Said David Choe, quoted in "Unpacking David Choe’s ‘Rapey’ Podcast Comments" (The Cut).
Choe is one of the actors in the popular new Netflix series "Beef." The podcast remarks are from 2014, and we're told "some viewers are calling for accountability." I'm not sure what form of "accountability" they are or should be asking for. The story he told on the podcast concerns crossing lines with a masseuse, similar to the accusations against Al Gore some years back.
ADDED: To say "I hate rapists, I think rapists should be raped and murdered" is to show that you have a narrow conception of what rape is. Of course, that's also why Choe could do what he said he did and exclude himself from the set called "rapists." But if you actually cared about sexual abuse, you wouldn't focus on restricting the category. You focus on restricting the category to protect the interests of those, including you, who engage in sexual abuse. Look at the reasoning behind "rapists should be raped and murdered." That's saying: Rapists are those who are irredeemable, utterly worthless monsters. And: That can't be me!
(And let me add that even "irredeemable, utterly worthless monsters" shouldn't be "murdered." You should recommend the death penalty, not murder. If you think the death penalty is murder, you should oppose the death penalty.)
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
I hate rapists, I think rapists should be raped and murdered.
1) You don't get points for hating rapists. Even most rapists hate rapists.
2) The over the top flailing (raped! murdered!) speaks to a guilty conscience.
This is not the response of a grounded person confident he did nothing wrong.
The guy can afford the best publicists around, and this is the statement they come up with? "I hate rapists"?
No more happy endings.
Rape or rape-rape? h/t Whoopi Pedophiles or social liberals?
The boy who cried blow job. Next time he tells the villagers he got a blow job, they won't believe him.
No idea who this is.
But that aside, just who will dole out this 'accountability'?
In what form will such accountability take?
Is is like cancelling someone?
If this guy is in show biz I'll assume he's a liberal, in which case I hope his fellow travelers destroy his career.
If he's not a liberal, if you want to make an omelette, etc.....
Beef is really good, and he is amazing in it. I feel terrible for him that in his shining moment, people are searching for reasons to take him down.
Reminds me of the scientist in the campy bombshell shirt.
This is not the response of a grounded person confident he did nothing wrong.
He's a comedian!
Well, Dave. If it's any consolation. When they get to prison they usually are.
Well, Dave. If it's any consolation. When they get to prison they usually are.
"I think rapists should be raped and murdered"
That is a horrible thing to say. That implies that rape is okay if it's the right people (rapists), who are getting it.
I don't think David Choe believes that, or that he even knows whether he believes that or not.
David Choe was recently on Joe Rogan's podcast. I watched it without knowing anything about him. Choe says a lot of weird shit, and when he's talking, it's mostly to be provocative or outrageous.
Choe probably did go to a masseuse and her name may have been Rose. Nothing else about that account is necessarily true. He makes shit up and what he may have been thinking gets mixed up with what actually happened. He tells wild stories because that seems to get him attention and approval. Unless Rose is pursuing legal action, I don't care.
MayBee said...He's a comedian!
I have no idea who he is, but I get the sense here that he is an actor.
Abortion penalty for murderers and babies... fetal-babies.
If there were an editing function, now that I've had a few more seconds to think about it, why is "he's a comedian!" a response? What does that change?
I don't think you will get far, trying to instruct David Choe in the nuances of moral reasoning. He should probably just be raped a few times and then murdered.
He's doing the same old dumbshit "Nobody hates X more then me" - it NEVER works. Judas Priest, smarten up!
Never apologize to the Left. It gets you nowhere and they see it as a sign of weakness. And they redouble their attacks.
The statement is obviously stupid. Why should rapists be executed? The woman who's raped, will live another day and be physically fine. And what is rape? its just sex - without consent. Which means, sex with a drunk, naked women who crawled into your bed and passed out is...RAPE.
The idea that men should be excuted because a woman may or may not decide she consented is insane.
I hate rapists, I think rapists should be raped and murdered.
Virtue signaling. Pretty soon there will be an anti-rape ribbon we're all supposed to wear, lest we out ourselves.
Isn't this how the Salem witch trials began?
n.n said...
Rape or rape-rape? h/t Whoopi Pedophiles or social liberals?
4/24/23, 8:40 AM
THIS^^^
This reminds me of a funny story when I was asked by a prosecutor to remove a comment from my (virtually unread) blog by the sister of one of several women slaughtered by a man, because, the prosecutor said, the murdered woman's sister's mere act of expressing anger (anger, not threats) at the (already convicted) murderer who blew her sister's brains out might use by the defense as the grounds for an appeal.
Which has occasionally worked.
Oh wait, that's not funny at all.
I would add that victims of serious crimes, but not criminals, can be struck from juries automatically (ie. without using the limited number of assigned strikes). Now there's a free speech issue. We are the Furies, and so we are automatically deprived of our right to participate equally as citizens in the justice system, while murderers and rapists who have had their rights reinstated (Soros has a couple dozen nonprofits working on this) have more rights than we do. They are also working to make it illegal to even ask a prospective juror if he or she has been convicted of a crime, while retaining the exclusion of violently harmed victims.
And since you are so deeply invested in policing this man's speech, what is your "broad," as it were, "conception of rape" you claim he lacks? And isn't he just practicing free speech? Heck, he doesn't even advocate for a specific person to be harmed, in stark opposition to those shouting that a judge's young daughters should be raped, words you conflated into your praise for those protesters' exercise of free speech.
