Not use images of a rape victim without her consent. And I think that opinion is pretty clear-headed and widely shared among the commentariat, FWIW.
I know that in comments we're supposed to use our own words and whatnot, but I only have one reply which is suitable for that editor's note.
(I guess you have to click it to really see it)
(I guess you have to click it to really see it)
What's that thing about glass houses and stones again? Your own website just posted images of a woman's rape. No, it doesn't show her face, perhaps, but its repercussions can be just as damaging as the behavior that is being criticised here.
So forgive me if I do not join in with the BURN THE NEW YORK POST chant. We all know they're atrocious. It's when media outlets that pretend not to be utterly black-hearted flash their hypocrisy for the world to leer at that I get really riled up.
This? Is disgusting. You? Are disgusting. Shame on you for these screencaps and your overall approach to this story. Hope selling your soul for page views turns out to be worth it.
That's not what I said. *I'm* not a mother, so me saying that would be ridiculous. My first comment was merely pointing out a disconnect between your attitude towards the existence of time humans in our world and the way they are often fed and soothed. I did this because I find the puritanical stance towards breastfeeding on the whole so incredibly unbelievably ridiculous that I just can't engage with it on a deeper lever (but bless Ipo for trying).
Nor do people who've no idea what they're talking about a place in discussions of things they clearly don't understand, but I'm not telling you to get out, now am I?
Perhaps the woman at the movies would've been able too soothe her infant by breastfeeding him/her if she hadn't been afraid of judgmental personages.
No, something that *is* rape apologetic is unbefitting of a starred commenter. It's not knee-jerk to get upset when someone (whoever is behind the account) says lying back implies consent and it's not knee-jerk to get upset when someone else says there's a difference between rape and unwanted sex.
Ugh, I hate myself for doing this, as you're pink and I really truly dislike promoting people I'm not really in the mood to engage at all, but Donovanesque is not the only person in this thread or this particular convo (even) who was raped, and you can bet your goddamn ass I'm aware of all the shit about rape victims and survivors you're spouting at me. Because the story this "comedian" is attempting to use for laughs? It's mine, too. Just from the other side.
It's not a bullying tone as much as a "what the fuck, are you serious with this shit right now" tone. There's a big difference. There is nothing at all thoughtful about implying that lying down equals consent and then casting doubt on the veracity of the story as a whole.
But as the OP below notes that she may be changing her mind on the whole thing I won't go into it any further.
But as the OP below notes that she may be changing her mind on the whole thing I won't go into it any further.
This seems like the best idea you've had all day. Perhaps even all year. It might teach you to reflect on what you say/type before the words leave your mouth/fingers, especially on what those words actually mean and how they might impact real fucking people. Because nothing in this story screams consent and even if it were all a "joke," which I highly doubt, it's still a "joke" about raping a person. You know, the kind of thing Jezebels used to frown upon.
I never said accent was the be all and end all to language acquisition and one's final proof of fluency and nativity. I pointed out that your use of "good" was problematic, which is not a moot point, because as a linguist (perhaps more than anyone) you should understand that words matter and that the way your phrase something matters. You could just gracefully accept that you used a wee bit of problematic language (for whatever reason - though dumbing what your saying down for the benefit of commenters whose background you cannot know seems silly), but you choose not to. Which is fair enough, but it speaks volumes about the type of linguist you are.
"Good" is a value judgment, so it's not essentially the same thing. The essence of our original assertions is, in fact, very different. And you don't have to be careful with technical terms. I have an undergraduate degree in English linguistics myself, with a special interest in dialects and the politics of language.
I disagree with you that "accents prove that we will never be as good at a new language as a native speaker." I'm a native speaker of Dutch, not English, and yet I can speak RP accent-free (ask my professors, they'll back this up) and American with a wee southern twang almost accent-free. Moreover, I'm better at English grammar and spelling than many native speakers.
So yes, it is true that I'll never have the same intuitive grasp for English and I'll never get to be classified as a native speaker, but "good" is a problematic term to use in this here context.
(someone knowing I'm not a native speaker would correct my use of "this here", where they'd accept it or laugh at it if they believed I were a native speaker - something that pisses me off royally)
So yes, it is true that I'll never have the same intuitive grasp for English and I'll never get to be classified as a native speaker, but "good" is a problematic term to use in this here context.
(someone knowing I'm not a native speaker would correct my use of "this here", where they'd accept it or laugh at it if they believed I were a native speaker - something that pisses me off royally)
Though I greatly support any and all recognition of dialects as language varieties deserving of respect, the rest of what you're saying (the stuff about Europe) is completely nonsensical. In most European countries, nearly every city has its own dialect, and regional dialects are often completely unintelligible to outsiders. If you're from Limburg or the Achterhoek in The Netherlands, you'll probably be bi-dialectal and someone not from there won't have a clue what you're on about when you ask someone in Limburgs "wilske innen tsjuustje derbie" (which in ABN would be "wilt u een tasje erbij"). And the teeny-tiny country of The Netherlands (which you can drive through north to south within 4 hours and east to west within 3) even has another recognized language: Frysian. That is just a wee fragment of Europe, with some 16 million people: two recognized languages, at least 4 dialects which are so far removed from the standard that they might as well be separate languages, and uncountable other dialects.
So yeah, no. The American kind of diversity (at least when we speak about language) most certainly is not rare in Europe. Quite the opposite.
So yeah, no. The American kind of diversity (at least when we speak about language) most certainly is not rare in Europe. Quite the opposite.
I know I am but what are you!
(WAH! I can't believe I just did satire wrong!)
(WAH! I can't believe I just did satire wrong!)
Wait, we're supposed to have polite periods? Does that mean I shouldn't have been wiping off the blood with my boyfriend's grandmother's lace doilies?
I'm not saying it's true or false. I'm saying that I, and I'd wager a lot of my fellow countrypeople, wouldn't think to contact the embassy.
@dukes_up: She was let off without a fine or any other trouble. It wouldn't even cross my mind to contact my embassy in that case(which would be the embassy of The Netherlands, too), but I would most certainly blog about it.
I love you.
