Will FreeRepublic Finally Stop Posts Equating Guilt or Innocence with (Females') Looks???

Hmmmmmmmm.........

You suggesting the Mod may have a headache today?

Grin.

Ugly post.

The Cranberries prior posting about the gal singer who assaulted the flight attendant and cop was the last stupid straw about posting about guilt based on looks.)

Surely you must know that nobody is seriously asserting guilt or innocence based on appearance, especially as even the most attractive person rarely looks presentable in a police mug shot, internet memes notwithstanding.

It is, rather, a rather clever and subtle commentary (as usual) on the REST of society who DO make judgments based on outward appearance (including, of course, race). We are having an in-joke. The OJ jury and the friendly folks in Ferguson, MO, are examples of groups actually forming allegiances and making snap judgments based on nothing more than skin tone.

There is also another segment of society (let's call the People Magazine Readers) who are more inclined to sympathize with females who have committed horrific crimes because they are female and may edge into 'attractive' territory, e.g. Jodi Arias. By the same token, the Laci Peterson case was worn threadbare because, in large part, Laci reminded them of themselves (or their ideal image of themselves): young, attractive but not glamorous, married and apparently happy at least as photographed.

What I am objecting to are the stupid inane posts that add nothing of value to the thread and detract from the reputation of this site as being a far better place than any liberal discussion site out there.

As others have mentioned, many of the original posts are themselves posted tongue-in-cheek therefore any responses will follow suit.

As for the reputation of this site, I don't think it really has any impact. FR is well-known for conservative, Constitutionalist views. Its posters are intelligent, well-read, have extensive knowledge of history and current events and steel-trap memories, thus their resistance to present-day 'narrative,' spin, lies, propaganda, etc. They are targets of derision in certain quarters because while they may be predictable at times, they are precise in their observations and objections. Politicians, leftists and go-along-to-get-along types are uncomfortable with, even hostile to, principles.

I am just so flipping tired of idiots claiming to be conservatives posting comments of absolutely zero value about the guilt or innocence of - almost always - a female person, based solely on her looks.

Conservatism and admittedly easy and/or juvenile humor are not mutually exclusive, as the Friday Silliness threads confirm. Surely any veteran poster like yourself recognizes that the posts are done in jest and are certainly not genuine legal opinions.

It's stupid. After being done a billion times, it's not even funny. Why so-called conservatives here think this is appropriate every time a female is in a news story that has potential criminal/illegal actions, what it really is is just tiresome. It adds nothing substantive to the thread. It makes the image of this place look crass.

Stupid? Perhaps but that's in the eye of the beholder, as is humor. At the risk of repeating myself, the snap judgments are more of a commentary on a vapid Nancy Grace-watching, Oprah Book Club-reading, Ready-For-Hillary society for whom ideas, facts, logic, and, yes, jurisprudence are made subordinate to how one photographs. While we object to Hillary Clinton as a crass opportunistic leftist, there is also no doubt that she is one of the most physically unattractive individuals to seek office ('hopelessly butch,' as Camille Paglia called her) yet is constantly altering her wardrobe and appearance in the hope of appealing to this shallow constituency.

And it makes light of actual crimes committed by people based on if they have breasts and vaginas. And it's entirely one way. Note we do not have thousands of post replies over the years discussing the guilt or innocence of male criminals based on how good looking they are. The female conservatives here (and the pervy guys who post all the time about females) have somehow restrained themselves from any posts of this kind, yet they cannot help themselves to go this way when there's a legal controversy with a female. Then it's find a photo, and let the idiotic guilt or innocence comment postings commence.

In my experience, such threads/posts almost always focus on the frequent stories of female teachers having affairs with male students. Again, there is underlying commentary on and acknowledgment of an archetype (older woman/younger man), legality notwithstanding, as well as a tacit admission that we've all had crushes on older females. It is mostly coincidence that they are teachers since we all spend long hours and years in class during the ravages of adolescence. Although couched in humor, it is an acknowledgment that we are sexual creatures even if we do not allow such urges to control our lives as some do (straight or gay) and that, as individuals adhering to societal taboos and legal prohibitions regarding sex with minors, we are entitled to comment without making any genuine endorsement.

Again, there is an underlying commentary here. Specifically, it is mockery of the double standard at work in society and the legal system. Men are not only treated more harshly under a 'gender-blind' law, they are ASSUMED to be dangerous, sexually-obsessed predators who are only waiting for a chance to despoil an underage girl. Again, women are assumed to be lonely, misguided, hormonal, etc. etc. and their sentences almost always significantly less severe. Granted, men are more likely to rely on physical strength, violence or threats of violence, etc. when committing such crimes but if the statutes and punishments apply to one they should apply to all. This is clearly not the case.

Can we just try to keep it classy here? Do we always have to devolve to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gutter humor here when women make the news for bad behavior/crimes? Don;t we have better standards as conservatives? Having a sense of humor is important, but why is it funny that a woman is innocent or guilty because of her looks? What makes this funny? Because ugly women deserve to be locked up? Because hot women can always get out of crimes or bad behavior and ugly women can't? This is the funny stereotype these comments are playing off of?

Classy and prudish are not synonymous. Jokes based on mug shots or selfies are hardly the lowest of the low. We are not deciding actual guilt or innocence for obvious reasons. See several above paragraphs for the root of the humor, but, as they say, if you have to explain a joke it is no longer a joke.

As before, it isn't strictly a stereotype and the arrest, conviction and sentencing records categorized by sex of the offenders will probably bear this out. It doesn't excuse crime and it doesn't condone crime. It is informed, if cynical, commentary, which is what this site thrives on in thread after thread, day after day.

And when the crimes are sexual crimes, as they often are, in the articles these comments surface in, why should this be made fun of? Because there aren't any negative consequences that occur to a young boy or girl when an adult female decides to satisfy their sexual urges with usually an underage boy or girl? The same stuff isn't treated lightly or humorously when an adult male does it, in fact death threat statements and the like are posted. But it's all fun and games and smart-ass humor when a woman does it.

On this we are in some agreement. But the reality is that teen boys who have affairs with adult women are rarely permanently scarred and in fact view it as a conquest or badge of honor. Obviously there is no risk of teen pregnancy.

What makes it wrong is conservatives ought to know better. They do know that there are negative consequences to teens who have sex with adults, BOTH men and women. It's not victimless only if a woman does it. It screws up their viewpoint of sex and male-female relationships. In both cases these posters KNOW that it's wrong to have an adult authority figure having sex with kids they are in positions of overseeing. It's wrong for male and female adults to look at students as potential personal sexual conquests.

We DO know better - that's the entire point of the humor. This is not Reddit, Jezebel, Gawker or any other site inhabited by the losers in parents' basements who have grown up in the Selfie Culture and believe that being gay, fat, ugly, weak, and liberal somehow confers special status or intelligence.

This is sick behavior for a site supposedly made up of conservatives.

As with threads about the death of famous persons or stories about death or injury resulting from stupidity, militancy, intoxication, etc. it is a form of gallows humor which itself is a method of alleviating cognitive dissonance and genuine concern for the plight of humanity where ignorance seems to be spreading like a virus. It's a very basic, human need and there's nothing wrong with it.

I've never been of the simplistic 'don't click it' set and I admit I'm not crazy about the volume or frequency of posts on some topics e.g. history reprints or so-called satire but in the end it's a simple matter to scroll past them especially if the contents of the thread are eminently predictable for good or ill.