xkcd

by **fjafjan** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:28 am UTC

So people have been saying fox pundit Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990. There is no evidence to substantiate this, but then why hasn't he stepped up and denied these allegations? I find it a bit suspicious and I wish Glenn beck would come out and deny that he Raped and killed a young girl in 1990.

the source of the above nonsense is
http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/ a site that is currently down, most of the time, due to popularity at Digg and similar pages.

Half joke, half fighting back against the all too common smear tactic used by FOX news this is basically an analagous rumor as the one that Obama is not an American citizen, or that he is a secret muslim, etc etc etc.

I find it quite funny, and would love to see Glenn Beck denounce these rumors, and have people assume he is guilty because of it.

So I've been convinced there's worthy discussion in the satire of this claim and whether it crosses any lines. Disclaimer, though: there is no reason anyone should actually believe a horrible event like this actually happened because there's no evidence to suggest it, so whether or not it actually happened is probably a pointless thing to debate here. -Hawk

by **A. Akbar** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:06 am UTC

Ok, I found this funny. It is ethically questionable though, this is a pretty horrific crime, we have no reason to believe he did it and false accusations (especially of something this severe) are never cool.
And no, "he did it first" is not a good excuse. Beck is being a dick over Obama but there's a reason that "an eye for an eye" is frowned on.

by **The Great Hippo** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:32 am UTC

Yeah, include me among the 'this is a very fucked up thing' camp. Glenn Beck is a douchefuck, but this sort of shit does not fly. It's obscene, vulgar, ridiculous, and makes life harder for actual rape victims. Whoever's running the site needs to grow the hell up.

by **sje46** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:39 am UTC

Yeah, this is kinda old news.

The idea of it is funny, but I really wish that it wasn't rape or something. It should be something more embarrassing like. Like
http://www.glennbeckhadtohavehishandsurgicallyremovedfromamexicanprostitutesanusin1990.com

by **lulzfish** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:47 am UTC

www.glennbeckaccidentallyacokebottlein1990.com

Let's use an existing meme, maybe get another Oprah / penis comment again.

by **zug** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:50 am UTC

I support getting a stupid dangerous asshole off tv using whatever means necessary. Sponsors pulling ads hasn't cut it so far.

I support the CONCEPT, though there are way worse, insidiously-spreading, and believable things that the site author could have accused him of, that don't hurt anyone. Like that one time in 1990 when Glenn Beck got his hand stuck in a Mexican prostitute's anus. Then he shook Reagan's hand at a UNICEF convention without washing it first.

by **netcrusher88** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:54 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:makes life harder for actual rape victims.

Most people do not understand this, at all. For this reason I wholeheartedly agree something else should have been invented, as (for example) sje did.

That said, and "eye for an eye" being bad aside, treason is also kind of a big deal, and that's what Beck et al are accusing if in other words.

by **Velict** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:58 am UTC

Glenn Beck's stupidity doesn't justify libel (which is essentially what this is, plus or minus a parody argument).

by **Lord Aurora** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:01 am UTC

Yeah, N&A is the perfect place for this.

Good, rational choice.

by **zug** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:33 am UTC

Velict wrote:Glenn Beck's stupidity doesn't justify libel (which is essentially what this is, plus or minus a parody argument).

Who would convict me? us?

by **MikeBabaguh** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:35 am UTC

I think accusing the President of the U.S. of not being a natural citizen and fabricating evidence to prove otherwise is a more serious crime than a rape and murder.

by **TheAmazingRando** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:45 am UTC

It isn't even an original, it's taken from Gilbert Gottfried's segment of Comedy Central's roast of Bob Saget (with the name changed, of course).

by **The Great Hippo** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:46 am UTC

MikeBabaguh wrote:I think accusing the President of the U.S. of not being a natural citizen and fabricating evidence to prove otherwise is a more serious crime than a rape and murder.

That's not a fair comparison by any scale.

Question: Which is worse, committing treason or rape?

Answer: That is a stupid question.

by **zug** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:50 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
MikeBabaguh wrote:I think accusing the President of the U.S. of not being a natural citizen and fabricating evidence to prove otherwise is a more serious crime than a rape and murder.
That's not a fair comparison by any scale.

Question: Which is worse, committing treason or rape?

