Frat Made To Apologize Over Anti-Sexual Assault Banners

[Canadamus Prime]

My head hurts. I simply cannot process the level of stupidity on display here. Feminists are offended because the frat is showing SUPPORT for sexual assault victims? I cannot wrap my head around this.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Don't you know by now that everything can be blamed on those damn libruls and feminsits!?!

And bears. Don't forget the bears.

Hey, man...i heard that! And, yes...maybe, just maybe bears are big soft targets that can take many blames without so much as a tickle. But we have feelings too! Feelings of intense hunger. Rage. Sleepiness. Sleepy rage. And, erm...ambivalence? Also guilt and boredom. Why am i listing bear emotions? This madness has to end!

No. Fuck bears.

Don't you know that the moment you step outside your home the chances of you getting mauled by a bear sky rocket?

A bear sky rocket? Sounds like some serious equipment i am missing out on here. Also, i would recommend not trying to fuck them, that may be why they are trying to maul you.

Heard of bear mace? Well I got Bear Grenades! Pull the tab and run for cover cause you'll be covered in bear meat, yo

 

[JimB]

This one is not stated as harboring sexual assailants so your assumption is biased and patently offensive.

Okay. What is the name of "this one," and what steps had they taken to prevent sexual assault among their members prior to this controversy?

If someone supports you and you find that offensive enough to complain about their support then the issue is on you and not them.

You're missing the point. Putting up banners isn't support; it's just taping a very large bumper sticker to your wall. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't give a victim a place to go after assault, it doesn't offer medical care, it doesn't offer legal assistance, it doesn't offer counseling; it doesn't do anything. On its own, the gesture is so shallow as to be meaningless, like Donald Trump eating a taco salad to appease Hispanic voters.

Anti-assault policies being instituted does not justify being assholes to a group that is supporting the cause via banner.

If you think a group being criticized is not a fair price to pay for actual, concrete steps being taken to prevent and help achieve legal justice for sexual assault, then I can only shake my head and be glad your priorities do not govern the actual chain of events, because you have placed pride at a higher priority than the mental health, physical health, and legal rights of victims. Do you seriously not see how messed up it is to say rape victims are demanding too much of you if their well-being comes at the price of your feelings getting hurt? That's not an attack, by the way; I'm seriously asking. Do you not see how horrific it is, to say that women being safer on campus is a bad thing if it causes you emotional inconvenience?

I'd like to see some people here so concerned about college sexual assault deal with a pernicious source of rape: men's prisons.

Terminalchaos, I am going to ask you to tread very, very carefully here, because you are using the people whom you claim to want to advocate for as a platform made of bodies to stand on to preach from. You are using rape victims as weapons in a battle they didn't choose, trying to gain legitimacy for yourself by weaponizing them in a battle they haven't chosen, to be used against other rape victims. It is one of the most hateful things you can do, not just to the women whose rapes you are attempting to trivialize by comparison, but to the men whose welfare you pretend to be an advocate for while at the same time you offer no solutions nor actions to help them but instead as objects whose victimization you can use to score points in an internet argument.

I had to walk away from my computer before I could write this calmly, and even now, I am so angry at you that if you were in front of me, you and I would be in a fistfight right now (I'd be losing, but I'd also be too angry to care). Shame on you for using rape victims as weapons in a political battle the victims themselves don't even benefit from. Shame on you.

 

[ilikeyou]

And we would go on as though nothing was wrong.
D
And hide from these days we remained all alone.
C
Staying in the same place, just staying out the time.

Touching from a distance,
D C
Eating all the Limes.

D

 

[JimB]

Not taking steps to prevent is not the same as harboring sexual assailants.

It is fortunate for me I did not say they are. I asked you two questions, the first being the name of the fraternity you have chosen to champion, and the second being what actual, demonstrable steps that fraternity had taken to make campus safer for victims of sexual assault prior to their having been criticized. You chose not to answer either of those questions in favor of defending against an argument I did not make. Do you intend to answer the questions, or should I quit wasting my effort asking you?

Even if it is simply the same effort as a bumper sticker, they do not deserve to be hated for taking that step any more than a hashtagger should.

I consider myself lucky to live in a world where you have neither the legal authority nor the psychic powers to tell me what emotional responses I am permitted to have in response to which stimuli.

I absolutely think that the feeling of safety should not trump basic due process.

What do you understand the term "due process" to mean, Terminalchaos? Because to me, it is a legal term that has no purpose here except to pretend a citizen's rights were violated by agents of the state in order to lend a false sense of outrage to what is simply people exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize whatsoever they see fit.

