Post Punk Kitchen Forum

I find everything about this situation to be reprehensible, but I'm not sure exactly how to express that without upsetting you and bun. Could you please tell me what words I'm allowed to use to express my disgust in regards to this case, or any other case that upsets you? I don't want to make the same mistake as shortbus, and I'm not sure if calling the results repugnant and horrible is good enough for you. And, to be honest, I also feel that "shitty outcome" conveys the exact same idea that the outcome of the case was terrible. Is the problem just that you just really hate obscenities?

At least we've identified the real victims here.

Now we know who to blame.

Oh, Jinkies! I see by perusing your post history that you come out of the wood work, much like shortbus, every so often to stir shiitake. Welcome back!

I haven't had anyone throw a thousand mindless strawmen at me in ages, so it felt like time. Feel free to argue against a bunch of things I never said this time, too! I see mumbles already got the mindless strawmen started, so yay mumbles!

As for this thread, my comment is honest and not intended to cause any controversy. I am honestly interested in knowing which words I can use on the PPK so as not to offend other members. As you're quite aware, I have no idea how not to offend people here. I'd hate to say something is horrible (like the entire situation detailed in the OP), only to find out that calling it "horrible" isn't the right sort of language to use. If you could answer my question instead of launching a barrage of personal attacks or strawmen this time, that'd be incredibly helpful!

I don't think you know what 'strawman' means.

There is a word for someone who only comes out of the woodwork only to stir shiitake up... can't quite think of it... it'll come to me, I know it will.

I don't think you know what your 'previous post' means. I'm pretty sure we all correctly identified the victim after reading the OP. I'm fairly certain that I'm both not portraying myself as a victim here, nor am I in any way attempting to reduce the status of the actual victim. To insinuate otherwise is to fabricate a position that would reflect badly upon me.

I agree with the thread consensus in all respects regarding this case. I'd just like to know why calling the results "shitty" is so offensive to multiple PPKers. That sort of issue is why I so rarely post here. Everything I say is consistently misunderstood or misrepresented. I'm honestly interested in understanding why this happens so that I can avoid it happening in the future. I rarely disagree with people here, and I mainly avoid posting because things like this happen so often. If simply changing my word choice would fix some of the problems, that'd be helpful to know.

1) You are playing the victim here, don't try to deny it.

2) As much as feeding trolls can be fun, I doubt your sincerity but if you hadn't come across as passive-aggressive (or really aggressive-aggressive) maybe we could have a real conversation

I think you are trying to portray yourself as a victim, and I was warning you that martyring yourself again in this thread might be regarded as distasteful. This is not a distortion of your argument (a straw man), particularly since you haven't made one. It is, instead, a characterization of your behavior.

I am fine with your descriptors and I will parse my reasoning, which is quite simple.

(1) shortbus quarrels with the outcome but not the process. So basically he is saying it is fine to restrict the application of a law to the point that "physical helplessness" as a legal term of art become so different from our understanding of "physical helplessness" that a woman who can only move a finger and grunt is not considered physically helpless. A woman tied on a stretcher (but not gagged) is not physically helpless. You're only physically helpless if you are unconscious or dead.

(2) I find it problematic to interpret a law so strictly that it ends up protecting rapists, where clearly that isn't the intent of the law makers. The law is being an asparagus here, and a patriarchal asparagus because it is saying "physical helplessness is a term of art that is so narrow that no jury could reasonably have found (this is the legal standard required to set aside the jury verdict) a victim that can move a finger, kick and grunt to be physically helpless." The Court threw out the findings of fact by a jury who heard 4 days of testimony by a woman who can only communicate by spelling our her testimony one word at a time with scrabble tiles, saying that she very obviously wasn't physically helpless.

(3) You are saying the situation is repugnant. I assume that means both the outcome and the process. So I agree with you.

Its not that the word "shitty" isn't bad enough. Its the focus on the outcome while saying that the process is fine. So my issue is with the words "shitty outcome but"

I hope that helps.

Wow, this case is really really horrible.

And also, who lifted the rock?

Mat.

Thank you! I agree with everything you said here. I think I can see where shortbus was coming from in his post, though. I think it's more that shortbus understood how they arrived at the ruling, not necessarily that he agreed with how they arrived at the ruling. It's more "I recognize the issues that led to this outcome" than "I agree with the issues that led to this outcome." I may be reading him incorrectly, though.

Whatever definition of "physically helpless" they were using in this case, though, it was a terrible one.

To be honest, the trivialization implied by the words "shitty outcome" was in fact what set me off this morning, as I was personally offended. That's all I'll say on the matter, because I refuse to feed the troll.

The amusing thing about this is I intentionally went with shitty rather than unfortunate because I guessed it would ignite this sort of tiff in the first place.

Also, thank you Tofulish for reading my mind and communicating what I am apparently incapable of writing for myself. To be clear, my only intention was to refute the notion that the ruling didn't make sense from a strictly legal perspective. I understand how you could take the evidence presented, the definitions used under the law, and reach the same conclusion. That was the entire intention of my post. Any other intention or inference attributed to myself is purely the interpretation of the reader.

I have no interest in discussing the process. The process is what it is and nothing you nor I do, nor any amount of indignation, is going to change it. This isn't the first time the legal process has failed someone and it certainly won't be the last. Frankly, I find a verdict like this hardly surprising, but rather par for the course, but I've been called a cynic.

So trolling, gotcha.

(I think he meant he went with "shitty" instead of "unfortunate" because he figured "unfortunate" would rub people the wrong way.)

You're welcome.

Ever the voice of reason.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not troll these forums. I only crawl out from under my rock when I see a potential for having intelligent discourse on an interesting topic. I am once again reminded that this isn't likely to happen here. Really, I should have learned my lesson by now. I'll crawl back under my rock now.

heh heh heh.

You do realize that you didn't phrase anything in a way that was conducive to discussion and that when I responded to your post, you preferred to act like the victim instead of actually having an intelligent discussion.

If you wanted an intelligent discussion, you could have (1) responded to my post and told me why I was wrong that the process doesn't make sense because it is part of a line of cases that makes this particular type of sexual assault/rape nearly impossible to bring which is not in line with the intent of the law, (2) you could have tried to be responsible for your word choice and asked what was offensive, and (3) you could have raised a point in defense of the process that others here haven't raised.

But for any intelligent discussion, you have to be respectful of the people you're talking to and be willing to consider and debate your position. Not just say "It was a shitty outcome but hey it made sense and she is SOL."

I don't remember the last thread you were in, just that bastah came to apologize for what you had said and she told us you had learned from your experience, but I guess not.

I thought it was pretty well accepted that occasionally following the process dictated by the law legitimately leads to not okay conclusions? If four judges thought this process was legitimate, it's because the law was written badly and has been interpreted badly, not necessarily because they are necessarily going about the process incorrectly as allowed for by the law. Clearly it's an incomprehensibly bad law if it's not possible for what must be intelligent people to come to a non-horrific judgment in the case! It's hard for me to believe that four judges could be so unanimously hateful as to come to this conclusion if that isn't the situation.

And my understanding is that they wouldn't be able to re-prosecute for the same crime, so now what? Hopefully the petition will inspire a change in the legislature since I don't think anything can be done for the victim in criminal court at this point. Hopefully an advocate for her will open a civil case as well.

So far off topic that I'm just not. However, give me some credit; although, I did figure the inflammatory sentence would be the one following. Eh, guess I really just can't read you.

I assumed sine you were being abrasive that you were saying you chose words that would be inflammatory, my mistake.