the swans

their music is good

>Le dark angry man can't play guitar but he says fuck!!!!

It's not memerap, therefore it's good

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFUCKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAPEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYOURFACEAAAAAA(x27)

You're name a fuck

haunting, plodding, nasty, gloomy post rock. fans would prefer you don't like it

>>69481340
be strong be hard flex yuor muscles

>>69481340
I EAT ALL THE OXYYGEEEEEE N

He was accused of rape, so he became a hero to all the alt-righters on here.

>>69482220
No after a week people figured out the accusations had basically no weight so everyone either just forgot about it or acknowledged that it's just an addition to the Swans meme canon.

>>69482220
but i'm left leaning and i love swans

also when will the calling neo nazis "alt-righters" meme end

>>69482365
>No after a week people figured out the accusations had basically no weight
t. MRAlt-righter

>>69482220
That was bs

>the swans
>the

>>69482406
>Swans is loud and angry so it's alt-right!
Swans is uber-nihilistic music that mocks human values of sex, power, and money. It's like the polar opposite of the alt-right

>>69482440
Nah, instantly proclaiming that rape accusations have no weight makes you alt-right.

>>69482459
The fact that the matter was not followed up by a legal team and her story made no sense makes the accusation have no weight. The woman had mental disorders apparently.

>>69482459
>instantly

i'm pretty sure every swans fan took the accusations very seriously, and they took a ton of time to be dealt with. also all of the media outlets that championed them turned their back on gira with no evidence just because of ugly headlines.

>>69482534
>rape doesn't happen if it's not legally pursued!!!
Majority of rapes are not reported, friend.

>>69482542
Yeah, you mean all those media outlets that still gave The Glowing Man positive reviews? Oh man, his life was ruined!

Ya'll are proving my point for me by using common MRA talking points about rape.

File: 1431990396211.jpg (41KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x375px

>>69482594
>muh rape

>>69482594
this is like saying you can't like a football team if one player beats his wife and gets a 4 game suspension

>>69482402
What's the difference? Both ideologies are grounded on ethno-nationalism so it doesn't seem inaccurate to associate the two with each other.

cop is one of the heaviest, most brutal, face-crushing albums of all time.

>>69482623
Yeah shame on people for being against rape.
>>69482628
Sure you can, but if you spend hours defending rapists on the internet or if it makes you like "based football player" more, there's something wrong with you.

I was actually baiting with my first post, but I should have known a bunch of retards would jump in to defend rape.

File: 1435514241068.jpg (113KB, 1329x948px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1329x948px

>>69482683
>muh rape

>>69482646
>what's the difference? All blacks look alike anyway!

File: 1441691412042.jpg (111KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1024x768px

>>69482740
you fucken showed him boy, wowee

>>69482683
you honestly don't know what happened tho so yer as bad as them, you're just massaging your own ego by acting holier than thou, of course no one in this thread is defending rape

>>69482780
i was

>>69482780
>no one in this thread is defending rape
>>69482534
>The fact that the matter was not followed up by a legal team makes the accusation have no weight

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

>>69482815
innocent till proven guilty senpai, shit argument

also she was clearly a nutter if you want to get specific, gira's wife defended him and corroborated his story

>>69482815
I'm not going to defend Gira beacuase I think he's probably a horrible person, but I strongly believe an artists work should be weighted seperately from their personal life and scandals.

File: 1435307356061.jpg (37KB, 629x672px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 629x672px

>>69482815
>muh rape

>>69482790
lol stop it you silly troll

>>69482838
>innocent till proven guilty senpai, shit argument
No one said Gira should be thrown in jail.

>she was clearly a nutter
It's a common tactic to call rape victims crazy to defend rapists. It's called gaslighting.
>gira's wife defended him and corroborated his story
Well shit, I guess it didn't happen!

>>69482850
I agree with that. Clearly a lot of people here have a vest interest in defending the alleged rape. The exact same people who're shouting "you don't know what happened" are also shitting out MRA talking points about rape (why didn't she pursue it legally?)

>>69482913
>No one said Gira should be thrown in jail.
just that we should consider him guilty of one of the worst crimes a person commit because someone with a vagina said so. great.

>>69482594
Just fuck off dude. He's not a rapist because a mentally unstable woman claimed an old man raped her and then her story fell apart and she refused to cooperate with the police.
You just want attention for your opinions.

>>69482999
This

>>69482999
Nah, there's a difference between a court of law and a court of public opinion. We shouldn't assume Gira is a rapist but we also shouldn't ignore women who feel as if they've been victimized. I know reactionaries like you think this is akin to tossing him in jail and throwing away the key, but some of us do want to listen to people with "vaginas."
Maybe try to make yourself sound a little less sexist?

>>69483082
Nice, repeating the same shitty arguments.

>she refused to cooperate with the police.
Again, are you aware that the majority of rapes are NOT reported? Are you suggesting that they're all made up, or is this a special case when it involves someone you like?

>You just want attention for your opinions.
Well, since my first post was bait, that's true. Now I'm amused by the rape apologists coming out in full force.

>>69483154
>Not reported

Are you legitimately a retard? She made an open statement that Gira raped her and than refused to cooperate with police. If we were assuming she was actually raped like you are doing, why would she do the hard part and then go "nah I'm not gonna press charges"? It makes no sense.

Stop defending women for any thing they say.

Or better yet have your social interactions in reality where you'll get more of the attention you so desperately want.

>>69482683
literally nobody is calling gira "based" or saying that it's a good thing that he raped grimm. because, as far as we know, he did not. Why should you assume that he did just because she said he did? Especially considering the fact that she did not cooperate with police in pursuing the investigation..

>>69483154
>We shouldn't assume Gira is a rapist
then what the fuck are you advocating for here?
>Maybe try to make yourself sound a little less sexist?
damn...
someone call the cops, i've been trolled.

>>69482459
>within a week
>instantly
Wew

>>69483211
>Are you legitimately a retard? She made an open statement that Gira raped her and than refused to cooperate with police.
Are you? A facebook post is not a police report.

