(July 20, 2021 at 12:08 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Let’s see if this helps Huggy. People may feel as though a poster is engaging in the behavior if they had a pattern of suggesting that rich influential men don’t need to rape, the victims weren't attractive enough to rape, that everyone was doing it back then, that they were Hollywood hopefuls who would do anything and/racists after a book deal and/or gold diggers out for money or…broadly, that it was all a giant conspiracy and shouldn’t we be judging these victims….who kept calling their victimizer?
…and if that happens, our mods will look it over and do the right thing, like always. They ban, they don’t ban, their discretion under advice of rules.
But…on a personal note unrelated to bans but very much related to rape apologism, can’t sum it up better than shell did for you last time you went down this same road. It all comes from a lack of understanding. If you can’t understand why the patterns of excuse above are poorly recieved… and it was clear then and now that you can’t, you might just want to be more guarded or careful in future conversations on the subject.
Don't paraphrase, if you believe I said something, then post the full quote in context. I wasn't giving my opinion, I had linked to articles stating that Constand had changed her story multiple times, but that doesn't matter. A co worker of Constands testified under oath that Constand "had once remarked to her how it would be easy to fabricate such a charge to frame a celebrity and get money."... Another accuser was in jail for fraud, just another irrelevant detail I guess... the list goes on.
So yeah, based on all that, I was and am skeptical.
Seems your faith is strong when it's convenient.