Hard News: Narcissists and bullies
727 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
I'm having difficulty in discerning what people think IS appropriate to discuss/say on this thread. Russell has provided some guidelines and Emma and one or two others have given clear positive suggestions.
But it seems a number of people have strayed from what others think is appropriate. Is all this just a matter of personal opinion, or is there some commonly accepted frame of reference here?
As a sometime comments-poster and most-times lurker, I frequently have the impression that many of the regular commenters know something about each other, and the ongoing discussion, that I don't.
What is appropriate on this thread? (I mean this particular thread.)
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
What is appropriate on this thread? (I mean this particular thread.)
Marcus, I don't want to be too specific, for I hope obvious reasons. The closest we get to "knowing something about each other" is that those of us who've been around forever have something of an idea of each other's comment history and previous behaviour, and that will affect how we react to what they're saying now.
One of the problems with this thread is that it covers territory that is always problematic: where for some commenters the issues are abstract intellectual exercises, and for others, they're lived experience. It's not that anyone is trying to be a dick to anyone else, but someone who has been raped is unlikely to have a lot of time for a "let's come up with really convoluted hypothetical situations that make consent look incredibly complicated".
-
Brodie Davis, in reply to
It’s not that anyone is trying to be a dick to anyone else, but someone who has been raped is unlikely to have a lot of time for a “let’s come up with really convoluted hypothetical situations that make consent look incredibly complicated”.
But it doesn't need to get that complicated. Letting/helping/encouraging someone to drink too much so you can have sex with them, is just outright rape. as per
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329057.html
128A Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances
(4) A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity.
And as per the question earlier, If someone consents before drinking and then drinks too much, according to the law that consent is invalid. And men would not continue anything at all at that point (I was going to say considerate or caring men there, but people with empathy would stop) .
So based on the story in the press so far, this isn't grey area material at all.
And the Police have bent the rules in the past to stop things happening. I understand them wanting to get enough evidence to convict, but surely they could have leaned on the kids hard as well, and stopped further events taking place. I am not sure that letting young girls unwittingly be bait is much better morally or ethically.
-
Chuck them a twenty. Then you can tool around on the internet debating hypotheticals all day in good conscience.
I'm not normally a big donor, but done. Rape sucks.
-
JacksonP, in reply to
Chuck them a twenty. Then you can tool around on the internet debating hypotheticals all day in good conscience.
Done.
But I won't tool around, as this seems to be adequately covered.
Also others here are saying what I would want to, only better. I really hope some good comes of this, especially for the victims. And soon.
-
TracyMac, in reply to
Uh, are you being sarcastic, or is this yet another theoretical exercise, which seems to be the default stance of some people in this thread?
I don't know the current standard of law when it comes to consent, but logically thinking - and no matter how many young men a young woman chooses to get intoxicated with - consent pretty much stops happening when the person concerned is too impaired to actually, you know, consent.
If the response to the suggestion of group sex is anything unlike "Yes, please!", then it's not consent.
If an averagely-mobile person is unable to speak or walk properly, or they are unconscious or semi-conscious (yes, that includes someone "sleeping it off", then no, it's not consent.
If anyone can show me an example of what appears to be "buyer's remorse" - or a situation where there could be reasonable doubt - actually making it as far as a courtroom, I'd be fascinated.
Because its prevalence is nowhere near as common as some of those indulging in intellectual exercises here seem to think - women will generally default to blaming themselves first in a situation where consent was "hazy" (a friend continues to blame herself for her assault when she was passed out on a couch). To get as far as actually making a complaint to police is a big step up from "embarrassed about sex with uncool dude" scenarios.
The fact these young women weren't "brave enough" (FFS!!) to come forward is fairly likely due to the cultural bullshit about what consent actually means, and the perception that sexual assault is about strangers in alleyways, not "friends" who deliberately get you drunk so you can't say no.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The fact these young women weren’t “brave enough” (FFS!!) to come forward is fairly likely due to the cultural bullshit about what consent actually means, and the perception that sexual assault is about strangers in alleyways, not “friends” who deliberately get you drunk so you can’t say no.
There's a lot of that roiling in the crowd in which these guys were active at the moment -- from confusion over the meaning of consent to outright attempts to protect the abusers. Sadly, a lot of the pressure on other kids to fall in line seems to be coming from young women. It's troubling.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I really hope some good comes of this, especially for the victims. And soon.
Perhaps a little more impetus to passing this? I'm sure the lawyers hereabouts could have a field day picking that bill apart, but it at least seems like a good and necessary step forward.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Perhaps a little more impetus to passing this? I’m sure the lawyers hereabouts could have a field day picking that bill apart, but it at least seems like a good and necessary step forward.
These girls were raped, and not over the internet.
-
Sadly, a lot of the pressure on other kids to fall in line seems to be coming from young women. It’s troubling.
Which is what I observed near the beginning of this thread. It strikes me as something that is missing from a lot of the discussion. It helps explain this sick little scene in general and will not be an isolated case.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I know, Emma. They were then humiliated over the internet. Clearly we need to work on how the laws about rape are enforced and the culture that allows it to happen, but if this bill passes then don't we have one more tool to fight the continued victimisation of these girls and many others.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
if this bill passes then don’t we have one more tool to fight the continued victimisation of these girls and many others.