>If we were assuming she was actually raped like you are doing
Not what I'm doing.

>why would she do the hard part and then go "nah I'm not gonna press charges"? It makes no sense.
Sure it does when you understand that rape convictions are extremely rare and rape accusations are notoriously difficult to prove. Police and court interrogation is also quite a different beast from a post to your friends on facebook. Assuming that someone wasn't raped because they didn't report it to the police would mean that you believe most rape victims are liars. Is that what you believe?

>>69483223
Not in this thread, no, but I remember the shit show. Would you like me to retrieve some archived posts?

>>69483231
>then what the fuck are you advocating for here?
I'm pointing out that when I made that bait post, about four or five posters jumped on the opportunity to share a bunch of rape apologia.

My point isn't that Gira immediately needs to be jailed for rape, it's that these things are incredibly difficult to prove. But there's always a group of people who are willing to make the same tired, shitty arguments about how women are crazy, how they're lying by not going to the police or how the poor rapist will have his life ruined because "people will listen to anything with a vagina."

>>69483333
Quads confirm

>>69483355
>I'm pointing out that when I made that bait post, about four or five posters jumped on the opportunity to share a bunch of rape apologia.
you can't fucking apologize for a rape that has yet to be shown to have actually occurred. jesus you're either still baiting, or thick as pig shit.
>or how the poor rapist will have his life ruined because "people will listen to anything with a vagina."
it's hilarious that you keep harping on that line while simultaneously proving the point it makes. perhaps you don't want to see legal action taken against gira, but you are more than willing to call him a monster simply because a woman said so.

>>69483479
Rape apoligism is a real thing which doesn't necessarily reflect your view of a specific case, but rather an overarching attitude about women and rape accusations.

>it's hilarious that you keep harping on that line while simultaneously proving the point it makes. perhaps you don't want to see legal action taken against gira, but you are more than willing to call him a monster simply because a woman said so.
I never called him a monster. I'm actually pointing out the tired response to rape allegations about how it will effect men. Another poster made an insinuation that the "mainstream media turned on him" or whatever, which is odd because he continues to receive critical acclaim. The point here isn't that he ought to be ostracized or thrown in jail or whatever, the point is that arguing about the pains Gira has gone through is a fabrication and it's the kind of attitude that thinks of how rape effects alleged rapists before considering what a victim might have gone through. That's why I'm calling you a rape apologist.

>>69483611
so you're basically calling me a rape apologist because i don't consider michael gira a rapist, and another guy in this thread said that maybe being publicly accused of rape isn't the best thing that can happen to someone.
genius.

>>69483674
Well yeah, if you strip down all of the arguments actually being made in this thread then sure, it really is quite silly.

But I can do it too: So you're "basically" getting up in arms because I said maybe being raped isn't the best thing to happen to someone? Wow, genius!

>>69483723
see, the difference between my summary and yours is that mine is actually correct.
you've seen fit to call me a rape apologist because of an argument i didn't even make, and because i don't think we should be calling people rapists if they haven't been proven guilty of rape.
i'm "getting up in arms" because you are labeling me as defending an intolerable act on the flimsiest of pretenses.

>>69481340
Why I like them (and I usually hate mu-core):
-Overpowering/overwhelming music
-Great atmosphere, each album has a unique feel and soundscape
-Good for when you're depressed, sad or whatever, a lot of their music is very comforting
-Cinematic
-Music that easily could've been really corny but isn't because they know when to hold back
-Great replay value because the songs are so long and multifaceted

>>69483800
Well, the difference between your argument is mine is that you're continuously putting words into my mouth, distorting my arguments and declaring yourself "correct." That's cool and all, this is 4chan and I know that the majority of posters here would rather be right than have a real dialog.

>you've seen fit to call me a rape apologist because of an argument i didn't even make
You're actually right here because I don't know which arguments you did or did not make. I'm assuming I'm arguing with at least two people here. If you would clarify which posts you actually made, I would have a better idea of who I was responding to.

>because i don't think we should be calling people rapists if they haven't been proven guilty of rape.
I agree with this too so I'm not sure why you keep arguing that I've called Gira a rapist. I've already said that rape apologism is not something that necessarily refers to a specific case.

>i'm "getting up in arms" because you are labeling me as defending an intolerable act on the flimsiest of pretenses.
In many ways you are and I'm sorry that you feel hurt by that. Arguments about not reporting rape being a signifier of a false accusation or appeals to how "crazy" a victim is are forms of rape apologia. Now if you didn't make those arguments or if you don't agree with those, I'll apologize for that. If you did make or agree with those, then you're arguing things that fly in the face of statistical data on rape.

I just think that perhaps you feel like you're being more neutral than you actually are.

>>69483941
>Well, the difference between your argument is mine is that you're continuously putting words into my mouth, distorting my arguments and declaring yourself "correct." That's cool and all, this is 4chan and I know that the majority of posters here would rather be right than have a real dialog.
i'm not the one attributing arguments made by one person to everyone that disagrees with me.
> If you would clarify which posts you actually made, I would have a better idea of who I was responding to.
>>69482999
>>69483231
>>69483479
>>69483674
>>69483800
those are me.
> Now if you didn't make those arguments or if you don't agree with those, I'll apologize for that.
then get to it.
>I just think that perhaps you feel like you're being more neutral than you actually are.
why are you presuming things about my position when until this post you didn't even know what posts were mine?

>>69484166
>those are me.
Thanks.
>then get to it.
Sure, I apologize for anytime I was responding to another anons argument.

>why are you presuming things about my position when until this post you didn't even know what posts were mine?
Because it's fair to assume that at least some of the posts in that comment chain belonged to you, and that would still make my statement about your rape apologism perfectly valid. I mean, you're the person who made the shitty "person with a vagina" comment.

But yeah, I'll take back the comments about not contacting the police if you didn't make that post.

