In retrospect that was a terrible statement. All rape is violent. I was trying to say that the "stereotypical" kind of rape is rather rare (e.g. stranger in the bushes), and that the typical sexual abuser is well-known to their victim.

http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Sacred-Ren%C3%A9-Girard/dp/08018221 81

Certainly not the end word on the matter, but almost required reading if only because it has been so influential.

Remember when Cracked was just the less-funny Mad Magazine? And that's saying something. Interesting they're going in this direction and keeping the name. It's kind of like if Comedy Central started showing straight up dramas or something.

Mr Monchiles - I always liked Foucault's take on the changes to criminal justice throughout the ages (one of the few times a Frenchman has ever written something even remotely worthwhile); similar to Mr Wong's argument, as you describe it, but perhaps different in at least one respect.

It's been ages since I read "Discipline and Punish", but from what I remember, the currently relevant point he made was basically this: criminal justice has always been about violence - it was violent in the past, it is violent today - however, the specifics have changed dramatically. In the past (he focused primarily on late medieval/ pre-industrial justice, but I suppose the holmgang era could fit in here too), justice was about spectacle, physical violence, and swiftness. Following the industrial revolution, justice became slow, hidden, focused on violence against the mind (specifically through things like segregation, isolation, and constant observation). Where once we used to punish the body, now we torture the soul.

Once upon a time, a man like Nick Bravo would be dragged into the town square, beaten, ridiculed, and locked in the stocks. After a few days we'd let him go, and he'd rejoin society, sore and humiliated but no worse for wear. We no longer do this. Now, a man like Nick is sequestered away from public eyes, thrown into a warehouse, and left to rot, safe and (relatively) secure from bodily harm, for years on end. We isolate him and break him, slowly, "humanely", until he is institutionalized, no longer capable of being anything but what the state wants him to be.

We are *very* good at obfuscating our methods - indeed, I'd argue that "humane treatment", as used in the criminal justice system, is little more than a twee euphemism for obfuscation! It's also true that our justice remains quite violent. However, it's important to remember that there *is* a distinction; the violence of modern justice and the violence of ancient justice are two very different beasts.

... and if anything, our violence is WORSE! Given the choice between being whipped twenty times and then sent on your way, or being locked in prison for four years (with another few years of closely-monitored parole, followed by a lifetime of having a criminal record dangling over your head), which would you pick? I'd grit my teeth and take the whipping, personally.

You're the most brazen and offensive know-nothing know-it-all I've ever seen.

Maru, have my stars.

I recall there being a scene in Annie Hall about people like EH.

?

Why do you say that, Maru and Mr Tubman?

Is it because I've mischaracterized or misunderstood Foucault's arguments in any way? If so, how? As I said, it's been ages since I read "Discipline and Punish", and I could be completely wrong - I am always open to correction, and would love to be set right if I am in error.

Is it because you believe the ideas put forth are not mischaracterized, but rather *wrong*? Again, how? Please elaborate, so I might understand.

Is it because I type too much, or have committed some other social mistake?

There are answers to those questions, definitive ones that could be easily communicated, but to respond to you is only to feed your impulse to posture intellectually. Beliefs and views are purely performative for you.

Tubman, you're back on the case!

... or, another possibility, you're just trolling. If the answers were "easily communicable", then surely you would be capable of doing so. The fact that you cannot defend your position after being called out, combined with your habit of being grouchy and mean to people, seems to indicate that your goal here was simple cruelty.

I'm not "posturing" about anything - if that's the impression you got from my post, and if this is why you got defensive, then again, I am sorry! I really and truly did not bring up Foucault in an attempt to say "I have read Foucault, I am smarter than you" - rather, I brought up Foucault because I think most people here ARE intellectuals and DO have a familiarity with his work (in other words, I knew I wouldn't be talking over people's heads; quite the opposite of what I would do if I wanted to be "posturing"). More importantly, I brought up Foucault because some of the points he made in the first half of "Discipline and Punish" are directly relevant to the discussion we're having. And they are... aren't they?


"Beliefs and views are purely performative for you." What a horrible, bullshit statement! I have to wonder if you even know what that statement MEANS, let alone how it might relate to the discussion at hand!

Here's my hypothesis - please don't take offense to this, and I am sorry if what I'm about to say hurts your feelings, but I guess if you're going to try trolling me, then I should be blunt. I believe that you, Maru, are a know-nothing know-it-all. You're an intelligent guy, but also a little narcissistic, and you're unable to reconcile your ego with that gnawing fear which tells you that you're probably not as smart as you want to believe. Perhaps you've had negative experiences in the past with other intelligent people. Perhaps you ;live amongst hipsters, and they've got you down. Whatever the case, your lot in life has led you to become bitter, cynical, and hostile.

You see me mention Foucault. You construe this as me being "intellectual", and as intellectuality-in-others is perceived as a threat by you, you suddenly get defensive and angry. The hurtful comments you posted above are not *rational* - that is to say, they are not based on any well-thought out reasons. They're simply the product of an emotional reaction, and now, instead of admitting you overreacted, you try to fall back on your own brand of empty, intellectual posturing - the sort of behavior which, ironically or not, you project onto me.

HarrietTubman probably suffers from the same problem ("there's a scene in Annie Hall" is one of the most insufferably pretentious phrases I've ever seen in a shitpost). And Woody Allen *definitely* suffers from the same problem! That scene in Annie Hall? It does indeed show the way certain people act, but it does not do so in the way the author intended - rather, it shows **how people like Woody Allen act**. Rather than having a lively, intelligent conversation with equals - as many people, including myself and my good friends here on poeTV, would so - Mr Allen instead throws a tantrum and makes personal attacks. The scene itself is a passive-aggressive revenge fantasy, penned by an sad, pretentious hipster. It tells us nothing of value about other people, but quite a bit about the way Woody views other people.


Don't be a Woody Allen, Maru. You're better than that. *If* you've got a valid issue with anything I said - such as, again, if you believe I've made an error in the way I characterized Foucault's thoughts regarding the basic patterns of violence underlying the criminal justice system - then please, by all means, correct me. I won't mind! I WANT to be corrected whenever I make errors, because that means I get to learn something new, and grow as a person!

And if you don't have a valid issue with anything I said, then just say so. You guys have obviously been e-staling me for awhile, so you know by now that I really like being kind to people. If you two were just blowing off steam, then hey, we all have bad days! I've been there too, so I won't hold it against you. We can still be friends.

Otherwise, you can go fuck yourself, Maru. You too, HarrietTubman. Some people just aren't very nice...!

That's cool. I think about that a lot. At first I was going to say that "celebratory" was too strong a term, but someone like Dahmer or Eagan Holmes often get something like an "I'm glad he didn't get the death penalty because then they'll get a lifetime of raping to death" sort of mentality.

And it's hard to wrap your head around with cases like that: a crime of passion is different than a serial killer or a movie theatre shooter, because you have no sympathy for them, whereas you might for someone who killed in a crime of passion, but all inmates should be treated the same and not subject to acts that are in themselves crimes just because the CO decides to look the other way.

Why would you want every student to watch this?

(If your idea is that watching this would scare the kids away from being criminals, studies have consistently shown that "scaring kids straight" just doesn't work. I don't understand why, but it doesn't noticeably deter criminality.

Doh, see post below.