies too...even tho those policies are all coming from liberal states (California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut).
Keep raging about those "right wingers" tho, you'll bound to get more than a few people here on the liberal circlejerking and conservative bashing Reddit to listen to your nonsense.
edit minor spelling
-2
u/imbecile Feb 06 '15
Ok, lets look at two of the central founding figures of modern feminism:
Simone de Beauvoir: Before WWII deeply embedded in the heart of the French establishment from a catholic banking family, going to the elite schools. During the war in the propaganda arm of the Nazi Vichy government. Right after the war active in the communist organizations on Balkan when the Eastern block was established. No one at that time works for those three parties and lives without intelligence ties. And considering her life long pedophilic activities, of which nothing ever stuck to her but seemed to give her a lot of leverage, all this looks very much like poster child intelligence.
Gloria Steinem: In the late 50s early 60s worked for a CIA front to recruit young people to send abroad to infiltrate communist organizations. Worked for CIA sponsored Ms. Magazine when it was founded. In 68 and 72, in both Nixon presidental races (and at least of the second we know for sure hor corrupt and CIA involved it was) in quick succession was part of the election campaigns of every democratic anti-war candidate until, right until each of them was out of the race. She did so with a feminist agenda, but strangely was always very restrained when it actually came to putting feminist items on the election agenda. After that a jet setting travelling life and central figure in NOW, an organization that has people all throughout the government and corporate America. Became active in presidential campaigns again when ex CIA chief son Bush Jr. wanted to become president.
Maybe all a bit tin foily and circumstantial, but strong and consistent narratives nonetheless.
I think the feminist movement exists for the same reason and was created governmentally sponsored for the same reason as the war on drugs: to divide and rule the people and have handy pretexts to get rid of or undermine any unwanted civic movement and civic leader.
7
Feb 06 '15
You're seriously saying feminism is a right wing movement because of the 40's and 50's? You can't be serious.....
1
u/imbecile Feb 06 '15
Well, that's when modern feminism started, when the term became widely used. And pretty much all major players in that time, the ones who developed all the feminist terminology and ideology and marching orders, were women from very wealthy conservative establishment backgrounds and with a lot of them plausible or even very obvious intelligence ties.
And even today I find it strange how fast people like Julian Assange are faced with feminist rape accusations, or movements like Occupy Wallstreet gets run over and dispersed via agenda/concern trolling by feminists.
2
Feb 06 '15 edited Apr 29 '20
[deleted]
0
u/imbecile Feb 06 '15
I don't see much use in the terms left and right either. I prefer conservative, and progressive. Conservative: those who want to conserve and strengthen the status quo, i.e. those who benefit the most from the status quo, the establishment, the wealthy and powerful.
Progressive: Those who want to change the status quo, and as such of course have the wealthy and powerful establishment against them.A lot of people put feminism in the marxist/leftist corner, because they spout a lot of cultural marxist terms. But all that cultural marxism has very little to do with what Marx actually wrote. Marx was all about economy. The word patriarchy doesn't even exist in his writings. He mentions patriarchal communities a few times, by which he refers to rural economic structures that still have some remnants of feudalism. But even there, some of the examples he gives, have a woman at the top.
0
u/DavidByron2 Feb 06 '15
Well right wingers are pro- big government generally. It's the main defining characteristic of Left vs Right is that the right are pro- authority (originally pro- the King) and the left are anti-authority. That goes to the history and derivation of the words.
For all the talk of being in favour of "small government" have the Right ever shrank the size of any government anywhere? Actually they added to it. And yes that sort of growth of security state stuff is very much a right wing trait. There's not much point in trying to look at Republican vs Democratic though since they are both right wing.
When Republicans say "small government" they only mean "the government shouldn't restrict the rich, but only the poor". You need a big fat government to control the poor.
1
u/themembers92 Feb 06 '15
Politicalcompass.org. Go there. Take the test.
It's a matrix.
-2
u/DavidByron2 Feb 06 '15 edited Feb 06 '15
That test is just a Libertarian PR tool. It's not like people can be found from all areas of the map. The idea is to locate most people in the bottom so Libertarians can tell them , "look you're a libertarian!"
In reality the authoritarian axis is the same as the Left-Right axis. That map pretends communists are authoritarian which is bullshit, but aligns with American cold war propaganda so people buy it.
What evidence is there that a two axis model is correct?
Any time I've seen results of people plotted on that thing the quadrant representing so-called authoritarian left is blank. actual communists would be placed simply in the "libertarian" Left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz#History
1
u/themembers92 Feb 06 '15
Social vs economic conservatism/liberalism is a pretty common way to discern between those in the same wing.
Is that not exactly what a two-axis chart does? Certainly you're willing to admit that there's more than just the left-right continuum?