>>69481340
>the swans
>the

>>69481364
>>69481418
When did this board get so bad

>>69484246
>I mean, you're the person who made the shitty "person with a vagina" comment.
what about that comment was incorrect? is referencing the anatomy of someone now a fucking moral wrong?
as if describing a woman as "someone with a vagina" puts me on the level of ted bundy or some shit.
my point wasn't that a person shouldn't be listened to because they have a fucking cunt, my point was that because a woman has accused a man of rape, and according to you her accusation must be taken seriously, or at least entertained to a certain point, even if there is no evidence beyond her word to back it up. well i'm sorry, but that shit doesn't fly. you can't just make a claim and expect people to believe you because "muh victimized vagina". that's not sexism, that's just rational skepticism. it's the same reason if a woman is accused of murder i don't think people should call her a murderer until she has been shown to have actually murdered someone.

>>69484464
>is referencing the anatomy of someone now a fucking moral wrong?
It's a shitty way to refer to women when you're attempting to argue against them.

>as if describing a woman as "someone with a vagina" puts me on the level of ted bundy or some shit.
Your words, not mine.

>my point wasn't that a person shouldn't be listened to because they have a fucking cunt
Definitely not helping your case to not look like a sexist.

>my point was that because a woman has accused a man of rape, and according to you her accusation must be taken seriously, or at least entertained to a certain point
Yes, rape accusations should be listened to. Just like you might want to listen to a child who has just accused an adult of abuse even if it's just "their word." Disregarding anyone who doesn't bring hard proof is a good way to ensure no victims ever talk about their struggles.

>even if there is no evidence beyond her word to back it up
Which, by the way, accounts for the vast majority of rape. A rape kit is only somewhat useful in the case of a violent rape. Again, and this is why I called you a rape apologist, you've just discounted millions of victims and you're arguing that they should never be taken seriously because they don't have hard evidence. This is what our courts are for if the victim chooses to do that way. For many people, the legal system is just as degrading as any rape for a multitude of reasons that require more explanation than it's worth. I mean, there's a reason we have rape sheild laws but frankly that's not enough.

>you can't just make a claim and expect people to believe you because "muh victimized vagina".
I don't even know what this means. Are you aware that women who have been raped are not complaining that their "vagina" has been victimized? Are you aware of the psychological impact that abuse has on people?

>that's not sexism, that's just rational skepticism.
Okay Sargon

>>69484464
>it's the same reason if a woman is accused of murder i don't think people should call her a murderer until she has been shown to have actually murdered someone
Unfortunately, this is a case in which the victim can not speak. Furthermore, unlike rape, murder leaves a evidence trail that isn't nearly as difficult to prove in a court of law. Lastly, you're conflating a court of law which is designed to measure guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" and public opinion. See O.J. Simpson as a prime example of how courts can't always get things right.

Not to mention that murder tends to be fairly black and white (aside from cases like self defense, negligence). Rape is tricky since definitions of consent are not always clearly defined. We can say when someone has died, much harder to say when or if someone consented to something.

Their post rock stuff is great shit

>>69484698
>It's a shitty way to refer to women when you're attempting to argue against them.
how.
>Definitely not helping your case to not look like a sexist.
what, by literally saying that i don't factor in what someone has between their legs when i consider what they have to say? clearly i am prone to discrimination based on sex when literally saying that i don't think having a vagina disqualifies someone from being believed.
>Just like you might want to listen to a child who has just accused an adult of abuse even if it's just "their word."
if no evidence can be produced to prove that abuse has taken place, i have no reason to believe the child.
>Disregarding anyone who doesn't bring hard proof is a good way to ensure no victims ever talk about their struggles.
how can you be sure that they are a victim in the first place without evidence? what's with this presumption that anyone who claims to have been raped has been?
> Again, and this is why I called you a rape apologist, you've just discounted millions of victims and you're arguing that they should never be taken seriously because they don't have hard evidence.
once more, how do you know that these millions of "victims" have actually been the "victim" of rape without any actual investigation or evidence? you seem to be placing a lot of faith in the validity of these claims despite having no reason AT ALL to believe them beyond "someone said it happened."
how exactly does one excise his or herself of the demons of "rape apologism"? would i have to believe every unproven rape accusation, based on nothing but faith in the accuser's word?

>>69484698
>I don't even know what this means.
i decided to use the phrase "muh victimized vagina" specifically because it's inflammatory and i knew it would get under your sensitive skin. what i mean, was that you can't expect people to believe that you've been raped when the only reason given is "i'm a woman and i said so."
>. Are you aware that women who have been raped are not complaining that their "vagina" has been victimized? Are you aware of the psychological impact that abuse has on people?
i had no idea. clearly i was literally implying that women don't like rape because it victimizes their vagina. lo, you've bested me again, oh great rhetorical wizard.
>Okay Sargon
shit, i guess i better pack it in. apparently being compared to a moderately successful youtuber makes my point invalid.
>Lastly, you're conflating a court of law which is designed to measure guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" and public opinion.
so what are you getting at. if a man can't be shown to have raped a woman in the court of law, and a lot of people think he did, even if there is little or no evidence, we should form a lynch mob, or perhaps simply ostracize him from society? maybe castrate him in the public square and stitch a scarlet "R" onto the flesh of his face? what would you suggest happens to a man accused of rape, who cannot be proven guilty? by accepting the victim's narrative without any evidence, you've already essentially declared the accused guilty.

>>69485019
>how
By reducing them to their genitalia...?

>what, by literally saying that i don't factor in what someone has between their legs when i consider what they have to say?
Again, by reducing women to their sexual organ in a demeaning and condescending way.

>clearly i am prone to discrimination based on sex when literally saying that i don't think having a vagina disqualifies someone from being believed.

>clearly i am prone to discrimination based on sex when literally saying that i don't think having a vagina disqualifies someone from being believed
You also don't think it entitles them to an open minded consideration that maybe, just maybe, they're not lying for "attention" or some other nonsense. It goes both ways. Clearly you're not a skeptic towards the idea of Gira possibly being guilty, and again, contextually this does mean something. When most rapes go unreported and most alleged rapists go unconvinced, this idea that we should listen to people because they have "cunts" is furthering the idea that most women are lying.