Their well being is not improved by harassing the frat and demanding an apology.

First, you are incorrect about the sequence of events. This article [http://dailynorthwestern.com/2016/05/02/campus/following-banner-controversy-interfraternity-council-plans-to-implement-four-year-sexual-assault-education-program/] explicitly says new programs were instituted as a result of the criticism. Second, I do not find any reports of harassment, and am curious to know what acts were committed that you are defining as harassment.

If the frat didn't commit rapes then they have no obligation to stop them more than any other group that doesn't rape that isn't the police.

They also don't get to pretend to me they're supporting rape victims.

I'm not using these victims as a weapon any more than you already are (probably less since I'm making a point without insulting them).

Crap. You are bringing up rape victims in order to deflect attention from other rape victims.

Shame on you for not being able to read an internet disagreement without feeling like causing physical damage to another person, who happens to have a huge issue with the callous way prisoners are treated in this country.

You misunderstand me. It is not a concern for prisoners nor an internet disagreement that provokes my rage; it is you pretending that either of those things are actually your priority, when your behavior does not back it up. You have not proposed one step a person can take in order to support prison victims of rape, and I am forced to conclude it is either because you don't actually care or because you are so bad at advocating for them that you think simply mentioning them is a form of support; which, frankly, I think is just a slightly more complex permutation of not actually caring.

Nor do I minimize the traumas of those who truly were raped.

When you treat a discussion that is specifically about the prevalence of sexual assault within the Greek system as a platform to preach for your pet cause, yes, you are doing that, because you are stopping a conversation that you only bring up your purported passion in response to. I cannot credit you with actually caring about a topic when you do not seem to care enough to mention it except when there is a threat someone might pay attention to women and their experiences.

 

[JimB]

Not taking steps to prevent is not the same as harboring sexual assailants.

It is fortunate for me I did not say they are. I asked you two questions, the first being the name of the fraternity you have chosen to champion, and the second being what actual, demonstrable steps that fraternity had taken to make campus safer for victims of sexual assault prior to their having been criticized. You chose not to answer either of those questions in favor of defending against an argument I did not make. Do you intend to answer the questions, or should I quit wasting my effort asking you?

I take it you do not intend to answer the question, then. That is a damned shame, because since you have never used their name, I had serious doubts about whether you even knew the name of the fraternity whose innocence you insist upon. Well, I no longer doubt, at least.

Please look up due process before being condescending about a perceived misuse of the term, which in fact was being used correctly.

I asked you to tell me what you mean by the term, and you tell me to look up a term with multiple definitions and just guess? Okay then.

The reactions the frat have experienced seem to have some harassment in them.

That does not even come close to answering the question I asked you, which was, "What acts have been committed that you define as harassment?"

I deleted most of my response to you because once I detected this theme of you refusing to answer fairly simple questions, none of the rest of it seemed to matter much. I do not believe you are arguing in good faith (though to be fair, I did not believe that from my first post, as I think is apparent in that post once you subtract the distracting anger), which I guess makes this whole exercise pointless...but who knows, maybe my pointing it out will make you actually answer some questions just to spite me.

 

[JimB]

I reserve fully engaging in cited discourse for those for people willing to engage in at least a modicum of charity.

Then you are deliberately arguing in bad faith, but it's okay because I'm too mean to deserve good faith. Fair enough--I don't get to determine your level of activity in a discussion--but I am amused you excuse yourself from good faith based on your perceptions of the other person in the same thread where you condemn your unnamed enemies for doing the same to your unnamed allies over in the Greek system at NU.

 

[The Bucket]

You're both writing very long paragraphs to explain how you aren't arguing with the other person anymore

 

[the December King]

So, just so I understand correctly, this article doesn't mention that the fraternity in question has had a history of sexual assaults, but it actually does, and hasn't been, but should be held accountable? Because if that is the case, then yes, putting up banners would seem to be offensive, or at the very least, tokenism- an empty gesture.

If that is the case, then this is another good example of needing more than the one side provided for an article- biased coverage, or just poor coverage.

It's very important to be the last person to say you're done with the argument. Otherwise you don't get any points. And without points what are you supposed to trade in at the prize booth for pencil top erasers and keychains?

Now I understand... I've been so blind. No one ever mentioned frigging keychains before... no wonder everyone doubles down and never surrenders!

 

[JimB]

You're both writing very long paragraphs to explain how you aren't arguing with the other person anymore.

Except for the part where I never said that and am pretty definitively doing the opposite of what you say I profess to not doing. If you must pass judgment, then be my guest, but please do try to limit yourself to judging me for things I actually said.

