Ulty

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

If I lived where you live, yes.  But, you obviously don't know my typical driving.  First, I live two miles down a gravel road where I very rarely even see another car. Sometimes I'm just going down the road a short while to get to a field....then driving slow in the field.  At work, our campus is maybe 1/4 mile long.  Sometimes I'm just driving from one end to the other, not even getting on the road....and maybe 15 mph.  Sometimes, I'm hunting and driving around in pastures, getting in and out a lot.

 

So.....I do a lot of non-typical type slow driving which makes this annoying.  I always buckle up if I'm getting out on the road and actually going somewhere.

No judgment, but I have a very different mindset. A seatbelt has saved my life twice. I won't get in a car at any speed without buckling up, and I won't drive any passengers unless they do the same.

We should put a motorized statue of Taylor Martinez outside of K-State's stadium. On a track, just doing laps outside of the stadium at 20 mph.

Good lord, this post is almost too stupid to respond to, but I'm going to try anyway.

17 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

So I find this fascinating.    I present to a poster some reasons why I thought the Trump case was decided wrong.  Meaning, as you said above, I didn’t think the evidence was there, yet you consider that to be Victim Shaming.

You didn't think the evidence was there...based on the fact that she didn't report the assault for years? Based on her watching the Apprentice? When you mocked these behaviors is where you shamed her. You certainly have not presented any sort of legal argument for why you think Trump wasn't guilty.

19 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You claim to have an evidentiary hearing where a  female came forward, and you believe there isn’t enough evidence to show an assault took place, yet somehow you aren’t victim shaming.  Hmmmmmmm.  

This is dumb. Really dumb. Uncharacteristically dumb for you. Amazing. You see, in the case I heard this week, I believe there wasn't enough evidence to show sexual misconduct. I am basing that decision after carefully listening to testimony, reviewing evidence, and weighing credibility. I am going to spend the next few days carefully crafting a report that articulates this decision while taking great care to not blame or shame the Complainant for her reactions. 

In the Trump/Carroll case, a jury carefully listened to testimony, reviewed evidence, and weighed credibility, and found in a court of law that there was sufficient evidence of his guilt. That's the way it works. Each finding for each specific case is based on the unique facts of that one case. 

If you think that your earlier post was not a version of victim shaming, yet my professional determination in a case that you know nothing about somehow does constitute victim shaming, well...hmmmmmm yourself.

I do believe a jury of your peers right here on Huskerboard will review these posts and determine that you are talking out of your a$$.

10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Color me shocked you aren’t understand the difference between shaming and not believing, in this argument.   Probably purposefully but who knows.  
 

 

RedDenver made it easy for you by bolding the most relevant content of your own post, but you are still being willfully obtuse. You shamed her for not behaving in the way that you would have expected a "real" sexual assault victim to behave. You don't believe her because she doesn't fit into YOUR expectations. Luckily, a jury actually weighed all of the facts and evidence, instead of slipping into Archy's judgment of post-sexual assault behaviors. 

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

So as someone that teaches a class on this stuff, this is pretty spot on.  

 

I think the #1 reason that it is not reported though, is that a lot of people don't actually know if they have become "a victim", as in, they don't really know if it was assault. 

 

The biggest issue is the belief that a lot of these filings are false or made up, but that is just not the case.  MAYBE 3% are fake, maybe.  If anything, they are underreported by a ton.

 

Oh and dudes basically never report, I think it is less than 1%, so it pretty much is impossible to study.  

Yep. 

I just conducted a sexual assault hearing today. The Complainant did not come forward for almost a year after the alleged conduct, because it didn't dawn on her that some of the stuff her boyfriend did may have been considered assault, until after the relationship ended. Now, in this particular case, the evidence and the credible arguments were not sufficient to show that the boyfriend was responsible for assault. That doesn't mean that the report was false, it just means that the evidence wasn't there. I actually feel bad for both parties in this case.

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

As you pointed out, Im not sure why he hired her.  However, a good guess would be that he’s an extremely difficult client and past lawyers have had trouble getting paid.   So maybe that’s all he could get

No competent lawyer who values their reputation, their credibility, or their accounts billable would touch Trump with a 39 and a half foot pole. All he's left to pick from are quacks and losers. His next attorney, if he can find one, is going to be equally $h!tty or worse. 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I only followed the E Jean case from a top line standpoint.  It’s amazing he lost the civil case.   It was a he said/she said argument and his lawyers failed to have him testify!  So she gets to state her case, she doesn’t know what year this allegedly happened, no dna evidence that I saw was presented (I think both sides agreed to this) 30 plus years of her not expressing an issue about it publicly all the while Trump is in the public eye, her favorite TV is the apprentice at one point!   Who does that????  Allegedly gets sexually assaulted, then really enjoys watching the person who assaulted her be on tv?!?