>if no evidence can be produced to prove that abuse has taken place, i have no reason to believe the child
I'm pretty happy you don't work for child protective services. If you're not even willing to investigate a claim because the victim can't produce hard evidence, wow.

>how can you be sure that they are a victim in the first place without evidence?
You don't, but you can't be sure that they aren't a victim. That's when you begin to investigate and take evidence. And by the way, witness testimony IS evidence.

>what's with this presumption that anyone who claims to have been raped has been?
Well, because false rape allegations are statistically very rare. Treating every case like a false rape allegation is not particularly helpful or even logical.

>>69485019
>how do you know that these millions of "victims" have actually been the "victim" of rape without any actual investigation or evidence?
I can't comment on a case by case basis. There have been plenty of studies conducted that support the idea that false rape allegations are very rare. You seem to be arguing that false rape allegations are a serious epidemic.

>how exactly does one excise his or herself of the demons of "rape apologism"? would i have to believe every unproven rape accusation, based on nothing but faith in the accuser's word?
For starters, you could listen to what a victim has to say and not automatically look for reasons why they must be lying. No, that doesn't mean that you must immediately throw the alleged rapist in jail, cause I know you'll jump to that.

>>69485179
>i decided to use the phrase "muh victimized vagina" specifically because it's inflammatory and i knew it would get under your sensitive skin.
You've been debating here right with me. I always find it funny when people who are clearly emotional about a topic decide to pull the emotion card.

>what i mean, was that you can't expect people to believe that you've been raped when the only reason given is "i'm a woman and i said so."
Can you name a single rape victim who said "I was raped because I'm a woman and I said so." Generally speaking they'll provide anecdotal evidence at the very least.

>i had no idea. clearly i was literally implying that women don't like rape because it victimizes their vagina. lo, you've bested me again, oh great rhetorical wizard.
Perhaps you ought not to make arguments that you don't believe. Proving how "sensitive" I am when you pretend to be a bigot doesn't really help you not appear like a bigot.

File: 14956582_1110642602364730_4801374509144825210_n.jpg (69KB, 712x709px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 712x709px

>>69482459
nah, instantly caring about women makes you a cuck

>>69485179

>shit, i guess i better pack it in. apparently being compared to a moderately successful youtuber makes my point invalid.
He's the type of person who would rant about how rational he is while being behaving in a completely irrational manner. It doesn't seem like the comparison offends you, so that's lovely.

>so what are you getting at. if a man can't be shown to have raped a woman in the court of law, and a lot of people think he did, even if there is little or no evidence, we should form a lynch mob, or perhaps simply ostracize him from society?
No, in fact I said the exact opposite a few posts ago.

>what would you suggest happens to a man accused of rape, who cannot be proven guilty?
I would suggest a not guilty verdict.

>by accepting the victim's narrative without any evidence, you've already essentially declared the accused guilty.
a) The victims testimony IS evidence.
b) I never said that all victim testimony should be accepted without question, I said that we shouldn't be quick to disregard what people say if they don't have hard evidence to back it up, else 95% of rape would go completely unchecked. Again, too, you are conflating a court of law accepting evidence with a human being listening to what someone has to say and not abusing them for not being able to provide evidence that likely doesn't exist.

>you've already essentially declared the accused guilty.
I haven't though. I've kept an open mind about Larkin and somehow Gira isn't behind bars. How could this happen? It's almost as if this topic requires nuance, not just two extremes!

>>69485363
>By reducing them to their genitalia...?
i didn't do that tho. i simply described a woman as "someone with a vagina". you are taking offense to nothing.
>Again, by reducing women to their sexual organ in a demeaning and condescending way.
oh, boo hoo, i condescended to an entire class of people by making an accurate description of their anatomy, woe is fucking me.
>You also don't think it entitles them to an open minded consideration that maybe, just maybe, they're not lying for "attention" or some other nonsense.
no one is entitled to any kind of consideration without evidence that their claim is true.
>Clearly you're not a skeptic towards the idea of Gira possibly being guilty, and again, contextually this does mean something.
i would be skeptical of gira's innocence if there were any reason to be. i'm also not skeptical that michael gira didn't rape the entire population of cambodia, mostly because it has yet to be shown that he did.
>When most rapes go unreported and most alleged rapists go unconvinced
again i have to question this statistic. how is it possible to know how many instances of a crime go unreported, especially when rape, as you said yourself, is so hard to define?
>this idea that we should listen to people because they have "cunts" is furthering the idea that most women are lying.
the only idea i'm furthering is that no claim should be believed without evidence. take that and stretch into whatever systematic problem you like, but that has been my sole argument this entire thread.

>any and all rape accusations coming from a woman
>immediately take the man's side
want to know how i know you're a bitter virgin?

>>69485363
>I'm pretty happy you don't work for child protective services. If you're not even willing to investigate a claim because the victim can't produce hard evidence, wow.
>You don't, but you can't be sure that they aren't a victim. That's when you begin to investigate and take evidence.
of course rape should be investigated when reported, just like any fucking crime. that doesn't mean we automatically assume that the crime occured, you fucking mong. that's what the investigation is for, to turn up evidence which proves guilt.
>And by the way, witness testimony IS evidence.
perhaps, but that still doesn't make a single accusation enough evidence to assume guilt.
>Treating every case like a false rape allegation is not particularly helpful or even logical.
if it can be shown to not be false, then it isn't false. it would be illogical to believe that something occured without evidence of it occurring, no?
>>69485455
>You seem to be arguing that false rape allegations are a serious epidemic.
no, i'm arguing that it doesn't matter if the accusation is false, i can't give credence to an accusation without evidence.
>For starters, you could listen to what a victim has to say and not automatically look for reasons why they must be lying.
that's what the police and other law enforcement are for. that's why it's important to report these things quickly, if you'll indulge my "rape apologism" for a moment, when they happen, because otherwise it is very difficult to prove your story.
>I always find it funny when people who are clearly emotional about a topic decide to pull the emotion card.
got me.
>Can you name a single rape victim who said "I was raped because I'm a woman and I said so."
maybe not in those exact words, but that's what every rape accusation without hard evidence basically boils down to.
>Generally speaking they'll provide anecdotal evidence at the very least.
yes, and anecdotal evidence essentially equates to "because i said so."