 

[anthony87]

So, just so I understand correctly, this article doesn't mention that the fraternity in question has had a history of sexual assaults, but it actually does

Does it though?

I'm genuinely asking here. I've gone through the article and saw no mention of anything like that and all I've seen in the thread is people assuming things.

I hope I'm not having one of those brain fart moments where something is staring me right in the face and I'm not seeing it.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Heard of bear mace? Well I got Bear Grenades! Pull the tab and run for cover cause you'll be covered in bear meat, yo

Are these bear grenades that are built to solely kill bears, or bear grenades that explode into many bears that rain down with vengeance upon unsuspecting victims? Bear mace sounds like a high class purfume i would use during mating season. Yet they still always run. Maybe i should stop spraying it in their eyes for once.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, just so I understand correctly

I'll stop you right there. The IFC is not a frat. The IFC is the council which presides over, far as I can tell, all fraternities on campus. The constituent fraternities are all or mostly national or multinational frats with chapters on campus. It's actually quite possible they're required to be a part of the IFC in order to get a school charter. The primary complaint is that sexual assault by "Greeks" is something in the ballpark of 3 times that of non-fraternity men, as per one of the pieces linked in the article itself, and that slapping up banners is unhelpful or not enough. The IFC agreed, and has taken voluntary steps to change that.

That you can find allegations of sexual assault from multiple involved frats is technically true but it shouldn't have to go this far. The complaint doesn't need to mention a specific fraternity being involved in sexual assault for the issue to be a valid one.

But yes, this is a good example of the need for better journalism. As is the bit where it's been rewritten twice to be less inflammatory or correct facts (it now says fraternities, for example).

At the same time, this was never about good coverage, it was a snarl piece. It accomplished what it set out to do, no doubt.

not every fraternity harbors sexual assailants and you saying that they did is offensive .

I can't find a single instance of me saying that every fraternity harbouts sexual assailants. and you quoted me in full. It does sound offensive. But since I didn't say that (or if I did, you didn't quote me), perhaps don't say that me saying it is offensive.

This one is not stated as harboring sexual assailants so your assumption is biased and patently offensive.

I actually stated that the constituent frats have been accused of it, as per the things I actually said. There is no "this frat" here.

Just assuming the frat is full of assailants is hateful bs.

And again, based on things I didn't say.

Anti-assault policies being instituted does not justify being assholes to a group that is supporting the cause via banner.

I wasn't aware a mild opinion piece saying such things were insufficient in addressing the problem counted as "being an asshole."

If anything- someone owes that frat an apology.

...someone owes the IFC an apology because they said banners were not enough, the IFC (headed by a guy who is part of anti-assault programs) agreed, and they voluntarily took steps to ameliorate things? The frats weren't smeared or defamed. Neither were they punished.

the results may be good but vilifying the innocent is not a good thing.

You can't demonstrate this happened. To the contrary, you literally just quoted me talking about the real chain of events, and nobody was vilified.

I'd like to see some people here so concerned about college sexual assault deal with a pernicious source of rape: men's prisons.

Ah. There we get to the heart of the matter.

The strange thing is how this sort of thing never seems to come up on its own. It's always a way to block discussion about women being raped. The stranger thing is that this comes up in response to me, but not the OP. I'm only here replying. If you're so concerned, make a thread about it. Don't offload the responsibility to others. To start bringing it up here is a disservice to the topic at hand and comes off as insincere.

If you want to make a group or institution apologize for violating human rights and absolutely enabling regular acts of abuse and rape then tackle the prison system.

Weirdly enough, I don't think anyone here has stated that they wanted to make such a thing happen.

In effect every citizen of a state that has a prison that allows rapes to occur is in fact paying for prisoners to be raped.

So I'm just going to bring this on home by pointing out that by that logic, we're also paying for college students to be raped. And worse still, that means that every frat is harbouring rapists. And if you end up replying, don't try and peg me as having said it again. Your argument provides that standard. Not only are we subsudising frat life, the fraternities themselves specifically are. If you're serious about indicting the population for paying for rape, you don't get to take umbrage at the idea that fraternities are harbouring rapists. Even though this was not my argument in the first place.

However, that's as far as I'm going to go here. I'd be more than happy to clarify any facts about this incident with the IFC at NU, as I've ended up doing a fair amount of research. I even considered reaching out to members of then IFC for specific clarification, but it seems silly for a forum argument.

If you must pass judgment, then be my guest, but please do try to limit yourself to judging me for things I actually said.

Can I judge you for being a Shyguy? >.>