Most of these Polanski threads aren't really about the Polanski case.

[redqueen]

Seems to me they're more about the shock and disgust that many have experienced after reading the many varieties of excuses that apologists have come up with in the discussions about the Polanski case. (Excluding the strictly legal discussions, for those who are readying themselves to post about defending the fucking constitution. Sheesh.)

It also seems to me that it's the fact that anyone could possibly have any reason to minimize rape, or deflect blame onto anyone but the rapist, that has people the most outraged... and not just what Polanski did, which is horrible enough on its own.



Also, it's odd to me that people are put off by those who are intent on slamming and shaming the apologists. If people here were defending racism, no one would bat an eye at anyone who went after such comments as long as anyone attempted to rationalize them.

[madmusic]

1. "the fucking constitution"

Why do you hate America?

[redqueen]

2. LOL... I don't...

I'm just sick of people trying to claim that people slamming the apologists are somehow against the constitution.

It's conflating two very different things, as you well know. Or you should, by now.

Do you get that yet?

[madmusic]

4. That's funny

Conflating? Look for all the apologist accusations in the Constitution thread.

[redqueen]

6. Yes, you conflated it in your OP...

Maybe next time you can concentrate on the issue at hand, and avoid the derailment.

[madmusic]

11. The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper

If the word "apologist" is anyone near the same paragraph.

Neat trick.

[redqueen]

12. Logic. Try it sometime. (nt)

[Jersey Devil]

3. I don't drive the Pulaski Skyway so I don't care about it.

Speaking about Tony Soprano, he drove the Pulaski Skyway all the time and I bet he'd know how to take care of this problem.

[madmusic]

5. Tony Soprano is dead. He got shot in the restaurant.

Love that theme song.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Sexism is okay, racism is not. That's how it works in most venues, including DU. nt

[rvablue]

8. K&R! n/t

[charlie]

9. I started the original thread about his arrest

and not a dozen posts in, someone had already set themselves into the he's-being-railroaded camp, and wound up blowing inaccurate or irrelevant chaff -- like noting she wasn't a virgin -- all over the place.

That was SO not what I expected. The ardency, right out of the gate, of Polanski's defenders astonished me.

[redqueen]

10. Thank you.

I wasn't here when this first blew up. I came in a couple days after. Can't say I'm all that surprised that the apologist BS started so soon. I'm surprised at how ubiquitous it is though.

[EmilyAnne]

15. Yep. I saw it and started a thread in which I listed every absurd defense I had seen on this

and other progressive sites.
I just don't get it.

[redqueen]

18. That was a very revealing thread.

Thanks for holding your nose and listing them all. Ugh.

[armyowalgreens]

13. I would defend racists as possibly ignorant.

However, that does not mean that I am defending polanski. I'm just saying that your comparison to racism was weak.

[redqueen]

14. It's not, though.

One could also defend rapists as mentally ill.

No one is doing that re: Polanski though... so stop being disingenuous, please.

[armyowalgreens]

24. I'm not trying to be disingenuous. I just don't like it when people try to be so absolute.

[redqueen]

26. Do you not see the point I'm trying to make in the OP? (nt)

[JuniperLea]

16. Oh what utter bullshit you spew!

Weak my lily white ass! The OP is spot the fuck on.

[geek tragedy]

17. The rape culture is prevalent on both right and left.

Some neocon women (Anne Applebaum) and some liberal women (Whoopi Goldberg) are willing to buy into the most hideously misogynistic, toxic, evil garbage in order to defend a man they know.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Applebaum's husband is a Polish govt. offiicial who is trying to protect Polanski. nt

[geek tragedy]

20. her husband buys into rape culture too then

Appelbaum played the 'blame the victim' game today. Abhorrent

[Captain Hilts]

21. And the WP doesn't explain that anywhere. It should have been with her name. nt

[geek tragedy]

23. WaPo and ethics don't mix very well. nt

[Captain Hilts]

25. Yeah. That's why I cancelled my subscription, actually. nt

[redqueen]

22. I agree completely.

There are many here who bristle at the use of the term "rape culture".

I would posit that EmilyAnne's thread listing all the vile excuses made for Polanski is evidence that it very much exists, and needs to be taken seriously and addressed... no matter how uncomfortable it makes some people.

[Odin2005]

33. It's the DENIAL that sickens me most.

People WANT to think most rapes are by creeps grabbing some woman or girl off the street. No, most rapes are like that of my friend, by someone they know, often somebody the victim trusts. But that disturbs people because it makes them have to come to grips with their own misogynistic behavior.

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. +1000 - it's really disgusting but it fails to surprise me anymore

[customerserviceguy]

27. We saw the same thing about two months ago

when Michael Jackson died. There were those who sought to defend his "indiscretions" (for lack of a better word) with young boys just because he was an artist.

Why should we be surprised when Hollywood rushes to the defense of Polanski on the same grounds?

[LisaL]

29. Jackson was found not guilty and has always denied it.

Polanski plead guilty. See any difference?

[customerserviceguy]

31. Yes, MJ had a better lawyer

and Polanski had a judge who wasn't star-struck. Yeah, I see a difference all right.

Look, we all know that Neverland Ranch was just the ultimate pedophile grooming camp, sorry you don't see that.

[Hepburn]

39. Why don't you tell all of us what you know about Rittenband, OK?

I find it hard to think anyone would think of him as a judge who acted within the bounds of his judicial oath.