>>69485628
>oh, boo hoo, i condescended to an entire class of people
Glad we're on the same page

>no one is entitled to any kind of consideration without evidence that their claim is true.
And this is exactly how situations like the BBC sex scandal happen. This is why I'm glad you're not in any position of power. The fact that you'd outright refuse to entertain the idea that someone might be reporting a crime because they can't immediately give you hard evidence is fucking dangerous. A 6 year old kid could tell you that their babysitter is abusing them and your response would simply be "sorry, I'm a ~rational~ and I'm going to need some hard evidence!"

>i would be skeptical of gira's innocence if there were any reason to be
What reason to you have to be any less skeptical of Gira's claim than Larkins, aside from the fact she has a "cunt?"

>i'm also not skeptical that michael gira didn't rape the entire population of cambodia, mostly because it has yet to be shown that he did
That's just absurd though. The idea that Gira could have raped one woman falls within the realm of possibility.

>again i have to question this statistic. how is it possible to know how many instances of a crime go unreported, especially when rape, as you said yourself, is so hard to define?
We have these things called studies. Like this one from the Bureau of Justice:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4962

Is it your contention that most rape victims are lying?

>the only idea i'm furthering is that no claim should be believed without evidence
What evidence do you expect to be produced?

>>69485455
>Perhaps you ought not to make arguments that you don't believe.
i didn't. i specifically explained what i meant by "because muh vagina victimization" in the quotation right above this one.
> Proving how "sensitive" I am when you pretend to be a bigot doesn't really help you not appear like a bigot.
i wasn't pretending to be a bigot, and i have no interest in proving to you that i'm no bigot, especially after i've said multiple times that a person's sexual organs don't matter to me in the least.
>He's the type of person who would rant about how rational he is while being behaving in a completely irrational manner.
i didn't rant about being "rational". i simply said that disbelief in an unproven claim is rational, which i stand by.
>It doesn't seem like the comparison offends you, so that's lovely.
it takes a bit more than meaningless dribble to offend me.
>The victims testimony IS evidence.
not really. unless me claiming that bill clinton raped me over the course of typing this comment is "evidence" of it occurring.

>>69485772
>of course rape should be investigated when reported, just like any fucking crime. that doesn't mean we automatically assume that the crime occured
But you've been arguing that we shouldn't believe women just because they have a "cunt." Why would you investigate a crime that you don't believe from a "vagina?" And in your world, if a child can't produce this hard evidence to prove assault, you'd be just as quick to call them a liar and reject their feelings of being victimized.

>perhaps, but that still doesn't make a single accusation enough evidence to assume guilt.
Agreed, nor is it enough to assume innocence.

>if it can be shown to not be false, then it isn't false
Which precludes the majority of rape claims

>it would be illogical to believe that something occured without evidence of it occurring, no?
I don't know. If your friend tells you that someone spit in their face on their way to work, do you immediately demand physical evidence and declare it illogical to believe in something without the provided evidence? Not everything in the world can be subjected to the scientific method.

>no, i'm arguing that it doesn't matter if the accusation is false, i can't give credence to an accusation without evidence.
Which would mean that you give no credence to any rape accusation that does not come accompanied with some form of hard evidence like a video recording.

Hell, even Cosby would be let off the hook by your logic.

>that's what the police and other law enforcement are for. that's why it's important to report these things quickly
And people are less likely to report a crime when they feel stigmatized by their community. People like you automatically rejecting their stories, demanding hard evidence and making thinly veiled sexist comments is only going to dissuade victims from speaking up.

>>69485835
>Glad we're on the same page
condescension =/= sexism
cry me a fucking river
>What reason to you have to be any less skeptical of Gira's claim than Larkins
because i believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. also it is rather hard to "prove" that someone didn't commit rape. some might even say it's impossible.
>aside from the fact she has a "cunt?"
"my point wasn't that a person shouldn't be listened to because they have a fucking cunt"
once again, ya fucken got me.
>That's just absurd though. The idea that Gira could have raped one woman falls within the realm of possibility.
okay, put it this way. michael gira raped me. if you have any reservations about this claim, you are a rape apologist, and a very very nasty person! no i will not go to the police and have this properly investigated, you victim blaming scum!

>>69485772
>maybe not in those exact words, but that's what every rape accusation without hard evidence basically boils down to.
Could you provide a single rape accusation that, in different words, boils down to "I'm a woman and I said so" as the evidence provided for rape?

>yes, and anecdotal evidence essentially equates to "because i said so."
And yes first hand witness testimony is admissible as evidence.

>>69485913
>i didn't. i specifically explained what i meant by "because muh vagina victimization" in the quotation right above this one.
Your explanation made zero sense.

>i wasn't pretending to be a bigot
I know

>i've said multiple times that a person's sexual organs don't matter to me in the least
Yes, you're quite content with the status quo

>not really. unless me claiming that bill clinton raped me over the course of typing this comment is "evidence" of it occurring.
But it is. Do you not know what eyewitness testimony is?

>>69486049
>okay, put it this way. michael gira raped me. if you have any reservations about this claim, you are a rape apologist, and a very very nasty person! no i will not go to the police and have this properly investigated, you victim blaming scum!
Except you didn't know and spend time with Gira and you're clearly making this up as a "gotcha."

It doesn't really work that way. If you were a friend of Gira and you, in earnest, told me he assaulted you, I would listen to you.

