#11 - Kopitar Prefers Amps That Go to Eleven

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the eleventh post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means.

Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Comments

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

If you know that posing as an expert and going on and on and on about how you alone know the truth of why the case is a shame will make people shut up, I don't really see how it's not silencing. She's been disrespectful by virtue of basically telling everyone that she's the only person with an appropriate level of knowledge to analyze the events we're hearing about. Let us not forget she's also the person who condescendingly told tumblr that people were being too emotional and she, a scientist, cared about facts.

I also don't think it's unreasonable that people became nasty and uncivil after twoears was, herself, awful. At the time she made that "its own kind of assault" post, in fact, she'd largely gotten respectful disagreement that she chose not to engage with. It's not particularly shocking that people will use disrespectful language after you passive-aggressively compare them to a rapist. It might be technically morally wrong, but I really can't bring myself to care.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

But she's not posing as an expert. She's literally never claimed to be an expert. I've seen her say that so and so is her reading based on research she did, talking to lawyer friends/family, etc. but that's not any different from what I've seen other people doing, too? She's interpreted the situation in a way and is sharing that interpretation. Yeah, she tends to dominate the discussion on Stickhandled a lot, and she is pretty talkative, but like -- she is not going I AM THE ONE TRUE EXPERT ON ALL THINGS, YOU MUST LISTEN TO ME in the slightest.

And the thing about her condescendingly telling people they were too emotional and tracing it back to her being a scientist? Links pls? I actually went back through her ask tag to see if she actually said that, and all I got was:

"If this newest story based on rumors/anon sources is true and the one from yesterday based on rumor/anon sources isn’t, then it very much comes down to consent again rather than being an age of consent issue. If this newest story is true about what the woman is alleging I’m very much afraid this is going to come down to a he said/she said because it all took place in a private room in his home apparently, so no one knows but the two of them what happened. And I HATE he said/she said situations like this because as a scientist I need data points - facts - and there are no facts or conflicting facts in this situation."

Plus a reply to someone also saying they were a scientist: http://fannishtalk.tumblr.com/post/126299100258/different-anon-thank-you-for-your-level-headed#notes

Maybe a bit of an overshare, but I'm a scientist, too, and I can see where that compulsion to have absolute facts comes from. And I can definitely see how it informs how she views anon sources, because one of the central tenets of science is being able to look at the full facts yourself and evaluate for yourself whether or not they hold up to scrutiny. I cannot stress enough how ingrained in scientists the desire to interrogate all information to a crazy extent is -- it has to be, because your job depends on it. Unfortunately, that is impossible in this scenario, because of the nature of rape cases, and how we're getting info. So yes, I think that she does seem to misunderstand how journalism works, but I definitely get why she processes the case the way she does, and I personally don't read it as condescending.

Re: 2ears -- yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw people on Tumblr and on meme calling her an idiot and terrible human being (and other synonyms) even just after the first post.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, if you are a scientist and in fact not fannishtalk, then you should understand that sometimes people interpret things differently from you, and the interpretation that fannishtalk is deliberately dominating conversation is in no way unique to me.

I'm also a scientist! And in fact, I work in data analysis. She is ignoring a lot of key facts and making a lot of irrational statements. So no, I don't think her POV comes from her being a scientist at all. And her "sigh I just want facts" thing is wearing old.

You're shifting the goalposts with twoears. The insult you quoted happened after her second post. Unless you can produce caps that show what you're saying, we're going to be at an impasse, because I remember a lot of civil disagreement that she responded to with passive aggressive insults.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Another science nonnie here and the idea of interrogating a rape investigation with the standard as one might data is somewhere between disingenuous and disgusting. If she wants data, check out all the data on false rape allegations; on rapists being likely to repeatedly assault people; etc. The notion of scientists being dispassionate observers of all things - rather than necessarily dispassionate in certain contexts - is also pretty disingenuous.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Thank you, you said this better than I did. And on top of all that, what she's actually saying in the thread is so wrongheaded I can't imagine it being accidental without assuming she's unintelligent. Specifically, her assertion that when a violent rape is accused, an arrest almost always happens right away - with the example of Kobe Bryant, while brushing aside/trying to portray as a total outlier the Steubenville case - was really, really offensive and disingenuous. I can think of plenty of athletes where arrests didn't happen instantly, particularly white or hometown athletes. Look at the Vanderbilt rape case; look at the whole mess surrounding UPenn/Paterno; look at Maryville; the list goes on. There is, in fact, an overwhelming body of evidence that points to criminal investigation of athletes accused of rape being profoundly inconsistent and unjust towards the accuser. And yet she continues to insist the opposite.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that she's framing it as being a scientist is pretty galling. I'll be honest, I'm probably tapping out of hockey rpf fandom, so I haven't been following her closely, but the idea of a quick approach - laying charges ASAP - meshing at all with how science gets done is nonsense. Science is, in many cases, slow, methodical, and painstaking. If you want a p value <.05 on a rape investigation, then that's not going to happen quickly. Period.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, anyone who uses 'but Kobe was arrested!!' can immediately be countered with 'but Kobe is black tho'.

Black male celebrities doing shit things to women always face waaaaay more backlash than white male celebrities do. See: Chris Brown v. Sean Penn on smacking women around and a zillion other examples.

It's always kind of conflicting when I see famous black men get dragged over the coals for their actions the way famous white men never do. On the one hand, finally an appropriate degree of outrage towards violence and assault on women! On the other hand, degree only reaches appropriate level because of systemic racism! Intersectionality at its worst.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

na

I also suspect that fannish people, no matter how scientifically minded, do not have the same access to the facts of the case as, you know, journalists, much less the actual investigators. We've all based our ideas on what has been made public (not much) and our general understanding of rape cases. There's no getting closer to the truth from our position at this point.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. Like, the idea of 'I need all the facts to make a decision' in a situation in which facts aren't for us - they're for the actual investigators, who I hope is acting on behalf of the survivor or for journalists who, when citing sources anon tend to make sure they have at least one other corroborating source - is also a disingenuous move. I just can't see much intellectual honesty in her argument.

Like, science is making claims with evidence and then being honest about the limitations of that evidence, rather than saying, oh, we can't make a claim until we know all of the evidence, because any claim or model is inherently a simplification of how the world works. And if she wants to say the latter, that's fine, but that's the end of a discussion and not the beginning of one.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

So, while I believe that there are probably few false rape allegations and definitely on the repeat thing, I just want to put it out there that the data on false rape allegations are mostly pretty crappy, particularly if you assume--as most people do, implicitly or explicitly, that false rape accusations are different in kind and likely from a different type of situation than real ones.

(I nonetheless think Kane is more than likely guilty, I just know as a social scientist I was frustrated trying to track down the false rape accusation percentage research)

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

All the studies I've seen that aren't specifically being used with the motive to expose how all women are lying bitches!!!!111 have pretty much concluded that legitimate false rape allegations (as opposed to never taken to court/acquitted because it couldn't be proven without a shadow of a doubt) are done just about as often as pretty much every other ulteriorally-motivated false allegation of a crime. I remember one that specifically compared the rate as just about the same to false allegations of arson, which certainly isn't a gender-coded crime.

But it's a murky issue to study and it's going to remain a murky issue to study because SO MANY rapes go unreported in the first place. Until we get over the 'right kind of victim'/'wrong kind of victim' mentality that's so deeply rooted in the immense systemic hatred towards women who have anything but missionary marital strictly for intention of procreation, the data just isn't going to be there.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Na

Not to mention part of her 'let's wait for facts' thing is repeatedly saying that there's no factual evidence that it's a rape investigation as if that actually means something.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, and I just went over to her tumblr and she's got anons who are confronting her and she's replying with basically "I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm just really smart, talk to your own lawyer friends if you want."

My objection to her language is really two-pronged. The first is that she's ignoring some pretty obvious context in a very unscientific way: namely, that it's really, really unlikely an investigation is going on this long this secretively on absolutely no evidence. Also, that it's fairly unlikely multiple reporters with anon sources reporting more or less the same stuff, or details that make sense together, are relying on unreliable or non-vetted sources.

The second is that, well, I'm incredibly offput by her stance of "if he did it, I want him fully prosecuted to the extent of the law!". Because it takes as an assumption that the prosecution will logically follow if he did it. There's an implicit denial of what we know to be true in that statement, that it's very likely he won't be prosecuted, and that we will never know if he did it or even what evidence there was that he did/didn't do it. And also that, as we've all discussed, it's likely that he did, in fact, rape someone.

I'm just so disgusted with everything she's saying. It's full of double meanings and implications meant to subtly convince you that you're an overemotional idiot if you think an athlete who's been raised in a society that teaches him women & our bodies are disposable raped someone. I'm sick of it.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

I'm incredibly offput by her stance of "if he did it, I want him fully prosecuted to the extent of the law!". Because it takes as an assumption that the prosecution will logically follow if he did it.

It's so very /r/hockey. "If he did it, a colony of fireants should eat his balls, but also we have to believe he's innocent until proven guilty, and she's probably lying for $$$."

Because it's easy to say you hate rape, and easy to ignore how rape prosecution often works (or doesn't) when you don't want to believe a specific person may have committed a rape. It's all laying the groundwork to believe a lack of charges or conviction means that no crime took place when all it means is that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to go further with it, and the criminal court system (rightfully) can't convict people without evidence.