What an odd scolding. Have you ever even seen the inside of a criminal court?
But if you actually cared about sexual abuse, you wouldn't focus on restricting the category.
Doesn't the act of restricting the category show just how important, in a bad way, some actions are? Isn't that the underlying rationale of the categorization of sexual abuse itself? Isn't sexual abuse just another version of physical assault? Both are unwelcome physical contact that are harmful or offensive. Do people who insist on having a distinction between sexual abuse and physical assault not really care about physical assault? I don't think so. But we carve out sexual abuse from normal physical assault as an acknowledgement of how harmful it is. When I was a younger man while at a bar, a group of three women walked behind me. Each of them pinched my rear as they walked past. I did not welcome this nor did I appreciate it. Technically this is sexual abuse. But I didn't feel like a victim, and the idea of lumping that action together with the action of a man who rapes another human being seems ludicrous. Even if I did feel like a victim the idea of those women facing any sort of significant social repercussions, let alone criminal ones is also ludicrous. We separate rape from other forms of sexual abuse not because sexual abuse outside rape is ok, but because rape is especially bad.
He who defends everything, defends nothing.
tim maguire said...
MayBee said...He's a comedian!
I have no idea who he is, but I get the sense here that he is an actor.
In Beef, he's acting, and he's genius. He's very funny and dark and his timing is perfect. He's an artist, a story teller, and a one-time podcast host. So you are right, I don't think he ever did stand up. But he doesn't seem to me to be the kind of person who would avoid saying something simply for shock value.
I find it interesting that after all the Stop Asian Hate stuff, that The People are now fine with making accusations against a Korean-American.
(And Beef is really good!)
“ But if you actually cared about sexual abuse, you wouldn't focus on restricting the category.”
Is this quote from Ann or the article? Because having a *lawyer* say that different acts should all be lumped together, should not be defined individually and dealt with by their level of severity is frightening.
Asking for a “happy ending” is not the same as violent, forced rape. Being a creepy jerk is not the same as being a violent predator. It should not be dealt with as such. It should not be seen within the same category. You have to be a very privileged person who has never experienced real violence and predation to think that. I can’t wrap my head around this attitude.
Tim Maguire-
(sorry! Can't recapitalize)
What does it matter if he's a comedian? Because you said " This is not the response of a grounded person confident he did nothing wrong."
And I think it is the response of someone who says something for the shock/entertainment value, and not as any kind of real description of their thoughts.
I think Choe's remarks are startlingly overheated, crazy, just...too much. Perhaps he's like so many men of apparently good standing, often known for being moral paragons in their communities, often holding respectable jobs and other positions of rank and preeminence, who condemn with gusto the depredations of homosexuals (and pederasts and drag queens and trans folks, etc.), and who later have their names and photo portraits printed or broadcast in their local news media because they have been arrested and charged with sex crimes, often against minors or children, (or just (sic) acquiring and distributing child porn online).
Or, maybe he's innocent of any sexual offenses, as he claims, but he is just an over-aggressive asshole (America is full of them!) who has no truck with the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, which seems to be covered by "raping and murdering" rapists.
rcocean: you should read some trial transcripts. Start with Girl X. Yes, she lived to see another day, but, having been blinded by bleach and beaten into a life confined to a wheelchair, with severe brain damage, she probably didn't enjoy it much.
I'm alive, but I still have nightmares about the stranger who crawled in my window. I was not partying and woke up to regret my choices: I was sleeping alone in my house after a night of studying. My life was never the same, also because I never saw justice and was shocked by the way I was treated by my liberal friends because the guy was black. And not every woman lived to see another day after him. And he got out five times and is suspected of attacking possibly hundreds of women across more than two decades. That was pretty common back before DNA was readily accessed, which in itself was one hell of a legislative fight against the Democrats and libertarians and some Republicans.
But your comment does brilliantly illustrate something I've been saying for decades (and was brutalized on tv for saying so in our House Judiciary): because of jurors who blame victims, even the most heinous, violent, stranger, clearly guilty rapists regularly get acquitted, over and over again (see: Carlie Brucia's killer). And with juries of people who think like you, the last damn thing stupid college feminists need to be doing is expanding the definitions of sexual assault and rape to focus on ever-more nebulous definitions of consent that in practice apply mostly to them. It has taken decades to even get juries on board to prosecute the most violent, serial, stranger, and/or child-rapists. Now that the campus feminists have made it all about themselves and very liminal cases precisely by expanding "the category of sex assault" beyond all common sense, out here in the real world we have lost decades of trust and comprehension that we worked hard to build with jurors.
Not that this David Cho guy doesn't sound like a tool. He ran a porn podcast and calls women TERFS and now he's being defended by some because of his race. Pretty typical leftism.
He claims the story is a fabrication, and it probably was. The probably fabricated story was told nine years ago. He claims that he is now a different person than the man who fabricated that story. He claims to be a recovering bullshit artist. So far as I know, he doesn't have a history of committing sexual offenses and no one from his past has come forward to accuse him of bad behavior......I would give him a pass on this. I have a worse opinion of those people who dredged up this item in order to destroy him. Isn't there any statute of limitations on bullshit?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा