A speaker for Women's March was a raping, kidnapping murderer- is also getting a movie about her. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933456]So being rehabilitated is good unless you go on to support something that I politically don't like much later in your life, right? That's apparently how it works?[/QUOTE] No, I don't care if she agrees with me Politically, she is a Rapist, a Murderer, a Criminal. I don't care if she rehabilitated, she shouldn't be looked up to.

Who did the fucking Vetting for these movements!? They need to be fired!

[QUOTE=abananapeel;51933424]The link in the post above has much more backstory to her. [URL]http://deadline.com/2016/11/rosario-dawson-activist-donna-hylton-a-little-piece-of-light-movie-1201852430/[/URL] Sounds like someone who has all around had a shit life. Though that excuses nothing.[/QUOTE] not to dig too deep in this shit but she very well could have been brainwashed into doing all this, she wouldn't be the first girl to be coerced into this sort of stuff, prison might have actually given her some time to develop her own self [quote]Here was a young woman who claims to have been molested and raped herself and unable to stop it or find even one person to acknowledge it. Perhaps for that reason she became numb. Perhaps witnessing somebody else getting raped would somehow free her. Perhaps it was revenge. The crime quickly escalated, and Miranda threatened to kill her family and daughter if she did not comply. "He put the fear of God into us. I was to do all the driving. I wasn't in the apartment that much. Sometimes I watched the victim, and he asked me to help him. But I couldn't, I was too scared. The police never found my fingerprints, they took pubic and underarm hair and nothing matched up to me. I don't understand that myself; sometimes I think I dreamed the whole thing."[/quote] ya she was pretty much fucked up in every direction when she did this, 27 years in prison and she came out with 2 college degrees and is involved in politics is actually pretty impressive

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933456]So being rehabilitated is good unless you go on to support something that I politically don't like much later in your life, right? That's apparently how it works?[/QUOTE] Being rehabilitated doesn't mean your past crimes just cease to exist. They follow you forever and you can't suddenly turn around and pretend it never happened, looking for the praises of a potentially clueless crowd. It's dishonest and hypocritical.

[QUOTE=Jarokwa;51933255]one of the leaders for Women's March, Linda Sarsour, is a big fan of Sharia law which is pretty fucking ironic.[/QUOTE] I don't think the two are mutually exclusive?

[QUOTE=Xonax;51933503]No, I don't care if she agrees with me Politically, she is a Rapist, a Murderer, a Criminal. I don't care if she rehabilitated, she shouldn't be looked up to.[/QUOTE] Every former gang member who goes to fight against gangs? Nah, they're trash thugs and shouldn't be looked up to by the kids they mentor. Your opinion is [i]horrible[/i]. What's the point of rehabilitating and releasing people if they're never allowed to do better just because of what they have done in their past? You do know it is possible for people to recognize the flaws of others and what they've done wrong in the past while still considering their current actions good, right? [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51933527]Being rehabilitated doesn't mean your past crimes just cease to exist. They follow you forever and you can't suddenly turn around and pretend it never happened, looking for the praises of a potentially clueless crowd. It's dishonest and hypocritical.[/QUOTE] Nobody is saying the past crimes are gone. Her crimes certainly can still be found, it's not like it has been hidden or anybody is pretending they weren't horrible and never happened. It is dumb to use that as a reason to condemn the person though. What's the point of rehabilitation if everybody else pretends your rehabilitation never happened and that you're still just an unchanged criminal? People should be free to disagree with her all they want, but it should be done based on the present and not a dissimilar past.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51933527]Being rehabilitated doesn't mean your past crimes just cease to exist. They follow you forever and you can't suddenly turn around and pretend it never happened, looking for the praises of a potentially clueless crowd. It's dishonest and hypocritical.[/QUOTE] she's not denying she didn't commit a crime in the past. Its also a contradiction to say that rehabilitation means they're able to re-enter society but also they have to always be weighed down by their crimes. she did her time, she is not the same person she was back then even if she's still a bit nuts today