Answer: That is a stupid question.

Aroo? Both of the situations under discussion here are libelous/slanderous. One is against Beck, and one is against Obama. They're the same thing, except that a lot more people perpetuate (and maybe even believe) the one about Obama.

Someone is making something up about another person to discredit him/her. Same diff, neigh?

by **A. Akbar** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:54 am UTC

MikeBabaguh wrote:I think accusing the President of the U.S. of not being a natural citizen and fabricating evidence to prove otherwise is a more serious crime than a rape and murder.

……………Really??

I couldn't care less if people claimed that the president of the U.S was a chinchilla. I would be slightly more worried if people believed that but it would only go to validating my long held belief on certain segments of the U.S public. I certainly would care if someone had raped and killed people, there is a slight difference between the two.

More off topic- Why is it that the president has to be born in the U.S.A? (goes off to listen to Springsteen…comes back) Isn't that kinda discrimination on the highest level? Imagine if it was illegal for the president to be female or black? And aside from that, don't you miss a lot of potential talent? I think of my current countries 4 greatest leaders, 3 have been Australian or British.

EDIT: Kinda ninjad, Damn you Springsteen.

by **The Great Hippo** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:56 am UTC

zug wrote:Aroo? Both of the situations under discussion here are libelous/slanderous. One is against Beck, and one is against Obama. They're the same thing, except that a lot more people perpetuate (and maybe even believe) the one about Obama.

The notion expressed was that rape and murder were less serious crimes than treason. My point was that such a comparison is unfair and useless. Kind of like saying "Hey, which is more terrible, the Holocaust or the Cambodian Genocide?"

by **zug** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:59 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
zug wrote:Aroo? Both of the situations under discussion here are libelous/slanderous. One is against Beck, and one is against Obama. They're the same thing, except that a lot more people perpetuate (and maybe even believe) the one about Obama.
The notion expressed was that rape and murder were less serious crimes than treason. My point was that such a comparison is unfair and useless. Kind of like saying "Hey, which is more terrible, the Holocaust or the Cambodian Genocide?"

I think what that guy was trying to say is that it's worse to slander the President than some nutball goofass tv anchor whom most people know is pretty crazy anyway. If I'm wrong, may I die of armpit fleas.

by **A. Akbar** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:02 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
zug wrote:Aroo? Both of the situations under discussion here are libelous/slanderous. One is against Beck, and one is against Obama. They're the same thing, except that a lot more people perpetuate (and maybe even believe) the one about Obama.
The notion expressed was that rape and murder were less serious crimes than treason. My point was that such a comparison is unfair and useless. Kind of like saying "Hey, which is more terrible, the Holocaust or the Cambodian Genocide?"

The Holocaust caused more widespread suffering to more people and more people died as a result. 2.2 million compared to between 11 to 17 million in the Nazi Holocaust. On an individual level I would imagine the suffering would be roughly analogous but taken as a whole the Holocaust clearly did more damage to humanity. That question is like asking; which is bigger, Jupiter or Saturn? They're both really fucking big but we can still distinguish between the two.

zug wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
zug wrote:Aroo? Both of the situations under discussion here are libelous/slanderous. One is against Beck, and one is against Obama. They're the same thing, except that a lot more people perpetuate (and maybe even believe) the one about Obama.
The notion expressed was that rape and murder were less serious crimes than treason. My point was that such a comparison is unfair and useless. Kind of like saying "Hey, which is more terrible, the Holocaust or the Cambodian Genocide?"

I think what that guy was trying to say is that it's worse to slander the President than some nutball goofass tv anchor whom most people know is pretty crazy anyway. If I'm wrong, may I die of armpit fleas.

MikeBabaguh wrote:I think accusing the President of the U.S. of not being a natural citizen and fabricating evidence to prove otherwise is a more serious crime than a rape and murder.

No, I think what he is saying is that accusing someone of forging a birth certificate is worse then RAPING AND MURDERING someone, not accusing them of rape and murder but the actual thing.

by **Cynical Idealist** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:03 am UTC

zug wrote:I support the CONCEPT, though there are way worse, insidiously-spreading, and believable things that the site author could have accused him of, that don't hurt anyone. Like that one time in 1990 when Glenn Beck got his hand stuck in a Mexican prostitute's anus. Then he shook Reagan's hand at a UNICEF convention without washing it first.

