Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
homo acted foolishly and provocatively
homophobe committed criminal assault
these are not mutually exclusive facts.
both were irresponsible.
we're sorry, Slog, we ran this through the HomoLiberal BullShit Filter but only got this out.....
#$@ % ^&^ %#$ $%^ ^%^%$$$ %##@*(&^%$$.....
Dam will have to provide the translation into English.
Please.
PleasePleasePlease...
PLEASE do not point out Dan's illiteracy.
It's Christmas, after all.
Yeah, imprudent. Even stupid. But not illegal, jor in any way a crime. Just to keep the relative scale of things clear.
Hopefully his attacker will be prosecuted properly -- and Hamm will learn a little discretion :-P From the sounds of it, though, both seem unlikely.
Those who commit violence look for an excuse to pin their blame on someone else. People say stupid things all the time and are not attacked. He was attacked for revealing his predilection toward men.
And you are obviously exercising the former. If anything, ugly women in frumpy clothes are more likely to be raped because they're less likely to have the inner strength to report it and seek justice all the way to the end.
That said, I do not think that the provocation came anywhere close to warranting the response in this incident. It's not "fighting words" just because the receiving party finds those particular words offensive (wasn't that what they said about the guy who had "Fuck the Draft" printed on his jacket?), which seems to be what happened here. I hope the assailant gets punished appropriately.
Actually, change "inner strength" to "self-esteem."
So fuck Dustin. This isn't a hate crime: This is a douchebag getting a punch in the face for saying something douchey. In fact, I'd go so far as to call this a victory.
I'm not saying Hamm should have been assaulted. I'm just saying that if the woman whose tits I wanted to see had a boyfriend who tried to beat me up-- or if she were a kickboxer and knocked me upside the head with a roundhouse-- I would probably blame myself for being such a cad.
Not that a verbal crime is an excuse for a violent crime. But they're both bad.
@7: Makes perfect sense to the rest of us; he just left out the words "hard to". But it's well known that the "HomoLiberal Bullshit filter" consists of "comprehend only what can be plausibly spoken with an uneducated south Appalachian drawl".
I, too, am a totally bad faggot, however.
If I'm not mistaken, Dan has just gone and publicly stated that violence is something which "just happens" and that the way to reduce it is by not saying things which make violent people be violent, apparently against their own will?
For fuck's sake! violence is not OK, unless it's in self defence! what kind of barbaric world is Dan advocating here!
One guy verbally sexually harrasses a stranger in response to him peeing on his car.
The other guy violently assaults him. Not an equal exchange. The appropriate reaction would have been to say "fuck off asshole." as any woman would have said.
Sorry, but I should be able to punch a guy in the face for doing that shit, because, for fuck's sake, I am so goddamned tired of hearing it.
Those of you who are wringing your hands over this "VIOLENCE!!!" are all coming across as though you believe that people ought to be free to be provocative and insulting without consequence. This guy decided to be a smartass; he wasn't really hurt; time to move on.
Lie to the cops.
If he'd claimed he hadn't said anything and the guy had just lashed out and started beating him up, the detective would be more willing to press charges. Doubly so, if they started throwing around lame accusations like "He said I should show him my cock" as justification for their actions.
But the moment you admit to personal wrong doing, it's your own damn fault and let the beatings commence.
Lest we forget, making false statements to an investigator is a felony.
I don't think this was homophobia, I think it was just some drunk dude over-reacting to sexual harassment from an asshole. I hope the asshole wasn't badly injured. But he's is the wrong, possibly as much as the physical assailant.
Bullshit. Rape is about reproduction, not "power", whatever the fuck that means to your Gender Studies-rotted mond. (If it was about power, the attacker would punch the person.)
Look at the stats: Women aged 12-34 are at the highest risk for being sexually assaulted. Risk peaks in the late teens: girls 16-19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape and sexual assault.
Looks to me more like rape is primarily a reproductive strategy, and as we would expect the targets are usually women of reproductive age.
I struggle to understand how folks like @8 or @45 are imagining the scenario where being "pretty" and wearing "revealing clothes" cause one to be assaulted. A man is just walking down the street, going about his ordinary day, in control of his behavior, when he sees a woman he finds overwhelmingly attractive... Suddenly he can't contain his immense violent desire, and he attacks her? Really? But if she had been wearing a big rain poncho he would have walked on by and continued with his grocery shopping? Who is this man, exactly, with such wide-ranging and erratic behavior, with so little control over his impulses? No. Most people walking down the street, while they may feel attraction to someone they see, do not attack her. The person who attacks someone on the street has gone out looking to attack someone. Okay? He is looking for someone vulnerable. He didn't suddenly decide to commit violence because of your skirt.
I realize this wasn't the main point of this post, but this ridiculous idea just keeps cropping up. I would have thought by 2010 we would have moved on from blaming the targets of sexual violence.
I'm not sure if the law has changed since I was in uniform but, legally speaking, a verbal comment is NEVER legal justification for assault/battery/etc.
Seriously, WTF were you thinking? How is me wearing a mini skirt is equivalent to sexually harassing someone? And I shouldn't be surprised if I'm Beaten in the street for it? And less surprised if the police refuse to go after my assailant? I guess I missed where Seattle turned into Saudi Arabia. Sorry Dan, but this post is Fucked. It's really upsetting to hear this kind of bullshit from someone who's Supposed to be the voice of reason. Seriously Dan. Bad move.
Rape is about power, and physical/sexual desirability IS power. Women who dress to emphasize their sexual attractiveness are "flaunting" their power, and that often makes them targets for rapists, who want to take that power away from them. It doesn't mean that any woman, of any age, any appearance, is completely safe from rape, because many rapists view simply BEING a woman as powerful, and something that can therefore be taken/destroyed. But a sexually attractive woman alone on the street is exerting her power in a way that makes her a more inviting target. You can think of it the way big game hunters will mount the head of a large tiger they killed on the wall, as a demonstration of their own perceived badassedness. They may be just as big an animal-killing prick to rabbits and duckies in private, kill them for the pleasure of seeing them die, but they want to bag that more visibly threatening tiger to to truly boost their damaged ego.
@44 Thank you!! I was wondering why so many people equate this with randomly telling a girl to show her tits. Clearly it would only be similar if she were standing there with her tits out in public. At which point nobody would be surprised if the drunk chick got some offers.
I am a bit surprised by Dan's lack of empathy. He said it himself- steps away from the Stranger office, right next to a gay bar and in the heart of our most supportive neighborhood. Just the spot that is usually safe to make an off-the-cuff remark, probably drunkenly. I think that this context is actually important. Most people in that area would take the joke just fine. It's not like he said it in the U-district, thereby making them "fighting words."
"However, it was not sexual harassment nor were my words 'Fighting Words' that warranted a quasi beat down that incurred after the words were jokingly uttered. This was a hate crime through and through. There's no 'bias' about it."
Dustin, I think it's possible that ALL these things are true. I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that your words "you could have at least shown me your cock" aren't insultingly intimate to say the least. Was it sexual harassment? Well, it depends on how you choose to define the term, but I think we can all agree that it was the kind of remark anyone (straight or gay) might take great offense to.
With that said - the physical beating you got was probably a hate crime, in that this guy was especially angry at such a remark coming from a gay dude. The guy sounds like an asshole, but remember that the fact that there are people worse than you does not make you good. He didn't deserve it, you didn't deserve it, and both of you probably need to control yourselves a bit more.