Cool story, bro

Cheers to Blowout, and jeers to Southern Miss, where I’m getting my MA, and where no such thing exists.

Jeers to the Flat Hat for blasting ’09 for “stinginess”. Seriously, we got record participation (though it wasn’t always looking like we were going to pull that off, and even I was doubtful of how far we’d get) and raised over $150,000. That’s not what I call stingy.

Cheers to DPJ for making me laugh.

Jeers to Foubert and his organization for legitimizing and encouraging sexism (and for using his PhD to troll message boards. Seriously?)

I heard our class got 70+% donations because the chairs and Kevin Dua went around telling people to sign the class gift form and letting them know at the same time not to worry about paying any donations- just sign it and forget about it.

This is a horrible way to run the class gift; not to mention it is also immoral and seemingly against the honor code. Telling people to ‘pledge’ money and at the same time telling them to not worry about honoring that pledge (just so a couple people can slap on their resume that their class had the highest percentage donations) is against the honor code in my opinion and I think it should be investigated.

I am proud of those who donated to our class for the right reasons. I am upset that most people donated for the wrong ones.

Cheers to Jeers for calling out Foubert

Jeers to Foubert for not actually citing decent quality causal studies when he does cite.

Cheers to DPJ for speaking the truth.

Jeers to me for responding to Foubert.

PS.
Foubert, why does 1 in 4 not talk about emergency contraception?

“Cheers to the Class of 2009. Jeers for its class gift stinginess.”

76%, biotch. Best ever.

Jeers for Dr. John Foubert for spending so much time posting comments on a student newspaper website. You have a damn doctorate, start acting like it.

Jeers to students for stooping to responding to him on a student newspaper website. Don’t legitimize the sad fact that he’s lurking on these boards.

Cheers to people with the fortitude to not be bothered by nudity.

Cheers to “Jeers” for understanding the difference between correlation and causality. Jeers to “Jeers” for criticizing but apparently not reading so many of my prior posts explaining the CAUSAL studies between exposure to pornography and violence against women. In fact these studies did use control groups with the type of methodology you cite. Cheers to “Jeers” for proving my point.

I do not maintain that exposure to one picture is going to make the average man rape someone. Research shows porn exposure is one of many correlates and causes of rape in the aggregate. I have also cited numerous negative effects of porn aside from its connection to rape, and except when responding to a question about a religious perspective, I don’t recall bringing up those arguments in this forum. Jeers to “Jeers” whom I’d assume would claim the lable of “tolerance” for being intolerant of my scholarly point of view at least in part based on his or her presumptions about my religion.

Cheers to the fact The Century Project didn’t make its next two scheduled public appearances after the controversy generated at W&M. Jeers to the College for allowing it to come in the first place.

Jeers to John Foubert for implying the Sex Workers’ Art Show and the Century Project are public nudity. Those events did not take place in a park or outside an elementary school or anywhere, for that matter, where you could accidentally stumble upon them. The SWAS took place indoors, at night, and was ticketed, and only allowed in those older than 18. Are R-rated movies public nudity? Because that is the EXACT same description for an R-rated movie, most of which, by the way, contain far more nudity than the SWAS. The Century Project, this time at least, took place inside a museum, on the second floor. Those visiting the museum had to ask for directions, then pass a sign pointing to the exhibit, then walk up a flight of stairs, walk through a door and then pass a second sign and enter an entirely new room before you could even see where the exhibit was, let alone any of the photos!

Labeling those events as public nudity is a cheap attempt to associate them with people who expose themselves or urinate in public. Neither event could have been easily witnessed by those not willing to witness them. And neither was forced upon those who did not wish to see them.

Furthermore, jeers to John Foubert for constantly arguing that watching pornography CAUSES men to commit acts of sexual violence. You constantly flash dozens of academic articles in people’s faces while trying to back up your ridiculous position. None of them contains proof of CAUSATION. They contain proof of CORRELATION. The difference between those similar-sounding words is astounding. I absolutely agree that many men who commit acts of sexual violence also watch excessive amounts of pornography. But that doesn’t mean A caused B. What it does indicate is a common cause, genetic, societal, whatever, for both behaviors. Because guess what? Almost all males watch pornography, but relatively few commit acts of sexual violence.

To prove a CAUSATIVE effect of viewing pornography with sexual violence, you would have to take a group of men who had not committed sexual violence, split them in two, and show one group pornography while using the other as a control group. Causation would be indicated if the men who you made watch pornography then committed sexual violence. THAT is causation. Of course, such a study would be impossible—besides the legal and logistical implications, consider the moral and ethical problems that would arise.