JMHO

[customerserviceguy]

49. Can't say that I know squat about him

but I do know that just because you feel a judge is a bad person doesn't give you the right to take off and split because you're getting a "bad deal" for raping a child.

All I know about this Rittenband is that he was not infamous enough to be known for his bad judgement, and that's good enough for me to diss Polanski.

[redqueen]

34. Have you seen this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6652426

[customerserviceguy]

52. I hadn't, but thanks

that was a really good summation of what I was feeling when I made my post.

[aikoaiko]

30. I just want Polanski to face the consequences of his actions.

If he gets brought back and the judge releases him with time served or some such nonsense, then so be it. I'll live with that because the American justice system did its job and Polanski would have done that which was required. If Polanski goes to jail/prison and their was judicial wrong doing (as so many say), he'll have ample opporunity to seek recourse.

Rich/famous people don't get to avoid the courts simply because they don't like the possibility of unpleasant consequences.

[Hepburn]

40. Here is what I see as a retired Calif attorney:

The worst possible sentence he could get: 16 months.

The best results he could get: Case dismissed.

And I am giving those POVs from the view of the defense. I would bet more on the case being dismissed because of the misconduct of Rittenband ~~ the original judge. The PJ on the Crim Bench as much said that Rittenband committed judicial misconduct. Frankly, I find that a vast understatement in regard to what Rittenband did.

[aikoaiko]

42. Thank you. I could live with that spectrum of consequences.

Do you think he is any danger of additional charges due to fleeing?

[Odin2005]

32. Don't forget the people that said that it was OK to rape her because she wasn't a virgin

Mein Gott in Himmel... :puke:

[redqueen]

35. Kicking this, cause apparently some still dont get it. (nt)

[Hepburn]

41. That is a understatement ~~

~~ to say the least.

And...it appears that few really, truly are acquainted with all the facts of the case.

Edit for typo

[mopinko]

36. racism doesn't even hold a candle. unless

you are throwing in lynchings and beatings. but just an attitude, vile as it may be is pretty tame in comparison to drugging and raping a kid, ferchrissakes. this place is infested with assholes and the walking wounded.
time to update my ignore list. my stays get more and more pleasant the more morons are invisible.

[JPZenger]

37. There are degrees of severity... and Polanski's was heinous

There are a few statutory rape charges in other cases that seem a little bogus - but the charges against Polanski were not. He is charged with a very heinous crime when you read the facts, and should not be able to get away simply for being rich, artistic or having a country willing to shelter him.

[SidneyCarton]

38. No man is above the law.

Mr. Polanski raped a girl, and attempted to flee the consequences of his action. There are doubtless no end to justifications that can be offered in his defense, but it does not erase the salient fact:

HE RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD.

Either we are a nation of laws, in which such actions are prohibited due to their abhorrent nature, and those found guilty (or who have pled guilty) of them are suitably punished, or we are a nation of men, in which one's social position, connections, and fame allow one to act with impunity.

Despite the mountainous evidence to the contrary, I would like to still believe we live in a nation of laws. If that means that an artist/director/politician/scholar that I might happen to like or admire has to face the music for their crimes, so be it.

Let Polanski stand trial, let the facts be presented and let a jury decide. (I know he pled out, but all things considered, it may be better to actually go through this) If he is found not guilty, then the apologists can gloat all they like, but let him answer for his actions first.

[depakid]

43. Some of the arguments are about the nature of the American criminal justice system

Though- like Republicans reacting to ACORN, people are unable to see beyond their own noses, and instead call people names and claim that "they're minimizing the crime" or some such thing.

It's very much an American cultural trait. Hold up a horrible crime and watch otherwise reasonable people lose the plot and howl for violent retribution.

It's why Americans were so easily manipulated into war- and why torture of the "bad guys" was so easily embraced.

It's why Americans built and maintain by far the worlds' largest and most expensive prison system- incarcerating people for life for stealing pizza.

It's why so called "zero tolerance" laws are widespread.

[redqueen]

44. See EmilyAnne's thread for clarification.

Like I said in the OP, the outrage isn't about the constitution.

[depakid]

45. Cases like this one conjure up visceral revulsion

(which is why I chose ACORN for an example- the right loses the plot at the very mention of the name).

Not to rehash the points in discussion about this and related cases- nasty sets of facts in criminal cases bring out the worst in people, in the law- and with respect to policy decisions.

[redqueen]

46. Which is exactly why I'm trying to separate the disgust from the case.

Because like I said, it's less about the case itself than the comments from those who seem to want to minimize it... for whatever reason from EmilyAnne's thread they used.

[depakid]

47. Linkage?

[redqueen]

48. Here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6652426

[Mixopterus]

53. Hardly

I have seen you act in an equally hysterical manner, with a failure to discriminate between those who are attempting to correct gross inaccuracies and calls for revenge with those who are apologizing for Polanski (who appear to be in the minority).

The premise of that cited thread was deeply flawed, there are degrees of rape just like most crimes in a legal sense. If she was arguing if there are degrees in an ethical or a moral sense she would be more correct, but it can still be argued. She was equivocating those who really are using terms that minimize it with people who are arguing the particulars in an legal and/or ethical sense.

[anonymous171]

51. Rape is pretty serious. nt

[Yavin4]

50. "If people here were defending racism, no one would bat an eye at anyone who went after such comment

Hmmm...guess you weren't here for the Henry Gates/Cop incident were you?

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. You're right. They are about some Roman guy, middle aged, who drugged then fucked a 13yo in the

ASS.

Damn them Romans.