Classic victim blaming here, nice job. Let's have a quick look at this:

People who have been victimized/traumatized will not always act the way we might expect, which in turn makes it difficult to assess their claims. But it is extremely common for sexual assault survivors to not report their complaint or pursue any major action. This happens for a variety of reasons, and your victim-blaming posts is one of the responses that many survivors wish to avoid. Survivors fear retaliation. Survivors often realize the uphill battle that awaits them if they are bold enough to file the complaint, especially if there is no physical evidence or witnesses (which is the case the majority of the time). This is especially true when there is a real or perceived power imbalance and the perpetrator has more resources. 

On top of that, a traumatic response might make people do weird things. Victims return to their abusers all the time. Victims often remember events in a non-linear fashion. Victims might take unusual steps to try to reclaim control of the situation in their heads. I don't know why she enjoyed watching the Apprentice, but it is plausible to think that maybe she was trying to cope with the situation, trying to identify with her attack her, or otherwise trying to rationalize what happened. Maybe she was still drawn to Trump's power and charisma, even though she had been assaulted. We don't know for sure, but these are not foreign concepts if you are trauma-informed. 

As to the court case itself: he said/she said cases happen all the time with sexual assault matters. You know how these cases are decided when it is one person's word against another without much other evidence? You have to weigh credibility! Hell, given what we know about Donald Trump's credibility, I could probably accuse him of sexual assault and win. Because he has absolutely no credibility at all.

You say his lawyers failed to have him testify? LOL! The man would either perjure himself or incriminate himself with every word that came out of his mouth. 

I'm not saying the civil case was a slam dunk; both sides still had to make compelling arguments. But a civil judgment does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have to base a lot of the decision on credibility, and the defendant behaves in the way Trump does - never presenting a cogent argument and only attacking, defaming, and making a fool of himself - winning this case was actually much easier than it would be for the typical sexual assault survivor. The hard part for her was coming forward in the first place, and withstanding Trump's nationwide army of dumbasses and people like you who would rather blame her than believe her. 

17 minutes ago, nic said:

I heard Miami has good academic credibility like ND. Although I somehow find the hard to believe. 

Miami actually has a very good academic reputation. Unfortunately, the thuggish reputation of their football program overshadows it.

On a side note, the Miami fans I met during the Rose Bowl week in 2001/2002 were some of the nicest, most respectful opposing fans I have ever met, which surprised me at the time.  

32 minutes ago, GSG said:

(a lot of Bama fans were whining about their guys leaving early and thinking that's what was disqualifying them)

Most Bama fans never went to college in the first place, so it makes sense that they would be sensitive about this.

33 minutes ago, GSG said:

...in the Super Bowel

10 minutes ago, funhusker said:

The MAGA followers will have to realize that most Americans don't agree with them.

They already realize this and just don't care. Which is why they want to suppress the vote, pack the courts, threaten judges and witnesses, storm the Capitol, etc.

13 hours ago, teachercd said:

I mean....what else do you want, they are attacking the shipping industry.  

I once saw a movie where a decades-long conflict involving everyone began with shipping routes being disputed and attacked. It was a pretty dumb movie but maybe a cautionary tale for us. I don't know the solution, but sending a couple of Jedi Knights to negotiate the conflict probably won't work. 

5 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

You should watch the Washington/Texas game - dude was unreal in that one, and human against Michigan.

Well, what I'm not gonna do is go back and watch a f#%king Texas game for no reason.

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

 

And so if Husker fans have the same complaints about their QB as they do about the Heisman runner-up.....

That's a good way of looking at it. We can call Haarberg our own little Penix. 

Last night was the first Washington game I had watched all season and didn't know what to expect out of Penix. I only watched the Huskers this year and very few other games. But what I saw was awfully familiar: little time to work in a collapsing pocket, missing wide open receivers, lack of touch on passes, and an ugly sidearm motion. Not impressive at all. 

6 minutes ago, commando said:

hmmm....does that apply to Joe also?  maybe trumps lawyer found out that trump plans to not pay him either

If I am Joe Biden, and the courts rule that a President is immune from all prosecution, I immediately start hunting down MAGA loyalists in the Senate and House. Just like Abraham Lincoln hunted vampires.

