Wikileaks...

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:12 pm

I think the implication is male rape victims are repeatedly raped.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:00 pm

PoliteNewb wrote:So: if a vast majority of rape victims are female, several times as many females as males are raped every year, and a much higher percentage of females than males are likely to be raped...how could men possibly be raped more often?

Maxus wrote:I think the implication is male rape victims are repeatedly raped.

Yeah. The idea is that there are more individual female victims, but the males might* have been raped repeatedly, so that there were more occurrences of male rape.

* I'm not saying this is the case. I have no data whatsoever on the matter. I'm just explaining what I think Catharz is saying.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:22 pm

Maxus wrote:I think the implication is male rape victims are repeatedly raped.

*shrug* I'd have to see the data supporting that implication. US crime reporting statistics (from which that website draws it's stats) does, I believe, take into account each instance as a separate crime...but I'm sure prison rape is heavily underreported.

That said...if 20 guys get raped 1000 times each, I'm sorry, but that's not worse than 10,000 women each being raped once. The fact is that people are raped regularly when the society/setting they are in encourage rape of certain groups...and while the fact that prison settings (a small subset of society) encourage rape of men in prison (a small subset of men) is bad, it is not as bad as the fact that the entire COUNTRY encourages the rape of ALL women.

So trying to derail this by saying that rape is all about men is insulting as fuck to women.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:37 pm

PoliteNewb wrote:So trying to derail this by saying that rape is all about men is insulting as fuck to women.

I'm not going to touch the rest of that with a 10' pole, but derailing this thread? Which is supposedly about Wikileaks?

violence in the media · Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:04 pm

PoliteNewb wrote:
That said...if 20 guys get raped 1000 times each, I'm sorry, but that's not worse than 10,000 women each being raped once.

Does this mean gang rapes aren't as serious because, fuck it, the person's already been raped by the time the last guy gets to them?

I mean, I sort of see where you're coming from, but that's still kinda fucked up. You're already valuing an individual male rape at half of an individual female rape.

edit to add: And that's before you discount it further because the male rape is presumed to keep happening to the same person.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:28 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
PoliteNewb wrote:So trying to derail this by saying that rape is all about men is insulting as fuck to women.
I'm not going to touch the rest of that with a 10' pole, but derailing this thread? Which is supposedly about Wikileaks?

*sheepish* Okay, touche. I'm derailing the thread. But that doesn't mean it's okay to take a discussion about rape and make it all about men. Women are the primary victims of rape, and men are the primary victimizers (hell, even of male rape victims). Trying to deny that pisses me off, and is one of the main reasons rape is a serious problem...because when you let the victimizers make the problem all about them, it will not get solved.

VitM wrote:Does this mean gang rapes aren't as serious because, fuck it, the person's already been raped by the time the last guy gets to them?

I mean, I sort of see where you're coming from, but that's still kinda fucked up. You're already valuing an individual male rape at half of an individual female rape.

All right, from a moral point of view, or sympathy for the victim point of view, I value all rapes equally. If you were raped, I feel for you.

But we were looking at things statistically, as a way of assessing how widespread or powerful a problem is...and placing a higher premium on a crime, however horrible, that only affects a small number of people compared to a crime that is so widespread it affects many times that number of people is...bullshit.

Of course being raped repeatedly is bad. My comment (hyperbolic though it was) was meant to imply that if horrible things have happened to you, horrible things have happened to you. I doubt the victim themself would say that the fact they were raped 40 times versus 50 times was a huge factor in how they felt about it. That doesn't mean that what happened to you was significantly worse than what happened to someone who was "only" raped once.

My point was strictly related to statistical assessment of "who's problem this is".

Let's take rape out of it, and substitute another crime, like theft. If one guy (let's say he was white) was robbed 50 times, but 20 black people were robbed in the same period, is it fair to say "robbery is white issue, not a black one...look, twice as many robberies happened to white people"?

I'm actually fine defining rape as a human problem, since it affects both men and women, but I do feel men should admit that their role in solving this lies in looking at the fact that men are the primary people committing rape, not the ones suffering from it. But trying to say "rape is a male issue, women are the least qualified people to talk about rape" is a fucking travesty.

edit to add: And that's before you discount it further because the male rape is presumed to keep happening to the same person.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:45 pm

Can we please just have all rape discussions banned? Werewolves being dog-rape or not, comparing the ethics of gang rape, debating whether Assanges is a rapist or not, vampirism as rape...

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:57 pm

Yeah, we need to start discussing whether Assange is an MKUltra cultist. [OK, Batshit Insane]

-Username17

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:14 pm

You know, he's a Doctor of History.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:25 pm

The Assange is/was a cultist has come up a bit in my readings. One site did have some photos of what was purported to be a young Julian standing with a dozen other bleached blonde kids. Even if that convinces you he was in a cult I don't know if it's enough to indicate he is a secret pawn of <Shadowy Power Brokers X>.