>>69485974
>But you've been arguing that we shouldn't believe women just because they have a "cunt."
lmao
"Why would you investigate a crime that you don't believe from a "vagina?""
because that's the way the criminal justice system works. you presume the innocence of the accused, but still investigate when an accusation is made.
>And in your world, if a child can't produce this hard evidence to prove assault, you'd be just as quick to call them a liar and reject their feelings of being victimized.
if a child reported abuse, and an investigation turned up no evidence, would you have me still believe the child, despite reality not corroborating their story? "feelings" don't matter in this context.
>Agreed, nor is it enough to assume innocence.
yes it is. you presume innocence until there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt.
>If your friend tells you that someone spit in their face on their way to work, do you immediately demand physical evidence and declare it illogical to believe in something without the provided evidence?
people don't have their lives and reputation ruined for spitting in someone's face. further, i should still point out that a friend saying he got spit on isn't really evidence that he got spit on.
>Which would mean that you give no credence to any rape accusation that does not come accompanied with some form of hard evidence like a video recording.
depends on the evidence that's provided. there are other forms of evidence besides just direct video recording. take the brock turner case, where the guy was caught in the act of doing it.
>Hell, even Cosby would be let off the hook by your logic.
maybe.
>And people are less likely to report a crime when they feel stigmatized by their community.
that's their problem then.

>>69485974
>People like you automatically rejecting their stories, demanding hard evidence and making thinly veiled sexist comments is only going to dissuade victims from speaking up.
i'm not the fucking police. if a woman has failed to go to law enforcement, and doesn't have anything other than her word, you're damn right i'm not going to believe her. she's made a claim with no backing. it'd be just as intellectually dishonest to take her story as fact as to believe in russel's teapot. there is nothing sexist about anything i've said, at all, you're just hurling that label about in the hope that it will somehow make my argument go away.

>>69486050
>Could you provide a single rape accusation that, in different words, boils down to "I'm a woman and I said so" as the evidence provided for rape?
essentially every single one without evidence other than the accusation itself.
>And yes first hand witness testimony is admissible as evidence.
does nothing to refute my point. i never said it wasn't admissible.
>Your explanation made zero sense.
maybe because you're mentally handicapped and can't understand figurative language. i said "you can't just make a claim and expect people to believe you because "muh victimized vagina"." my explanation for what it meant, because you were to stupid to understand the first time: "what i meant, was that you can't expect people to believe that you've been raped when the only reason given is "i'm a woman and i said so.""
>I know
then why did you say that i was pretending to be a bigot?
>Yes, you're quite content with the status quo
wdhmbt?
>Except you didn't know and spend time with Gira and you're clearly making this up as a "gotcha."
how do you know? quit discriminating against me to sexist rape apologist. don't you know the emotional trauma i've been through?
>It doesn't really work that way. If you were a friend of Gira and you, in earnest, told me he assaulted you, I would listen to you.
quit erasing my experiences!

>tfw threads about the greatest rock band of this generation now devolves into a few memes and shitposting about something that's impossible to prove either way.

>>69486237
>if a child reported abuse, and an investigation turned up no evidence, would you have me still believe the child, despite reality not corroborating their story? "feelings" don't matter in this context.
Someone not having enough evidence against them to sufficient return a guilty verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean that "reality" disagrees with the victim. You're doing a great disservice to a victim of abuse by telling them that if the evidence doesn't hold up in court, they're full of shit. You're treating the real world like a court room or a science lab where hard evidence is the only objective truth.

>yes it is. you presume innocence until there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt.
By your declaration.

>people don't have their lives and reputation ruined for spitting in someone's face.
In what way was Michael Gira's life ruined?

Also, lol, here we go: the real victims of rape!

>i should still point out that a friend saying he got spit on isn't really evidence that he got spit on.
Are you this much of an insufferable twat around people?

>depends on the evidence that's provided. there are other forms of evidence besides just direct video recording. take the brock turner case, where the guy was caught in the act of doing it.
You mean witness testimony?

Again, the vast majority of rape allegations have no evidence aside from witness testimony. Are you suggesting the vast majority of rape allegations are false?

>maybe.
Brilliant.

>that's their problem then.
And you're content with it staying that way.

>if a woman has failed to go to law enforcement, and doesn't have anything other than her word, you're damn right i'm not going to believe her.
It's amazing how you scolded me for attacking you for this only to make this exact argument an hour later. Fucking dishonest.

So yeah, like we've said, a majority of rape accusations go unreported (cited earlier). So to you, most rape allegations are false.

>>69486571
>Someone not having enough evidence against them to sufficient return a guilty verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean that "reality" disagrees with the victim.
perhaps, but at that point i fail to see why i should believe them when i have no way of knowing whether or not what they are saying is true, and you have yet to give me a better reason than "it will make them feel better."
>You're doing a great disservice to a victim of abuse by telling them that if the evidence doesn't hold up in court, they're full of shit.
maybe they aren't full of shit. could very well be the case, but without evidence, i don't see what you would have me do, especially if a case has already gone through court.
>You're treating the real world like a court room or a science lab where hard evidence is the only objective truth.
hard evidence is the only way i can know what is objective truth, and what is not. anything else is speculation.
>By your declaration.
presumption of innocence is the only way to be sure a innocent person isn't punished for something they didn't do. whether punished in the court of law, or the court of public opinion, both can be damaging to someone innocent, and yet presumed guilty.
>In what way was Michael Gira's life ruined?
i didn't claim it was. i merely was pointing out that rape accusations can be very damaging to a person, even if they are not proven to be true.
>Are you this much of an insufferable twat around people?
if pointing out facts makes me insufferable, yes.
>You mean witness testimony?
yes. i would be more willing to believe a rape accusation if, as in the brock turner case, strangers came across him in the middle of the act, and stopped him. it is fortunate that they happened upon the crime, because otherwise due to the very nature of the crime, it very well may have gone unpunished, and that would have been a terrible injustice, and the witnesses were right to have immediately called the police.

>>69486449
>it'd be just as intellectually dishonest to take her story as fact as to believe in russel's teapot
The point of Russel's teapot is that the mere fact that something can not be disproven does not give it scientific credibility. The problem here is that Russel's teapot says nothing about the inverse, and Russel also argued that philosophically, one must take an agnostic position because it is likewise impossible to prove the nonexistance of god. So, if you're gonna invoke Russel where frankly he doesn't belong, you ought not to take such a dismissive stance when you're presented with no evidence. It's a completely self defeating argument.