[QUOTE=Sableye;51933565]she's not denying she didn't commit a crime in the past. Its also a contradiction to say that rehabilitation means they're able to re-enter society but also they have to always be weighed down by their crimes. she did her time, she is not the same person she was back then even if she's still a bit nuts today[/QUOTE] By that logic, child molesters who serve their time in prison should be allowed near kids again once they get out Also, it's interesting how she's a speaker about sexual abuse and gender based violence against women when she committed the same crimes against a man.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933545]Every former gang member who goes to fight against gangs? Nah, they're trash thugs and shouldn't be looked up to by the kids they mentor. Your opinion is [i]horrible[/i]. What's the point of rehabilitating and releasing people if they're never allowed to do better just because of what they have done in their past? You do know it is possible for people to recognize the flaws of others and what they've done wrong in the past while still considering their current actions good, right? Nobody is saying the past crimes are gone. Her crimes certainly can still be found, it's not like it has been hidden or anybody is pretending they weren't horrible and never happened. It is dumb to use that as a reason to condemn the person though. What's the point of rehabilitation if everybody else pretends your rehabilitation never happened and that you're still just an unchanged criminal? People should be free to disagree with her all they want, but it should be done based on the present and not a dissimilar past.[/QUOTE] You do have a point, and I see I am wrong, and I am going to backpedal a little bit but, we don't know if she is even Rehabilitated, fit for society. Apparently she is still on Trial for being convicted again, therefore meaning that she is still not fit to be in Society. If she doesn't get convicted again and is said to be fit for Society then that's fine. But if she does get convicted, she shouldn't be looked up to.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51933597]Also, it's interesting how she's a speaker about sexual abuse and gender based violence against women when she committed the same crimes against a man.[/QUOTE] This here is my problem, and what I consider to be hypocritical.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51933605]This here is my problem, and what I consider to be hypocritical.[/QUOTE] I dunno, when I was in high school I went to a talk by a dude who drove drunk and killed his girlfriend and two of his friends that were with him. It's not like she's saying "oh yeah totally go do what I did"

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51933619]I dunno, when I was in high school I went to a talk by a dude who drove drunk and killed his girlfriend and two of his friends that were with him. It's not like she's saying "oh yeah totally go do what I did"[/QUOTE] sure as part of an event that your school held you met people who fucked up and wanted to talk about it this situation doesn't seem similar to that at all [editline]8th March 2017[/editline] this kind of stuff was swept under the rug until pretty recently so she was trying to hide it unlike the people you met with to discuss drunk driving

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51933619]I dunno, when I was in high school I went to a talk by a dude who drove drunk and killed his girlfriend and two of his friends that were with him. It's not like she's saying "oh yeah totally go do what I did"[/QUOTE] The fact she got deeply involved in the kidnapping and torture of a man means she's pretty fucking unqualified to be a public speaker against the exact same thing happening to women, because it makes her entire discourse sound like a fat double standard.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51933619]I dunno, when I was in high school I went to a talk by a dude who drove drunk and killed his girlfriend and two of his friends that were with him. It's not like she's saying "oh yeah totally go do what I did"[/QUOTE] Yeah by the sounds of it your scenario was accidental?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51933597]By that logic, child molesters who serve their time in prison should be allowed near kids again once they get out Also, it's interesting how she's a speaker about sexual abuse and gender based violence against women when she committed the same crimes against a man.[/QUOTE] I feel like you're trying to paint this as a situation of gender motivated violence, but it wasn't (The motivation was $$$). If that wasn't your intention, my bad, just seemed that way. But what's surprising about a victim of sexual abuse and parental neglect and abuse working to oppose those very things that harmed her own life?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51933445]Selected stories from WND's front page: [URL="http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/planned-parenthood-insider-why-are-there-3-arms/"]PLANNED PARENTHOOD INSIDER: 'WHY ARE THERE 3 ARMS?'[/URL] ("'Barbaric' descriptions of abortion from former industry workers" continues the subtitle) [URL="http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/german-courts-rule-sharia-police-are-not-against-the-law-and-can-patrol-german-streets/"]German courts rule Sharia police are not against the law and can patrol German streets![/URL] (unedited title) [URL="http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/justices-warn-of-new-religious-test-over-same-sex-marriage/"]JUSTICES WARN OF NEW RELIGIOUS TEST OVER SAME-SEX 'MARRIAGE'[/URL] (WND wrings its hands because the state Supreme Court wrist-slapped a judge for refusing to marry a gay couple because of her Christian beliefs) [URL="http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/museum-of-the-bible-a-ray-of-light-in-a-dark-city/"]MUSEUM OF THE BIBLE: A RAY OF LIGHT IN A DARK CITY[/URL] (a Christian museum in DC opening in November) [URL="http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/geologic-evidence-for-creation-more-than-you-think-2/"]Geologic evidence for creation? More than you think[/URL] (actually an ad for a Creationism DVD for sale on the WND store, listed under both "faith" and "education" sections of the front page) Another recent headline: [URL="http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/u-s-within-10-years-of-becoming-sweden-if-trump-policies-fail/"]"U.S. 'WITHIN 10 YEARS' OF BECOMING SWEDEN IF TRUMP POLICIES FAIL"[/URL] (posted after the riots in Sweden that happened two days after Trump moaned about Sweden, for context) This doesn't mean the actual story isn't real, but you have to understand that about the only right-wing Tea Party-ish website that isn't outright breaking the law/uttering hate speech like it's 1929 that WND outright denounced is [I]Conservapedia[/I], over their (blasphemous) rewriting and reinterpretation of the Bible for the "Conservapedia Bible Project". To call them biased would be underselling it.[/QUOTE] The first thing I said in the OP is that its a shaky source. I even threw in the PT article from the fucking 90's that talks about it. Its hard to fucking find credible sources when it doesnt fit the narrative of so many media outlets. Edit: maybe ill just remove wnd and and keep PT in there.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933640]I feel like you're trying to paint this as a situation of gender motivated violence, but it wasn't (The motivation was $$$). If that wasn't your intention, my bad, just seemed that way. But what's surprising about a victim of sexual abuse and parental neglect and abuse working to oppose those very things that harmed her own life?[/QUOTE] The fact that she is a murderer being a public speaker and pretty much ignoring the Murder, and only acknowledging how she has been in Jail for 25+ years. Idk about you, but only acknowledging the years spent in Jail, and not the Murder itself, is really suspicious.

[QUOTE=Xonax;51933653]The fact that she is a murderer being a public speaker and pretty much ignoring the Murder, and only acknowledging how she has been in Jail for 25+ years. Idk about you, but only acknowledging the years spent in Jail, and not the Murder itself, is really suspicious.[/QUOTE] Is she supposed to treat like an alcoholics anonymous meeting? Every time she opens her mouth should she have to say "Hi, my name is Donna Hylton, and I'm a murderer. Back in 1985 I took part in the kidnapping, torture, and murder of somebody. I was the convicted for second degree murder and two counts of first-degree kidnapping, and was given a 25 to life sentence. I served 27 years of that sentence before being released. So anyways, ..." She's spoken on the issue in the past and it's pretty openly documented, so it's not like she's keeping it a secret. Not really that suspicious. If it's not the topic at hand, I don't see a need to talk about it every time. Her prison time, on the other hand, is relevant to her speech and current activities, so it makes sense to bring that up. EDIT: Shit, okay, yeah hey, this is even right in her bio on her website: [quote]In 1986 I was sentenced to 25 years-to-life for kidnapping and second-degree murder. I served the time at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, the only maximum-security prison for women in New York State, and was released in 2012.[/quote] So I think I'd have to conclude she's not hiding it. She completely recognizes what she did, and she's trying to do something good now. I see nothing wrong with that. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51933629]The fact she got deeply involved in the kidnapping and torture of a man means she's pretty fucking unqualified to be a public speaker against the exact same thing happening to women, because it makes her entire discourse sound like a fat double standard.[/QUOTE] How does it make it sound like a double standard? She served her time and didn't object to that. It's not like she's saying what she did was okay. Again, should a former gang-member not be able to speak out against gangs, just because they were part of one?

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933676]Is she supposed to treat like an alcoholics anonymous meeting? Every time she opens her mouth should she have to say "Hi, my name is Donna Hylton, and I'm a murderer. Back in 1985 I took part in the kidnapping, torture, and murder of somebody. I was the convicted for second degree murder and two counts of first-degree kidnapping, and was given a 25 to life sentence. I served 27 years of that sentence before being released. So anyways, ..." She's spoken on the issue in the past and it's pretty openly documented, so it's not like she's keeping it a secret. Not really that suspicious. If it's not the topic at hand, I don't see a need to talk about it every time. Her prison time, on the other hand, is relevant to her speech and current activities, so it makes sense to bring that up. [/QUOTE] You know, it would actually be very pertinent to talk about what she did in a situation like this, because as a person that committed kidnapping, torture and murder she would be in a prime position to discuss the horrors of kidnapping, torture and murder since she's seen it first-hand.

yeah but why are people trying to downplay a murdering rapist like she's probably not in a good position to be a public speaker regarding this sort of stuff. the gang comparison falls apart because you gain a lot of valuable information from an ex gang member, you don't gain a lot of valuable information from an ex rapist.

If you commit a crime, get rehabilitated and later end up in a situation where you have to discuss that crime, you better fucking be honest and disclose the fact you were involved in committing that crime and got reprehended for it. Because rehabilitation doesn't wipe your slate clean. People expect a level of honesty that compels such disclosures.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51933597]By that logic, child molesters who serve their time in prison should be allowed near kids again once they get out Also, it's interesting how she's a speaker about sexual abuse and gender based violence against women when she committed the same crimes against a man.[/QUOTE] she also was a victim of those same things as a little girl...

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933676]Is she supposed to treat like an alcoholics anonymous meeting? Every time she opens her mouth should she have to say "Hi, my name is Donna Hylton, and I'm a murderer.[/QUOTE] yeah you know what actually that'd be great if every convicted murderer and rapist greeted me exactly in that way so i knew to avoid them at all costs.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933676]Is she supposed to treat like an alcoholics anonymous meeting? Every time she opens her mouth should she have to say "Hi, my name is Donna Hylton, and I'm a murderer. Back in 1985 I took part in the kidnapping, torture, and murder of somebody. I was the convicted for second degree murder and two counts of first-degree kidnapping, and was given a 25 to life sentence. I served 27 years of that sentence before being released. So anyways, ..." She's spoken on the issue in the past and it's pretty openly documented, so it's not like she's keeping it a secret. Not really that suspicious. If it's not the topic at hand, I don't see a need to talk about it every time. Her prison time, on the other hand, is relevant to her speech and current activities, so it makes sense to bring that up. [/QUOTE] What I meant was, she could of acknowledged it like "I was in jail for 27 years for committing an awful crime" And maybe adding "that I regret" But w/e, I was wrong about her not acknowledging it and the fact she has, I don't feel super upset over the whole speaker. It would be good for her to use her past experience though, to help people understand the horrors of it. Anyway, I'm still on edge considering she did murder someone and is going back to Trial to be convicted for it some more, but if she is seen fit for Society after, I'll eat my words.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;51933694]You know, it would actually be very pertinent to talk about what she did in a situation like this, because as a person that committed kidnapping, torture and murder she would be in a prime position to discuss the horrors of kidnapping, torture and murder since she's seen it first-hand.[/QUOTE] Sure, if she was giving a talk on that, cool. But she wasn't giving a talk on torture and murder, so it wasn't pertinent. [QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;51933700]yeah but why are people trying to downplay a murdering rapist like she's probably not in a good position to be a public speaker regarding this sort of stuff. the gang comparison falls apart because you gain a lot of valuable information from an ex gang member, you don't gain a lot of valuable information from an ex rapist.[/QUOTE] Second degree murderer and kidnapper, not a rape. Secondly, she speaks from the position of both an ex-con and a victim of abuse as a child, giving her a good position to speak on the effects of such things. And finally, nobody is trying to downplay it. Just saying that somebody's past isn't the only thing that matters and shouldn't discredit their present existence, especially when they openly recognize what they did and are trying to do something better. [QUOTE=Xonax;51933715]Anyway, I'm still on edge considering she did murder someone and is going back to Trial to be convicted for it some more, but if she is seen fit for Society after, I'll eat my words.[/QUOTE] She's not going back on trial though? What? [QUOTE=TheJoey;51933707]yeah you know what actually that'd be great if every convicted murderer and rapist greeted me exactly in that way so i knew to avoid them at all costs.[/QUOTE] Might as well just support executing every criminal if that's how you think they should be treated, shit. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51933701]If you commit a crime, get rehabilitated and later end up in a situation where you have to discuss that crime, you better fucking be honest and disclose the fact you were involved in committing that crime and got reprehended for it. Because rehabilitation doesn't wipe your slate clean. People expect a level of honesty that compels such disclosures.[/QUOTE] Well it's right in the open on her website, sooooo, seems pretty honest and disclosed to me.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51933703]she also was a victim of those same things as a little girl...[/QUOTE] She also killed a man over the span of 20 days.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933716]Sure, if she was giving a talk on that, cool. But she wasn't giving a talk on torture and murder, so it wasn't pertinent.[/QUOTE] Oh sure, she was giving a talk about how horrible abuse and such is. As someone who abused a man sexually, physically and mentally over a long period of time, shouldn't she be an excellent person to discuss just how horrible that is? She's an abuser and a person that engaged in psychological torture, she sounds very qualified to discuss those details in a speech about abuse and the torture that can cause.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;51933722]Oh sure, she was giving a talk about how horrible abuse and such is. As someone who abused a man sexually, physically and mentally over a long period of time, shouldn't she be an excellent person to discuss just how horrible that is? She's an abuser and a person that engaged in psychological torture, she sounds very qualified to discuss those details in a speech about abuse and the torture that can cause.[/QUOTE] Great, but that's not what her talk was about. Sorry she didn't choose to cover your preferred topic and instead talks about her experience as a person who was abused and how it shaped her life and played in a role in her eventually doing horrible shit like that. IMO that's an even more compelling topic since it covers the horrible effects that abuse may result in eventually.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51933716]Might as well just support executing every criminal if that's how you think they should be treated, shit.[/QUOTE] but i don't, and please don't imply that i do. you tend to use these fallacies a lot. i don't really know what it's called, but whenever someone says something you disagree with you've twice in this page said something along the lines of "you believe in x? what, then you think they should y?" y being a whole lot more exaggerated than x ever implied. do you think that this makes your point any more valid? or do you truly believe that just because i don't want anything to do with a convicted murderer and rapist, and do not wish to support any sort of "movement" or "march" organized by a convicted murderer and rapist, that i also think every criminal should be executed? because clearly, no, i don't think that. learn new ways to debate or argue. please. because as it stands right now you are defending a [b]convicted murderer and rapist[/b] who tortured a man for 20 days for cash. so, you're lookin' pretty bad my dude.

A very interesting case. There's not much more available on it that I could find from my quick Google search unfortunately.