Like, maybe something will come out like it did with the Duke lacrosse team, in which case I can revise my opinion like I did then. But right now, I feel like it's important to realize that the victim should be taken seriously, that these charges should be taken seriously, that the actual prosecution has to take them seriously and is (hopefully) not operating on the assumption that Kane is innocent. And if you're pretending that justice is always served when we all know that the criminal justice system is as biased as the rest of our society's institutions or actively looking for reasons not to believe the victim, you need to stop.

/tangent

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

I wasn't arguing she wasn't really dominating the conversation, though? In fact, I explicitly said she tends to dominate discussion and is talkative. What I also said was that: 1) she never claimed to be an expert or be the only one to know the truth (in response to you saying she was pretending to be an expert to silence people), 2) she never said that people were being too emotional or implied she was superior for being a scientist who wanted facts.

It's very possible to apply certain practices/worldviews that come with being a scientist, but not others. It's also possible to be inconsistent in how you do it. I wasn't saying she was being entirely consistent in her logic or her way of assessing info in the way science should be. I was just saying I understand where she's coming from, and why she would carry that practice over into fandom. And just to be very, very clear -- I am in no way claiming her being in a job that involves a high level of analysis implies her analysis of this case is correct.

There definitely were civil people, I'm in absolute agreement about that. But there were also dicks, and I think it was the dicks specifically she was responding to. My "Re: 2ears" response was referring to people insulting her after the FIRST post, although what I quoted in the response before was people attacking her after the second. You're right, I should have been clearer about that. I don't remember her responding passive aggressively to people who were being civil? I remember she said on her old blog that people were reading her post in the worst possible way (this may have been in response to an anon, but I don't fully recall), but I didn't feel it was particularly passive aggressive it wasn't a direct response to any of the civil people reblogging her?

I don't remember all the places/links where I saw people being nasty (and I suspect she got anon hate for it though that's speculative), but I do remember this: http://dekedangle-rpfanon.dreamwidth.org/2608.html?thread=11253040#cmt11253040 I could go looking, but not rn.

And lol, I am definitely not fannishtalk, but obviously there is no way to prove this, so please just give me the benefit of the doubt I guess?

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

You sound like fannishtalk. Namely the extent to which you refuse to acknowledge that various people interpret people's actions in different ways. So, whether you are actually fannishtalk or not, we're probably not going to agree.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I feel like I didn't phrase my second paragraph well enough. What I'm trying to say is that she seems to be approaching the situation with a scientist's training, but not necessarily in a way that is entirely scientific or rational. Basically, using the bare bones of the scientific method but not necessarily in the correct way, and even in a way that is unscientific but forwards what she, personally, wants to believe. What I was specifically talking about earlier WRT to how she interprets the case was her desire for more info.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Because as a Humanities anon, I'm just going to wish upon a star and draw down the answer via interpretative dance? Other people use data too, and you're being very patronising. Which I suppose explains why you can't see how fannishtalk is being condescending!

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

NA
I don't know who Fannishtalk is, but you got me thinking she is in fact GLaDOS.

What does Fanishtalk feel about cake?

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

It's a lie

=P

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Ugh. This is only tangentially related, but I have an aunt who is a scientist, who has used her "I'm a scientist" stance to defend her denial that her brother (my uncle) sexually abused me when I was a child. She simply will not believe it happened because she was able to find studies that showed false accusations have happened, and therefore, because she doesn't want to believe it, it somehow falls on me to provide her with the scientific proof (35-40 years after the fact) that it did.

Using this argument is convenient, but not constructive, and frankly damned insulting--in both fannishtalk's case and mine. It is, in fact, less defensible in relation to Kane because at least my aunt loves her brother in a real, "I know him" sort of way and not a "he's my fave and I want to continue reading/writing porn about this person I've never met" way.

This entire line of defense of Kane is just repugnant to me.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

So basically it's understandable that Toews would defend Kane. We shouldn't support Kane (see the Baffoe article) but Toews is his friend so he should support him.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

NA

This seems like a deliberate misreading of AYRT's comment.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

It may be understandable, but that doesn't make it any less repugnant. I can understand why people do all kinds of shitty things, it doesn't mean I'm gonna leap on the nearest anon meme and start defending their honor. Cool motive, still dickishness.

Re: general RPF fandom discussion

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Wait, what? I'm flat memeing and didn't parent up from your comment when it appeared, because there's no way I could have thought it was connected to mine.

I wasn't talking about Toews at all. But even if it were, yes, I would see more defense for Toews's actions than for fannishtalk's, but that still wouldn't make Toews's position right, just as my aunt isn't right. But the thread that connects those things is more slender than a baby's hair. The connection between my aunt and fannishtalk, while tangential to the discussion, had to do with the "I'm a scientist" thing.

And if you were merely using my comment as a jumping-off point (as you seem to be saying elsewhere in this thread), why not actually state that, rather than posting as though I'm here defending Toews?