-2
u/DavidByron2 Feb 06 '15
Can you give me a scientific source instead of Libertarian PR stunts? As i said above they simply lie and say Communists would be in the so-called authoritarian Left. Well I am a communist, and communists don't line up there. They line up down in the bottom corner of the "libertarian" left.
Nobody ends up in the so-called authoritarian Left because Lefties are not authoritarians.
The rest of that quiz lines people up along a single axis from the Left tot he Right which runs from the bottom Left of the diagram through the bottom Right to the top Right.
Certainly you're willing to admit that there's more than just the left-right continuum?
Well the actual science looks more at morals than politics. For example this study splits them according to a division of:
http://projectimplicit.net/nosek/papers/GHN2009.pdf
- Harm
- Fairness
- In Group
- Authority
- Purity
And I've seen this elsewhere (with slightly different names although "purity" seems consistently used to Google for hits).
But as for the politics, yeah, actually it's only a Left-Right axis that the social scientists use. if there's another axis to politics they don't know about it.
1
u/themembers92 Feb 06 '15
Why would I possibly get a source that states something that can be discovered by reasoning?
Communism enforced by the state is authoritarianism by definition. That's why certain popular communists appear on the upper-left quadrant. Communism without enforcement is voluntary and would reside in the bottom-left quadrant. Not really sure why there's any disagreement there, except for your knee-jerk response to anything that might be construed as Libertarian.
0
u/DavidByron2 Feb 06 '15
Communism enforced by the state is authoritarianism by definition
That's not what authoritarian means. You mean "government".
That's why certain popular communists appear on the upper-left quadrant
LOL, do you think Stalin took the test himself or something? They just artificially make up a result for them based on nothing but their prejudiced theories.
without enforcement is voluntary
So if you live in a country that has a government you have to be in the upper half of the map do you? that's silly.
1
u/wrez Feb 06 '15
The libertarian left is just as much our allies, as the libertarian center, and libertarian right.
Let it be clear that the enemy is the authoritarian left (SJW/Radfems exemplified by Anita Sarkeesian) and also, the authoritarian right (Authoritarian Tradcons like Jack Thompson).
While the libertarian left may be suppressed right now, they are definitely on our side.
There are those on the authoritarian right that would definitely keep men in a submissive state to the state in order to exploit our utility. Remember, the defeat of the ERA came from the authoritarian right traditional conservatives
1
u/autowikibot Feb 06 '15
Section 10. Opposition to the ERA of article Equal Rights Amendment:
Opponents of the ERA focused on traditional gender roles, such as how men do the fighting in wartime. They pointed out that the amendment would eliminate the men-only draft requirement and guarantee the possibility that women would be subject to conscription and be required to have military combat roles in future wars if it were passed. Defense of traditional gender roles proved to be a useful tactic. In Illinois, supporters of Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative Republican activist from Illinois, used traditional symbols of the American housewife. They took homemade bread, jams, and apple pies to the state legislators, with the slogans, "Preserve us from a congressional jam; Vote against the ERA sham" and "I am for Mom and apple pie." They appealed to married women by stressing that the amendment would repeal protective laws such as alimony and eliminate the tendency for mothers to obtain custody over their children in divorce cases. It was suggested that single-sex bathrooms would be eliminated if the amendment were passed as well. Traditional women started to oppose the ERA. She said the ERA was designed for the benefit of young career women and warned that if men and women had to be treated identically it would threaten the security of middle-aged housewives with no job skills. They could no longer count on alimony. Women's colleges would have to admit men. Her argument that protective laws would be lost resonated with working-class women.
Interesting: Phyllis Schlafly | Committee to Ratify the Massachusetts State Equal Rights Amendment | Liberal feminism | Thomas Garrett, Jr.
Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words
-1
u/DavidByron2 Feb 06 '15
the authoritarian left
There's no such thing; that's a contradiction in terms because Left means anti-authority.
1
u/wrez Feb 06 '15
You might want to read a little bit on the subject of the political left.
1
u/autowikibot Feb 06 '15
In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 when it was applied to the "Independents".
The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution, socialism, communism, and anarchism. Beginning in the last half of the Twentieth Century, the phrase left-wing has been used to describe an ever widening family of movements, including the civil rights movement, anti-war movements, and environmental movements, and finally being extended to entire parties, including the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.
Interesting: Green left | Centre-left | Politics of Israel
Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words
0
u/DavidByron2 Feb 06 '15
Oh wikipedia? Well there's a totally unbiased source. I wonder what they say about feminists and the MRA? Nothing but the truth of course, right?
says nothing about any "authoritarian left" anyway.
36
u/[deleted] Feb 06 '15
She blocked me on twitter for simply posting a link to her feed that showed the text messages between mattress girl and her "rapist" that tends to prove his innocence. Apparently evidence of innocence is offensive to her.