>essentially every single one without evidence other than the accusation itself.
Once again, could you provide a SINGLE one. Since essentially every case boils down to "I HAVE A VAGINA LISTEN TO ME," you can surely quite easily find one.

>does nothing to refute my point. i never said it wasn't admissible.
Well what the fuck is your point? You keep jumping from hard science to the court room to public opinion.

>maybe because you're mentally handicapped and can't understand figurative language. i said "you can't just make a claim and expect people to believe you because "muh victimized vagina"." my explanation for what it meant, because you were to stupid to understand the first time: "what i meant, was that you can't expect people to believe that you've been raped when the only reason given is "i'm a woman and i said so."
Vagina's can not be victimized. There's a human being attached to them.

>then why did you say that i was pretending to be a bigot?
Woosh

>wdhmbt?
I don't know, what could I have possibly meant?

>>69486571
>Are you suggesting the vast majority of rape allegations are false?
not at all. i'm not even claiming that the vast majority of unprovable rape accusations are false. i'm saying that without proof of a rape happening, i won't default to "well, i guess it just must have happened" because, to me, that would be morally reprehensible.
>And you're content with it staying that way.
i can't fix problems people make for themselves. i am totally in favor of police investigating a rape, but that doesn't translate to belief.
>So yeah, like we've said, a majority of rape accusations go unreported (cited earlier).
irrelevant.
>So to you, most rape allegations are false.
not necessarily false, but then again the claim that a teapot orbits the sun directly at the midpoint between jupiter and earth isn't necessarily false.

>>69484464
>i'm not a rape apologist but, people with vaginas

i'm rolling

>being crass and belittling women in a thread about rape is not the same thing as being a serial killer, and therefore its fine for me to do

you're a paragon of virtue famm

>>69486736
>perhaps, but at that point i fail to see why i should believe them when i have no way of knowing whether or not what they are saying is true, and you have yet to give me a better reason than "it will make them feel better."
I'm not entirely sure why you're so opposed to the idea of making people "feel better." If someone, genuinely feels victimized by abuse, it's a huge psychological mind fuck to deny them that because they couldn't provide hard evidence in a court room. Children don't just lie about abuse.

And again, I want to point out that there's a difference between declaring someone guilty and throwing them in jail and not immediately screaming at a kid because they weren't able to provide concrete evidence someone abused them.

>maybe they aren't full of shit. could very well be the case, but without evidence, i don't see what you would have me do
At the very least take a completely neutral stance? You've gone to great lengths to defend Gira sans evidence.

>hard evidence is the only way i can know what is objective truth, and what is not. anything else is speculation.
You must be living an existential crisis. Sounds rough.

>presumption of innocence is the only way to be sure a innocent person isn't punished for something they didn't do
In a court of law, sure, people need to be proven guilty or they receive a verdict of not guilty. Courts are not arbitrators of truth, though.

>i didn't claim it was. i merely was pointing out that rape accusations can be very damaging to a person, even if they are not proven to be true.
And rape can be very damaging to a person, even if they are not able to prove that it happened in a court.

>>69486821
>Once again, could you provide a SINGLE one. Since essentially every case boils down to "I HAVE A VAGINA LISTEN TO ME," you can surely quite easily find one.
if you want a specific example, larkin grimm's accusations against michael gira come to mind.
>Well what the fuck is your point?
"anecdotal evidence essentially equates to "because i said so.""
>Vagina's can not be victimized. There's a human being attached to them.
yes. i know.
>Woosh
damn...
>I don't know, what could I have possibly meant?
idk

>>69486736
>yes. i would be more willing to believe a rape accusation if, as in the brock turner case, strangers came across him in the middle of the act, and stopped him. it is fortunate that they happened upon the crime, because otherwise due to the very nature of the crime, it very well may have gone unpunished, and that would have been a terrible injustice, and the witnesses were right to have immediately called the police.
But why do you accept eyewitness testimony of the person who called the police but not the victim of the crime?

And do you realize that had this eyewitness not seen the rape, you'd have called the victim a liar and protected the rapist who might have apparently had his life ruined.

>>69486893
>i'm saying that without proof of a rape happening, i won't default to "well, i guess it just must have happened" because, to me, that would be morally reprehensible.
Great, so how many posts in and you still can't help but distort the arguments presented here?

>i can't fix problems people make for themselves.
Cultural attitudes can most certainly be fixed by people who belong to that culture. This is exactly what I meant when I said you're an advocate for the status quo. Your general view is boo hoo, that's your problem not mine deal with it.

>irrelevant
It is relevant dude, you just said you don't believe women who don't report rape to the police.

>not necessarily false, but then again the claim that a teapot orbits the sun directly at the midpoint between jupiter and earth isn't necessarily false.
Dude, I know you've just discovered youtube but can you stop bringing up the fucking atheist talking points?

>>69486962
>>i'm not a rape apologist but, people with vaginas
>i'm rolling
because describing someone has a vagina means you apologize for rape.
>>being crass and belittling women in a thread about rape is not the same thing as being a serial killer, and therefore its fine for me to do
>you're a paragon of virtue famm
i can be as crass as i want, and belittle whoever i want, and i don't need a moral arbiter such as yourself to tell me when i'm doing right.
maybe call me a sexist for saying the word "vagina" a couple more times. eventually simply saying it will make you right :::^^^)))

>>69487101
>if you want a specific example, larkin grimm's accusations against michael gira come to mind.
Please show me where she says that she was raped because she's a woman and she said so.

>"anecdotal evidence essentially equates to "because i said so.""
And yet you just cited eyewitness testimony in the Brock Turner case as acceptable evidence.

>>69487162
>I have the right to say something!
You always know when someone is running out of ways to defend their shitty beliefs when they start defending their right to say things.

You're right. You can be as crass as you want. People can criticize your crassness as much as they'd like. Funny how it works.