17 minutes ago, Red Five said:

We've had some conversations about who would have won in 97, but I always feel like I don't have a leg to stand on since I was playing intramural football at UNL and he was playing actual football at Michigan.

The fact that you were playing intramurals does nothing to negate the fact that our actual football team would have stomped an absolute f#%king mudhole in your friend and the rest of his Michigan teammates that year.

7 hours ago, BIG8forever said:

How does thinking we are blue bloods help our program when the rest of the country doesnt think we are blue bloods

Ah, okay. Looked like a big group ( not sure if there were 4 kids or not ), but I tried not to stare and be “that guy.”

I was having breakfast with my wife this morning at Green Gateau, and in walks coaches with a recruit and family. Is Dowdell our only visitor right now, or are there others?

had no idea who actually came in, but the Husker gear and football player sized people gave it away.

8 hours ago, BIG8forever said:

we were team that had a good 30 year run

In most circumstances, it is totally douchey to question the level of someone's fandom, however in this case, on behalf of Huskerboard since it is glaringly obvious you are not a Husker fan, we will kindly ask you to stop referring to Nebraska as "we."

9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Since you are a “civil rights investigator” I’m sure you are aware of the percentage increase by race  of this rise in hate crimes?   Because all your rhetoric goes back to white supremacist as if there is some huge increase in that disgusting population.  If you are going to talk about the ride on hate crime, talk about all perpetrators and not just one group 

Really has nothing to do with my job since I am not a criminal investigator, but here are a few links with data on hate crimes and hate groups if it floats your boat:

https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics

https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-fbi-data-reflects-deeply-alarming-record-high-number-reported-hate?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAy9msBhD0ARIsANbk0A9k4hPicuxd8T_3nH-dV3awRUP6rYYZUoQAPwoCn_Wd1ycvCj-nEocaAjM3EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

But really, my "rhetoric" today is not about the rise or statistics regarding white supremacy. It's been about Vivek, and you and Devo by extension, being dismissive of it. 

Now, I might be done here for the day. If this convo must continue, I would recommend taking it over to the Racism thread. 

4 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

If you can honestly feign surprise that liberals use "white nationalist" and "racist" or "Nazi" when the concept being discussed is actually none of those things, then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not feigning surprise at anything, bruh. You're mischaracterizing my comments, and you still haven't substantiated your statements.

You must not have read my commentary on the Harvard deal a couple of posts up. There are plenty of hypersensitive folks and other crazies who hysterically claim racism at every little thing. I am quite certain that I see these things more often than you do, and as a civil-rights investigator it is the bane of my existence.

But the fact that people do this, and the fact that Jussie Smollett was a thing (since your boy Vivek brought it up), does not negate the existence of systemic racism, the rise in hate crimes even though other violent crimes are going down, the rise of hate groups, and the fact that we have actual active leaders in power who push white supremacist ideas and conspiracy theories. Pointing out that "liberals use 'white nationalist' and 'racist' or 'Nazi' when the concept being discussed is actually none of those things," might provides a convenient "out" for some folks to avoid discussing or acknowledging these issues. 

Tell ya what...the next time you see someone unjustly pull the "Nazi" or "white nationalist" card, feel free to ask my opinion if you really care. We can think critically about it together. After all, even Archy was thoughtful enough to ask me about the Harvard case.

31 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Where did @DevoHuskermake this statement or dismissal?  Please reply with your evidence. 

That comment was mostly based on Ramaswamy's statement in the video where he said: 

Quote

But you're looking in the rearview mirror and using that to pose a question that today is so far removed from what the reality is in America today. This myth of white supremacy, the closest you can find is Jussie Smollett, where you all, speaking of trust in the media, jumped up and down over some false narrative. The best way you're able to find your best instance of white supremacy was a guy who was actually paying his other fellow people to be staging something that didn't happen. So, stop picking on this farse of some figment of something that exists at an infinitesimally small fringe of the American public today and open your eyes to the actual real threats that we face.

Of course, Devo is the one who promoted the post on this forum in the first place, and you said "Everything was impressive about it"

But also, Devo said this: 

4 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

You see, the problem is that the left has tried to label any view right of center as "white nationalism". The word racist gets thrown around for anyone that does not hold their same view of the world.

which seems quite dismissive of these concepts.

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Look no further than the, how do you say…douchenozzle???….that got fired at Harvard.   Stories have been posted showing clowns equating Gay’s firing to racism.   And I’ve noticed you replied to zero of those posts condemning their words that make a mockery of actual racism.  

