quentinandrew:

malditafeminista:

THIS is why it’s neccessary to out these sons of bitches…because even when we do what the law suggests they still make out scratch free and leave us in shambles…

YOU SEE THOSE TWO SMALL BLACK DOTS..THOSE ARE THE FALSELY ACCUSED IN COMPARISON TO THE GUILTY SONS OF BASTARDS [NOT BITCHES] WHO WALK FREE.

So you rape apologists can miss me with this “what about the men who might be falsely named” b.s because out of all of those submissions I bet thus far NONE have been false… per the graphic that’s about 2 out of  1000.

TWO OUT OF ONE THOUSAND ARE FALSE.

Go fuck yourselves apologists. 

This really puts things in perspective

Alright, I’m gonna be the asshole here: Strictly methodically speaking, there are several things wrong with this pic. This is probably not the point here - but still, it seems it has been commented as such. Hence…

1. The “unreported” figure is a guestimate at best. As such, it should NOT be taken at face value, and is likely to enhance the dramatic effect. Otherwise, what is the source for this figure? The source linked talks about a variety of assumptions, ranging from 5% to 50% of all cases being reported, saying that they assumed 10% “which is dramatic, but possible”. This is not a fixed number. Don’t take it as such.

2. Those “reported”, who “faced trials”, but did NOT end up jailed, and as such were most likely ruled to be innocent in a court, are not the same thing as “falsely accused”. This presents an interesting interpretation of law: Not the decision in the court room is correct, but… well, what? The statement of one involved party? The statement of the possible victim? Arguable, but this is the opposite of “innocent until proven guilty”. (The source has no further information here; the information is gathered from the data on reported and persecuted rape accusations)

3. And consequently, everybody is labelled “rapists” (see top left)

4. However, then what rules somebody “falsely accused”? A decision by the judge?

5. Don’t you dare label me somebody defending rapists. But don’t take a chart which uses guestimates and is only intended to illustrate something as a source for fixed numbers. “TWO OUT OF THOUSAND ARE FALSE” is exactly the sort of sophistry that might even end up tarnishing the credibility of the campaign (or whatever you want to call that graph). IF YOU ARE GONNA USE NUMBERS AND METHODLOGY, YOU BETTER KNOW YOUR SHIT OR SOMEONE’S GONNA CALL YOU OUT. This approach is no more critical or questioning than just assuming that “the girls had it coming” by default. Do you really want to be what you fight against, only with a different aim?

Seriously. “even when we do what the law suggests they still make out scratch free” is a fucking pitchfork away from some vigilante bullshit, and THIS sort of self-righteous, sheepish behavior is EVERYTHING a movement concerned with the empowerement of women, who for centuries were at the other side of the issue, should avoid to be. You should know better than to resort to such barbaric means of “truth finding”. Who knew Charles Bronson was the role model for the modern liberal feminist?

Unless this is really just about drawing lines in the sand and rushing ahead - and not a social movement rooted in a fundamental belief in rational argument striving for a justified / fair social order. And if that is indeed (not) the case - THEN, by all means, go ahead and make a fucking joke out of yourself.

Here’s hoping I’m wrong.

PS: I know this is an emotionally charged issue. But I won’t pretend to know what the issue feels like for a woman or even a victim of such crimes. I can only approach the matter in a factual manner, which I hope won’t come across as “cold” - plus I personally believe that emotional arguments tend to be problematic anyway, as they in one way or another forbid criticism of them.

Warning: Personal shit ahead.

A couple of weeks before Bad Religion’s The Dissent Of Man album was released, the tracklisting was put online. The title “Only Rain” stood out to me, because I thought it was a great song title. Yeah, sometime’s I’m that easy to get excited. I was staying at my then-girlfriend’s house when I read the news, and using her old beat up acoustic guitar, the excitement of it all got me coming up with a 4 bar chorus using the dummy lyrics “only the rain, it’s only the rain coming down on us”. Needless to say, I had a pretty clear vision how I expected a song with that title to sound - how it HAD to sound.