Why did I have to read this right as I was taking a drink?

by **The Great Hippo** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:06 am UTC

zug wrote:I think what that guy was trying to say is that it's worse to slander the President than some nutball goofass tv anchor whom most people know is pretty crazy anyway. If I'm wrong, may I die of armpit fleas.

Oh, I see what you mean - no, I'm pretty sure they meant that committing treason is more serious than rape or murder. I can see how you'd interpret it the way you're interpreting it, but I'm pretty sure that they meant that slandering the President and fabricating evidence to back up that slander is more grievous than raping and murdering someone.

A. Akbar wrote:The Holocaust caused more widespread suffering to more people and more people died as a result. 2.2 million compared to between 11 to 17 million in the Nazi Holocaust. On an individual level I would imagine the suffering would be roughly analogous but taken as a whole the Holocaust clearly did more damage to humanity. That question is like asking; which is bigger, Jupiter or Saturn? They're both really fucking big but we can still distinguish between the two.

This is horribly offtopic, but no: Trust me. It's a stupid question that doesn't deserve an answer. Comparing atrocities on that scale to figure out which is the worst leads nowhere except Stupid-Fucking-Conversation-Ville. I've been there; they've got shitty beer. Trust me on this; it's this cheap-ass import stuff they make by getting a monkey drunk and then harvesting their piss into a bottle. And then they charge you, like, 20 bucks a shot.

Don't want to go there? Then don't compare atrocities to figure out which one is the 'worst'. They're all bad.

by **sje46** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:13 am UTC

zug wrote:I support getting a stupid dangerous asshole off tv using whatever means necessary. Sponsors pulling ads hasn't cut it so far.

I support the CONCEPT, though there are way worse, insidiously-spreading, and believable things that the site author could have accused him of, that don't hurt anyone. Like that one time in 1990 when Glenn Beck got his hand stuck in a Mexican prostitute's anus. Then he shook Reagan's hand at a UNICEF convention without washing it first.

Haha, funny. Just keep in mind that the site author didn't make up the rumor.

EDIT: Also, I'm thinking that the hand getting stuck a mexican prostitute's anus is just more believable than him raping and murdering a young girl. I know that Beck is a psycho, but he seems to be more the type to visit a mexican prostitute and stick a hand into her colon than rape and murder someone.

He never denied that it happened.

by **Jahoclave** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:21 am UTC

http://www.glennbecksaidsomethingfactualandaccurate.com

Well, while we're making sites for things he's never done.

by **lesliesage** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:31 am UTC

puzzle

by **Walter.Horvath** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:45 am UTC

I, for one, think that it is horrible that Glenn Beck Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in 1990, supposedly.

Defamation laws in the United States, thankfully, are closed just enough so that everyone cannot claim defamation at the first sight of anything unsatisfactory. This case, on the other hand, might fall on the line. The 'proprietor' arguing that you'd have to come away from the site believing that it was true, and Glenn Beck's entourage believing that it will further damage his PR.

It's safe to say, however, that this will continue to live on in Internet meme code for epochs to come.

by **Lord Aurora** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:49 am UTC

Seriously?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=45073

by **Walter.Horvath** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:51 am UTC

Huh, I thought it looked similar. Shame on me.

by **lesliesage** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:52 am UTC

Yeah, just saw the other post... Sorry people. I just thought the detail in the nature of the meme was good.

by **The Reaper** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:53 am UTC

And, the other one is locked.

by **Lord Aurora** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:54 am UTC

No, you thought that giving that title to the thread was a clever way of perpetuating the (obscenely offensive and incredibly unfunny) meme.

by **lesliesage** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:00 am UTC

puzzle

by **scrovak** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:21 am UTC

The reason the other thread was locked is because the OP didn't mention anything at all about it being a meme, untrue, or the tact behind it. It sounded as though they were trying to perpetuate the rumor. This OP, on the other hand, noted the falsity of the allegation, the correlation with Glenn Beck's tactics.

In fact, it goes right along with Lyndon B. Johnson. He had his campaign manager circulate the rumor that his opponent was having sex with pigs. When told no on would believe it, he said "Yeah, but I just want to hear the son of a bitch deny it."