Yeah, I hadn't read enough of the details of that matter to really know the ins and outs so I didn't comment on it here. But I should have read more about it (and still hope to) so I can make some educated comments on the substance of it.  I am really glad that you brought it up though, can you remind me of some of the specific posts that "make a mockery of actual racism?"

Some comments based on what I have heard and seen so far:

- My knee-jerk reaction without having absorbed all the facts is that her termination (or forced resignation?) was justified. Her statements in the congressional hearing were clumsy and unprepared (more on that in a minute), and if the plagiarism allegations were true, then she simply could not stay.

- It is not surprising that both the right and left would jump on the racial component of this case. Being the first black woman to lead Harvard is no small thing, and for any president of a major university to be gone amid scandal this quickly should certainly be subject to all sorts of second-guessing. Knowing that any adverse action against a black woman of that stature would be met with cries of racism, I would assume that Harvard's board or whoever was calling the shots would have had a solid justification for any action. These universities still think about diversity and inclusion issues very carefully (even if they still mess up quite often), even though many states are trying to outlaw DEI efforts.

- It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that many folks from academia and from marginalized communities would be appalled at what happened and blame it on racism without evidence to substantiate it. I see it all the time in my work: people claiming discrimination when the facts don't support it, or raising hysteria without solutions. This hysteria is exactly what the right latches onto into in order to dismiss any suggestion of systemic racism or "wokeness" or whatever. 

- It also doesn't surprise me that right-wingers, including posters on this very board, were quick to celebrate her ousting, and claim she never belonged in that role in the first place. I personally don't think her termination was based on race, but a lot of the reaction might be.

- The university presidents (including the one from Penn) walked into an obvious trap from Trump-stooge Stefanik in that congressional hearing. They were completely over their heads in responding to obvious gotcha questions. I'm not saying they should have responded like that idiot Ramaswamy, but their answers were dumb and unbecoming of a major university president. Stefanik didn't have the slightest clue nor interest in what constitutes harassment or conduct policy violations on college campuses, and I doubt she actually cares about antisemitism except as a political tool. But the college presidents walked right into her ambush.

- I don't really know what qualifies someone to be a university president. I've seen a lot of them do stupid things, I've seen a lot who are nothing but political stooges (Sasse, for example), and I've seen a lot who are not capable of doing any of the actual working jobs that make a campus run. Seems that the most effective presidents are good at raising money, hiring competent VPs and Directors to do the real work, and avoid embarrassing themselves and the school. It looks like Gay failed at the last part, so I don't have a ton of sympathy. 

- If I get around to reading more of the facts of this issue, I may change some of these thoughts later. 

6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

This wasn't your first post after I linked the full clip of the exchange? 

 

Oh! So he couldn't answer a simple question about white nationalism and instead claimed that white supremacy is a myth and some insignificant part of our country's past? And so he embraces endorsements from douchenozzles like Stephen Miller and tries to parrot Trump's rhetoric every chance he gets. And he doubles down with an even more idiotic tweet of his own that you were good enough to share with us. "Punctuality" and "the written word"?

Interesting to see what sort of characters appeal to you.

 

Yeah, that's mine. Do you have additional comments or questions? 

56 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Where is this angst towards me coming from?

Sorry if somebody pissed in your Wheaties this morning...but it certainly wasn't me.

Hey, nobody pissed in anything this morning, but if you are going to make statements such as: 

Quote

the left has tried to label any view right of center as "white nationalism". The word racist gets thrown around for anyone that does not hold their same view of the world.

you should be prepared to substantiate them. 

Simply dismissing white nationalism and racism as if they are mythical concepts that don't exist is irresponsible and dangerous. 

7 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

This is a terrible take and interpretation.

 

 

Ramaswamy is a clown for a lot of reasons, but this isn't one of them. While I think his premise and conclusion are both lacking some important clarity and articulation, which actually does more heavy lifting of revealing his true stance towards race relations (which I find to be inadequate), the question is not served as a neutral opportunity, and his response exposes it as such and is at least something better than, 'MY OPINION IS THAT RACISM IS BAD PLEASE CLAP'.

These are good points (except for the "terrible take" part), and I don't think we are that far off from one another. I'm sure the journalist was attempting to go down some sort of gotcha path, and the questions were dumb and clumsy. I'm all for calling out stupid questions and bad journalism; fact-based questions would be very refreshing indeed. But he came across as very petulant and chose to make a stand in refusing to discuss a topic that everyone should be against. There are smarter ways to engage.

I agree that he is a clown on many levels.