When the album was released, I was pretty dissappointed. I still don’t like it that much, but I’ve grown to love Only Rain, it is now probably my favorite song on the album. Of course, when it had just come out and sounded not quite like I expected it to it was a major bummer. It’s hard to appreciate things for what they are if you have a clear idea what they should be. Around that same time period, I remember me and the girl being in the car, and it was pouring rain. Back then that made me think of the song; now it’s kind of the other way around. We fought a lot on that day. And it didn’t get much better afterwards. The “only the rain”-song fragment never made it much further. I couldn’t quite get it right - listening back to it, the initial idea was pretty good, but further attempts to expand upon it only complicated the arrangement and hurt the flow of the piece. The relationship also didn’t fare much better afterwards; it came to a painful halt the next year.

It’s hard to appreciate things for what they are if you have a clear idea what they should be. It wasn’t the only problem with all these things, but it’s the one thing I’ve personally learned ever since. The hard way. But I guess it was the only problem with Only Rain, which is a kickass song in its own right, and which is the song that reminded me of all of this.

Bad Religion - Only Rain

Music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhqNNt7JYAQ

I can still remember having finally beaten that hardass final boss and how watching the epic ending with its awesome soundtrack felt SO FUCKING GOOD.

Hell, I even remember asking my mother to translate me what the characters were saying in the final cutscene (English is not my native language). Ah, memories.

Warning: Rant touching politically charged subjects ahead.

So the European press - Germany’s SPIEGEL for one, which is pretty much the biggest mag in its sector - are laughing at the new course of America’s Republican party on how to deal with foreign affairs,or rather, at the fact that the blatant ignorance actually appeals to the American voters. And while it’s true that it is rather comical that people aiming to become the world’s most powerful man (or woman, in Bachmann’s case) are not only throwing out what appears to be a cross between a pledge to, and evidence of, limited knowledge, but are doing so to such great success, this is a) not new (anybody remember Palin and her “one of the people” appeal?), and b) no different from how the very same press and target audience that is now reading such articles and laughing handles foreign manners themselves.

The whole rhetoric of “why send money overseas, we’ve got enough more urgent problems ourselves” is actually very similiar to the often touted lines on how to deal with Greece’s money problems: “I don’t know much about it, and neither do I care, but fuck ‘em anyway, this is our money.” This is of course a perfectly valid opinion - it stands to reason if it is a politically wise course to take, but as a sheer opinion, the “let’s take care of our own business first”-approach is understandable (if somewhat naïve in an intertwined world). Opinions don’t neccesarily have to be well-formed, because although in the aftermath of the French revolution it was argued that the very principle of democracy depends on informed opinions, not mere affectual ones, as of now, the good ole opinion-card’s “that’s my opinion, who are you to argue?” has long substituted such idealistic plans. And this is why the rags are full of abridged takes on the whole subject matter, to the point where it is closer to an amputation, and is effectively an abomination - nonetheless very much influencing the stance of “the common man” and building the basis - however small - on which their opinion stands.

Either way, the point is - if you look at the whole matter on a more abstract level, then the very same people who are bitching about America’s blatant ignorance concerning foreign problems, no matter how much they might affect oneself, have no problem taking the solitary position themselves. The real distinction is who “the rest of the world is”: If it includes one’s own country, it is unacceptable, if it is some foreign country, it’s a totally valid path to tread. And that is still an opinion, but the inner logic is faulty, and one that can only be called hypocritical. Because the official criteria and reasons cited are not the same as the critical one. And that’s what really bothers me - this is not about whether it’s right to be for the interventions in Greece or not, this is about that you can’t have it both ways without talking out of your ass.

PS: The title is a Journey - the band - reference in case anybody is really wondering.

I actually ordered a custom-made cup with this pic on it just yesterday, but getting it in a decent resolution was quite a hassle. Since the original picture is spread over two pages and thus impossible for me to scan properly, I had to resort to Amazon.com’s “Look Inside” feature and puzzle together screengrabs instead - thanks to Mystery, the man with a high enough resolution to pull this off. If you look really closely, you still can see a part in the middle where the two pages didn’t match up perfectly, but what the hell.

Because in the end, I really like this pic. So here it is, in all its reassembled glory.