Most of the chatter about him being a MK Ultra cultist is coming from the usual conspiracy theorists. I don't know if it's because he's gotten more attention then them and they're jealous, or if there is a grain of truth to it, or if theorizing about conspiracy is what they do.

Ideally the questions we'd be concerning ourselves with are whether the documents leaked are credible and if so what do they mean? Even if Assange was some variety of monster would that invalidate the material gets out, it wouldn't absolve him of any monstrous acts he commits (not saying he has or hasn't) but wouldn't the documents be just as valuable?

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:28 pm

He's a rape robot from the future, and he's leaking all over the place.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:51 pm

While I have not looked deeply into the controversy surrounding Assange, I think it's a fair bet that the frenzied mudslinging and rumormongering isn't because Assange has some heap of terrible moral failings that simply must be addressed, but because some people with considerable resources don't like the work he does and destruction of reputation is a textbook response to whistleblowers. And the crime he's accused of doesn't really sound like something that you would raise an international stir (to the point of calling for extradition) over. But hey.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:15 am

Juton wrote:Ideally the questions we'd be concerning ourselves with are whether the documents leaked are credible and if so what do they mean? Even if Assange was some variety of monster would that invalidate the material gets out, it wouldn't absolve him of any monstrous acts he commits (not saying he has or hasn't) but wouldn't the documents be just as valuable?

In theory yes. But if they can convince people that he's a bad person then the credibility of everything he is involved with is lowered. Additionally, every time they get something not related to the things they want hidden into the news and into the public's heads its that much less time spent thinking of the Swedish/US under the table agreements that wouldn't pass Swedish parliament and so remain informal.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:22 pm

god I hate people...

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:53 pm

Wikileaks has finally paid the money they raised for bradley manning in july 2010

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:49 pm

They paid Manning $15,100, slightly down from the original $50,000. But given all the issues they've had in raising money themselves, I'm impressed they gave anything at all.

Fortunately, Manning now has more than $100K for his defense.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:53 pm

Ester Addley of the UK Guardian reports live from Assange's extradition hearing. Start reading from the bottom.

Day One

Day Two

I actually found this really fascinating. Closing arguments will be on Friday.

Molochio · Post by **Molochio** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:10 pm

mean_liar wrote:He's a rape robot from the future, and he's leaking all over the place.

This is an interesting theory.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:28 pm

Maj wrote:They paid Manning $15,100, slightly down from the original $50,000. But given all the issues they've had in raising money themselves, I'm impressed they gave anything at all.

Fortunately, Manning now has more than $100K for his defense.

Wow really? That's pretty fraudulent, as the money they raised was for the defence of bradley manning specifically.

Shit, by this logic it would be okay for me to go door knocking for Cancer Australia and then keep 70% of the money. Who's with me?

What fucking retards.

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:49 pm

Given wikileaks has had its US, Swiss and paypal accounts frozen and Visa and Mastercard payments, I'm surprised that they've been able to make any payments at all.

It should be noted that the swiss accounts are mainly related to Assange.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:05 am

How much money did they actually raise for him though?

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:48 am

Blasted wrote:Given wikileaks has had its US, Swiss and paypal accounts frozen and Visa and Mastercard payments, I'm surprised that they've been able to make any payments at all.

It should be noted that the swiss accounts are mainly related to Assange.

This is total bullshit - the majority of Wikileak's money, including charitable donations, is handled by the Wau Holland foundation that has none of its accounts frozen. Additionally, Wau Holland publically stated that it had the money ready to go, and the only thing holding it up was Wikileaks failing to authorise a payment.

Unless your claiming Julian Assange doesn't have access to a telephone or email, the hand wringing about their accounts being blocked is just a smokescreen.

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:16 am

Surgo wrote:How much money did they actually raise for him though?

AFAIK Wau Holland doesn't know. It all goes into the one pot.
Early on, they (WL) said that they would pay $50000, but how much they raised and how much they have available I can't find out.

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... ws&act=url

Additionally, Wau Holland publically stated that it had the money ready to go, and the only thing holding it up was Wikileaks failing to authorise a payment.

The only thing I've seen related to anything like that is this from 14/1/11 (after the donation on the 13th, but doesn't mention the donation, so the interview was probably beforehand) which says WH is waiting for lawyers to say whether it would be legal under german law to donate to manning.

But that article gives interesting information on WL's finances.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:19 pm

Here is an alarming and rather unreported new twist to the Wikileaks saga.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:40 pm

The Colbert Report finally takes up the story.

-Username17