Inside the Anonymous Hacking File on the Steubenville 'Rape Crew'
theatlanticwire.com
theatlanticwire.com
That would at least explain why people affiliate with teams based on geography, which doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
(There have probably been thousands of proper studies on the topic. I have read none of them.)
But what would it take to put behind bars the justice system adults involved in the numerous alleged instances of covering up ? Their (alleged) crime is even more disgusting and it directly facilitates numerous other rape cases that didn't go to trial; they are harming more girls than the footballers themselves.
Wow, really? If this guy turns out to be guilty of possession, this is a glaring example of how meaningless the term "terrorist" has become in the USA.
The word has become meaningless, but they can get away with using it when it's paired with something people don't understand (They HACKED my email!). Hopefully once these things become more understood, more people will realise how silly it is deeming this as terrorism.
The definition of "terrorize" is expanded to the point where it would not / should not be conflated with the current usage of "terrorism".
This instance of the abuse of the term "terrorist" is an example of, not proof of.
Further the author isn't using the term hyperbolically, he is making a direct claim. Namely, that the people who "hacked" his site are terrorists.
Hacking is not terrorism.
>this is a glaring example of how meaningless the term "terrorist" has become in the USA.
It is much like the U.S. used "communists" as a derogatory term for those who fought to independence and opposed them in South America. So it has actually become a complement "hey if fighting a brutal empire is called Communism, great, where do we sign up to join this communism thing".
Edit: argh, sorry, this was a reply to damn, who's comment is below and had me feeling rather depressed!
In my opinion, opting for biological procreation fails the Categorical Imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative), thereby making that option unethical. Common-sensically, again, what is the rationalization for choosing to create a new human when you have the power to rescue a condemned innocent? Almost every answer reduces to vanity.
> Common-sensically, again, what is the rationalization
> for choosing to create a new human when you have
> the power to rescue a condemned innocent?
I'm thinking of the following scenario: 1. More such cases. 2. Inevitably, some innocent people get targetted. 3. Politicians step in to "solve" the problem, we get some more bad internet law ("Internet Mob Control Act"?)
Clearly, it is a good thing that Anonymous is drawing attention to this case: going by the Atlantic's and the NYTime's reporting, there's a lot of suspect stuff going on and it should absolutely be investigated by people without any skin in the game.
However, Anonymous are not lawyers. Releasing potential evidence into the public eye is hugely problematic, because it may in the end not be admissible.
Suppose there exists a piece of evidence that appears to absolutely and totally prove the guilt of the accused. However, this evidence is inadmissible in court (this happens more than you might think). The jury wouldn't get to see or hear about this evidence. Now, imagine this key piece of evidence is leaked before the trial by somebody like Anonymous. Suddenly, it's everywhere, all over the news. The defence team are going to have a field day: it's mistrial time. Their client can't possibly receive a fair trial.
So I am in two minds about this: on the one hand, it's undoubtedly a good thing that attention is being drawn to this case. This would have been unlikely to happen on such a large scale if Anonymous hadn't gotten involved.
On the other, if Anonymous keep going down this road they will cause a mistrial. And that's going to result in the complete opposite of what they're trying to achieve.
I'm curious if they'll turn into another LuzSec.
'Panem et circenses'
We, too, used to do this not so long ago. The stadiums are still around if you visit Rome.
On the other hand, football in small-town America contains none of this. They don't get anything other than bragging rights when Smalltown 1 beats Smalltown 2 for some sort of football championship. The individual players might get scholarship money for university to play college ball, but that's about it.
How can you get anything resembling a fair investigation and trial in a case like this? It seems impossible.
I refuse to help create a child who will only be harassed, bullied and possibly murdered by his fellow students. If anyone who doesn't think this is serious, is normalizing too much.
Or maybe you should procreate so there is more normal and good people to stand up to the bullies.
It changed enough that one of those high school football players asked her to prom last year (needless to say, I was worried about a Never Been Kissed prom scene).
It is not perfect, and where you live still matters a lot, but it is better, and when supported by caring, empathetic parents, usually manageable. Sure, something could go drastically wrong, but I don't live my life around black swan events.
No I'm not blaming the victim. But reality is what it is.
If you have a son this is a good example to use to explain how he should react if he finds himself in a situation where his "friends" are about to do something absolutely abhorrent.
I don't know how it works in the US, but in my country, when a person consents to sex while drunk, even though they wouldn't consent while sober, it's not considered to be a rape. The justification is that adult people know how alcohol works and may decide not to drink it, and the amount of alcohol needed to get someone drunk enough is too big to make someone intoxicated without them realizing. Of course, it also means that having sex with someone who passed out is rape, and so is getting someone to consent after giving them rape pills, for you can make someone ingest them without them realizing.
This happens for young college students for example who go to parties with people don't know, drink and then have to deal with the consequences.
So we want to protect the victims of sexual abuse but also be very harsh on drunk drives except that the two are at odds.
Now there is nothing stopping laws to passed that are logically inconsistent but of course we need to preserve at least a superficial objectivity so people keep believing in the legal system.
It's perfectly consistent to counsel a daughter to avoid getting too drunk with hormone-and-mysogyny driven teenage boys, for fear of her safety, AND to love her and support her completely were she to ignore your advice and the worst happened.
I'm not X, but X. "it is what it is" does not make it sound any less stupid and vulgar.