>>69487104
>But why do you accept eyewitness testimony of the person who called the police but not the victim of the crime?
because third party testimony is more reliable than the person making the claim's testimony.
>And do you realize that had this eyewitness not seen the rape, you'd have called the victim a liar and protected the rapist who might have apparently had his life ruined.
never called larkin grimm a liar, and i would have protected brock turner had there been no evidence that he had committed a rape.
>Great, so how many posts in and you still can't help but distort the arguments presented here?
i wasn't talking about what you said. i was simply stating that without evidence, i won't accept a claim as true.
>Cultural attitudes can most certainly be fixed by people who belong to that culture.
if someone feels they can't report a rape to the police because every single person in a 30 mile radius doesn't believe them, i can't fix that.
>This is exactly what I meant when I said you're an advocate for the status quo.
i'm an advocate for women going to the fucking police when they get raped.
>It is relevant dude, you just said you don't believe women who don't report rape to the police.
i said i don't believe women who can't provide evidence for their rape. if she didn't go to the police, it's very unlikely that any evidence will turn up.
>Dude, I know you've just discovered youtube but can you stop bringing up the fucking atheist talking points?
damn, you keep bringing out those zingers. how will i ever recover.

>>69487199
>And yet you just cited eyewitness testimony in the Brock Turner case as acceptable evidence.
yes
>You always know when someone is running out of ways to defend their shitty beliefs when they start defending their right to say things.
i don't have to defend the things i said, when they very clearly aren't sexist in the least.
>People can criticize your crassness as much as they'd like. Funny how it works.
criticizing the way i said something, and attempting to label it as "sexist" as if to imply my opinion is less valid because i said "cunt" somewhere inside of it is laughable.

>>69487162
>i'm not sexist but

you can't help yourself. and now you've wasted the day.

>>69487457
i guess you saying i'm sexist makes it so. damn... guess i better have a long hard think about how saying "vagina" when referring to women makes me a terrible bigot.
>implying i have anything better to do that argue with morons on the internet
you severely overestimate the worth of my life.

>>69487347
>if someone feels they can't report a rape to the police because every single person in a 30 mile radius doesn't believe them, i can't fix that.
You're right, you can't. Especially when you actively contribute to the distrust of rape victims.

Things'll never change as long as we have status quo warriors like you.

>I don't believe things without evidence!
>Larkin Grimm is a dirty fucking liar and I don't trust anything cunts say!

>>69487607
>Especially when you actively contribute to the distrust of rape victims.
look. if a friend comes to me, and tells me that they've been raped, my response is immediately, go to the fucking police and/or hospital. i don't yell "BULLSHIT" at the top of my lungs and demand video evidence. if they've gone to the police, and otherwise exhausted any opportunity for an investigation, and still no evidence has been shown, i have no choice but to disbelieve them.
>>69487657
i never called larkin grimm a liar, i simply said her claim had no evidence.
>I don't trust anything cunts say!
i don't trust anything that anyone says unless given reason to believe.

Come into this thread trying to legitimately understand why Swans is considered so great by many. Why is this entire thread a political discussion about rape? lol nigga, why is Swans good?

>>69487786
Youd be a shitty friend dude. Like imagine your wife confides in you one day that her uncle abused her when she was a child and your response was "Sorry, did you exhaust all legal avenues for this claim? Do you have any concrete evidence that would hold up in a court of law? Sorry, hun, I don't believe you just because you have a cunt just like I don't believe in unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters"

>>69488150
>Youd be a shitty friend dude.
thanks for the input, i'll be sure to jump off a building later because someone on the internet called my moral fiber into question.
>Like imagine your wife confides in you one day that her uncle abused her when she was a child and your response was "Sorry, did you exhaust all legal avenues for this claim? Do you have any concrete evidence that would hold up in a court of law? Sorry, hun, I don't believe you just because you have a cunt just like I don't believe in unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters"
what does it matter what i would say at that point? it's not like me believing her does anything to allay her getting raped as a child. what i think is completley irrelevant in the scheme of things.
no matter my emotional investment in the person making the claim, it would be dishonest of me to say that i believed her without any evidence.

The intro to In My Garden.


It's really good.

>>69488444
Don't worry bro, she'll be dripping wet from your pure unadultered rationality. Women love men who demand evidence for every statement they make.

>>69488499
(you)

>>69488546
Have you ever tried this hard line ~rational~ approach with your friends? (Assuming you have any). Just curious how that goes when someone tells you some personal story and you turn into the amazing atheist.

>>69488620
generally, if one of my friends accuses someone of something criminal, i don't immediately believe them unquestioningly.

>>69488746
How do they react when you demand evidence and start citing Bertrand Russel?

>>69488849
i was raped by michael gira

>>69488908
Sir, I demand some hard evidence post haste. If I don't believe in silly christian "gods," I surely don't trust the likes of you.

>>69489046
michael gira raped me
that is my evidence

>>69482594
That would be because Larkin Grimm plays shitty music and Mr Swans plays good music

>>69489190
Ah, so the media cares more about how good music is than the truth. I'm getting conflicting views here.

>>69489247
michael gira raped me
why are you ignoring this atrocity
quit this patriarchal rape apologism

>>69484346
When was it ever good?

>>69483925
>playing music based on your mood
grow up. music isn't a soundtrack for your life.

>>69489247
Maybe not in the buzzfeedverse but in terms of music fans yeah. The people who abandoned Swans in the wake of the allegations were people who heard oxygen on pitchfork then promptly bought TBK at fye.

Also separating artist from art yadda yadda yadda

>weekly whats the appeal thread
>>>/mlp/

>>69490067
That was kind of my point, though. I dunno what point you're trying to make here.

>>69490724
i was raped by michael gira

>>69482406
(you)

Michael Gira is so edgy it's cringe

especially at live shows. He'll stop playing like a baby or freak out on the audience every show.

File: 1479751753216.jpg (63KB, 750x745px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 750x745px

>>69482430
>not referring to the swans as "micheal gira and the swanz"
>mfw