Brilliant.

And I think it's funny. Not the whole raping and murdering because, well, that's just unfunny. Using it as a meme demonstrative of Glenn Beck's own tendencies, in direct conflict with Glenn Beck is hilarious as hell.

by **Malice** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:20 am UTC

Walter.Horvath wrote:I, for one, think that it is horrible that Glenn Beck Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in 1990, supposedly.

Defamation laws in the United States, thankfully, are closed just enough so that everyone cannot claim defamation at the first sight of anything unsatisfactory. This case, on the other hand, might fall on the line. The 'proprietor' arguing that you'd have to come away from the site believing that it was true, and Glenn Beck's entourage believing that it will further damage his PR.

It's safe to say, however, that this will continue to live on in Internet meme code for epochs to come.

As far as I can tell, the issue isn't just the site, it's the URL, because while the site has a disclaimer, the URL doesn't, and is simply a statement which is both untrue and harmful to Glenn Beck's reputation.

On the other hand, what's really harmful to Beck's reputation is that he hasn't yet come up with an alibi proving that he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.

by **Arancaytar** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:27 pm UTC

Exactly. You'd think that if Glenn Beck were innocent, he'd have come up with a detailed list of witnesses who can corroborate where we was in 1990, and that he did not commit murder in that year. Or at least outright denied it.

by **Mactabilis** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:46 pm UTC

If glen beck can sue to get the web site taken down, can barrak obama sue to have glen becks program taken down?

would one set the precedent for the other?

by **Heisenberg** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:49 pm UTC

Joke website about GlennBeck: Funny.
Joke website about rape: Not Funny.

by **Walter.Horvath** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:40 pm UTC

Malice wrote:As far as I can tell, the issue isn't just the site, it's the URL, because while the site has a disclaimer, the URL doesn't, and is simply a statement which is both untrue and harmful to Glenn Beck's reputation.

On the other hand, what's really harmful to Beck's reputation is that he hasn't yet come up with an alibi proving that he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.

Yeah, but what are you going to do? Lots of legitamate brand names use questionable marketing, and it's not like General Mills is going to change the address of cheerios.com to cheerioswellitmightnotloweryourcholesterolbecausewe'restatisticaldouchecanoes.com

Heisenberg wrote:Joke website about GlennBeck: Funny.
Joke website about rape: Not Funny.

Joke website about castration: [redacted].

by **Malice** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:10 pm UTC

Walter.Horvath wrote:
Malice wrote:As far as I can tell, the issue isn't just the site, it's the URL, because while the site has a disclaimer, the URL doesn't, and is simply a statement which is both untrue and harmful to Glenn Beck's reputation.

On the other hand, what's really harmful to Beck's reputation is that he hasn't yet come up with an alibi proving that he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.

Yeah, but what are you going to do? Lots of legitamate brand names use questionable marketing, and it's not like General Mills is going to change the address of cheerios.com to cheerioswellitmightnotloweryourcholesterolbecausewe'restatisticaldouchecanoes.com

"cheerios.com" is just a brand name, not a marketing claim. There might be a problem with General Mills changing the name to "cheerioswillloweryourcholesterol.com".

Heisenberg wrote:Joke website about GlennBeck: Funny.
Joke website about rape: Not Funny.

Is there a problem with the way this specific joke goes, or do you just consider rape to be "off-limits"?

by **The Great Hippo** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:13 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Is there a problem with the way this specific joke goes, or do you just consider rape to be "off-limits"?

Accusations of rape. False accusations do damage to true accusations; it highlights the notion that accusing people of rape is one way to defame them - and this encourages us to perceive those accusing others of rape as merely engaging in an attempt to ruin their name. It turns the whole accusation of rape into a joke in of itself.

Not saying that Beck has a legal leg to stand on, but I don't like seeing a good joke saddled with bad language. As has been pointed out, it would have been just as easy to make the website accuse Glenn Beck of having a fisting fetish, or whatever. Wouldn't have reduced the joke's quality one bit.

by **Telchar** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:15 pm UTC

Making jokes about rape reporting makes it less likely actual cases of rape will be reported for fear of similar mockery. Hence, this site is terrible.

by **lesliesage** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:52 pm UTC

puzzle

Who is online