The thing is, there is no easy fix for this, not even close. And I'm really, really leery of "but this piece of legislation will fix it!", which, let me clear, I'm really aware is not what you were saying. I just want to make it icy-clear that the problem is not cyber-bullying. It's rape culture. It's rape culture that made these men think it was okay to brag about what they were doing, regardless of the format they did that in.
Changing that culture is fucking hard work. But it's not impossible, and it couldn't be more worth doing. But it's about teaching about consent, focusing on perpetrators not victims, removing shame from sex. It's not about cellphones.
-
Allan Moyle, in reply to
there is a surname commonality in the Nicholas case and this episode....
-
Day 3 of the Roast Busters controversy, and Garth McVicar & Co still reserve their right to remain silent. I sure as hell hope it's not a case of assent through silence.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
And because I seem to be suffering from a coherency deficit this morning, let me make it perfectly clear that I completely agree with you.
-
I can't talk about it, but let me just say what I know of what's going on in this crowd of kids is really getting to me. I can only guess at the pressure that's gone on the victims not to give statements. Fucking hell.
Someone has to stop this, and it seems to me that it's the rapists' parents who need to take responsibility and act.
-
Yes. That's understandable, and I can understand why people would get hurt by someone discussing in the abstract what they've personally experienced. It's a distinct risk in a public forum and I'm quite sure it makes interaction with other people extremely hard for those who've been traumatised.
But I'm not quite clear how the line has been crossed in this thread, sometimes.
For example, here's an exchange I just can't make any sense of at all:
SAILOR RIPLEY, YOU GET ME SOME MUSIC ON THAT RADIO THIS INSTANT! I MEAN IT! (Sorry, that’s all I’ve got.)
That pretty much sums up how I feel about where this thread has gone as well
I've really no idea what's going on here.
And what does this mean?
If my Facebook feed is any guide, it is day two and we are already in a full Mazengarb event.
Great. Looking forward to a mob inspired murder coming to my neighborhood.
I don't even understand some of the paremeters of this discussion.
I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion that others haven't expressed better, but there's a lot here I'd like to understand better.
-
Andrew Stevenson, in reply to
Well said. Done.
-
Someone has to stop this, and it seems to me that it's the rapists' parents who need to take responsibility and act.
This is what I've been wondering about all the way through this.
Where have the parents of the boys been when this blew up, but far more importantly, when their boys were learning right from wrong.
Something's seriously wrong in all these families from my perspective. -
BenWilson, in reply to
And what does this mean?
>Great. Looking forward to a mob inspired murder coming to my neighborhood.I was being sarcastic. The moral panic that led to the Mazengarb Report also led to a murder being committed. I don't think that murder is in the public interest. Personally, I used Google to find that out, not my secret squirrels.
-
jesus wept.
Just listened to the podcast of 'Willie and JT' I'm not going to link to it, but All the trigger warnings.
How the hell do we even start fixing this when broadcasters seem to think that the interview technique appropriate with a friend of a victim would be something like that of a defense lawyer.
Angry as fuck. If JT gets a party candidacy ever again, that a party will never get my vote. Never. I don't care what else he does that is 'good work'. Or how many votes he can pull.
-
what is it about our culture that allows misogyny to proliferate and exist,
and such levels of violence,
and disdain for others and ones selfneeds more community!
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
How the hell do we even start fixing this when broadcasters seem to think that the interview technique appropriate with a friend of a victim would be something like that of a defense lawyer.
Somebody upthread said something about the culture seeming to have regressed. I think the whole shock jock phenomenon is a part of that regression. Buggered if I know how we change that, though, for all of us who boycott shock jocks, there’s plenty more who’ll tune in and nod along at their “pearls of wisdom”. Through vociferous complaint we might get one or two in trouble, but they just pop right back up before too long.
ETA: I'm not sure if anything has actually regressed or this is an example of the "recency illusion" or if more of us are becoming more aware of all these issues or what.... But it would be nice to be rid of those shock jocks.
-
Richard Aston, in reply to
Changing that culture is fucking hard work. But it’s not impossible, and it couldn’t be more worth doing. But it’s about teaching about consent, focusing on perpetrators not victims, removing shame from sex. It’s not about cellphones.
Agree 100% Emma, focus on the perpetrators and I'd add removing power from sex, building the capacity for empathy - from a young age.
I could add the whole sexed up culture surrounding young people , music video/pornography but hey that's huge and I am not convince we are helpless slaves to media influences.
Its a big piece of work.
-
Roger Lacey, in reply to
I can’t talk about it, but let me just say what I know of what’s going on in this crowd of kids is really getting to me. I can only guess at the pressure that’s gone on the victims not to give statements.
I don't know the exact situation but I can imagine the huge pressure on victims to stay silent when there is the possibility that a cache of images of them is being held by the perpetrators. Knowing one of the participant's father is a policeman would probably further discourage coming forward and I'm sure threats would be made in the schoolyard. If they do make a complaint then there could be up to two years of continued harassment, fear, and character assassination during the trial and no certainty of a conviction. Witness protection could be an option, but why should a family be forced to flee from their community for something they haven't done?
Our justice system seems unable to work properly in these situations.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.