Mr. Foubert, you don’t have to respond. I already know what you’re going to say. I’ve seen you respond to a dozen other people before me. You’ll likely argue that the SWAS and Century Project both fit your own definition of public nudity, which of course doesn’t match up with the legal or popular definitions, but that just means they’re wrong because you disagree. You’ll probably say I have a middle schooler’s grasp of statistics and yes, indeed, those 50 studies you trot out prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any man who ever even sees a picture of a nipple in a textbook is going to smack the next woman he sees. You could imply that I seek to make rape easier for men. Heck, you might even say I tried to rape someone you knew. There’s precedent; you’ve done that to your critics before.

I probably won’t respond if you do say those things. And I know I won’t change your mind. This is for those reading this who might want to hear from someone who doesn’t claim to stand on some religious high ground when it comes to a social issue. Instead, I back myself up with reason, knowledge, and a belief in the personal liberties granted by the United States of America. I detest rape, but I don’t agree with your solution. I don’t think that makes me morally reprehensible.

Ok, let’s do a logic problem. Your argument is this. If someone’s new life after working at W&M were terrible, that person would therefore offer criticism to the Univeristy he or she left. These are two independent clauses, either of which could be true with or without each other. People who leave institutions and enjoy their new lives are equally capable of criticizing other institutions as are people who leave institutions and do not enjoy their new lives.

The second part of your argument is that if I am concerned with William and Mary that I should focus on my family. Again, these two clauses are independent. Concern with William and Mary and focusing on my family have nothing to do with each other. The next part of your argument is to question whether my family offers me joy to the same extent as bringing others down and “controling the university through subversion and hate.” This part of your argument, which is not only devoid of logic but its nature as a personal attack shows everyone its flawed nature, attempts to join two more unrelated statements. Whether my family offers me joy is irrelevant to any criticism I have to offer. You have every right to call it what you want, but I question whether I have been successful in controling much of anything in the last couple years at W&M. You also seem to claim sweeping insight into my nature with no evidence by stating that I am motivated by hate. You’ve shown yourself to be a poorly reasoned individual by your post, but I’d hardly call you hateful. You simply don’t reason well. You also resort to personal attacks and attacks on my family in order to try to score points. You purport to speak for everyone and presume that I will be affected by a personal attack. I’m at a point in life where such personal attacks don’t mean anything to me, and I’ve had more thrown at me for standing up for what I believe in than I can count.

You see, when you stand up for what you believe in — whether that is to end rape, speak out against corruption, shed light on the harms done by the pornography industry, stand for Truth, critique decisions of public officials, and advocate for the protection of academic freedom — some people are going to get annoyed, others angry, and others will post online messages with no logical connections laden with personal attacks. That’s OK with me, because I’d rather live a life standing up for what I believe in and being criticized for it by some than a boring one. People who make a difference also tend to make a few enemies along the way whether they like it or not. That is the opportunity cost of standing for something and not being all things to all people. And I’m quite comfortable paying that price.

Jeers to John Foubert. Is your new life in Oklahoma so terrible that you must continually offer negative criticism and controversy to a University that is better off without you? If you are so concerned with us why don’t you focus on your own family or do they not offer you the same joy as trying bring other people down and control the university through subversion and hate.

Cheers to the fact that we do not miss you.

Jeers to the Flat Hat for still not understanding that public nudity is not an idea. More Jeers to the Flat Hat for criticizing other campus papers for their bias while they print news articles that read more like editorials than news pieces. And more Jeers to the Flat Hat for lazy reporting and overall weakness as a newspaper this year.

hey freshman that got stabbed will you be my friend please? i feel like hanging out with you would really boost my street cred. i’ll be all like “hey check out this guy i’m friends with. he’s been stabbed” and then the ladies would be all over us.

Cheers to the FlatHat for Jeering Rodney Rhodes!

Jeers to the Flat Hat for making it sound like Fitz is the only student that has worked on changing policies to improve off-campus student housing options.

Cheers to the Flat Hat for bringing me campus new!

Jeers to the Flat Hat for stealing my boyfriend!

Jeers to the Flat Hat for deleting the roflcopter I posted earlier. Seriously that took forever to type.

Cheers to Professor Emily Pease for finally offering a journalism class. Jeers to the Flat Hat for re-publishing articles that writers post on that class’ blog.