Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World


Off-Topic Discussions

2,901 to 2,950 of 3,118 << first < prev | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering what rape victims, either female or male, are subjected to when they make an accusation of this nature, and the way that nearly everyone, as observed in this thread, bend over backwards to defend the accused, just having the courage to come forward with an accusation is a bit of a point in favor of the credibility of the statements.

My principle is to believe the victim unless a reason is apparent that they should not be believed. Cosby doesn't lose much by me refusing to watch his shows, buy his albums, or buy jello pudding pops, mostly because I already didn't. I'm not going to be on the jury, and the most harm (if it is harm) I'll do is that I might convince someone who isn't currently convinced one way or another.

There is no virtue in refraining from judgement in a matter like this, except insofar as you are involved in law enforcement or legal proceedings associated with the matter. Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&$@$es to be lying until proven truthful.

Not buying his products isn't convicting him of a crime. Organizing a boycott isn't convicting him of a crime.

As for the argument that these women are trying to cash in by accusing a celebrity, there are thousands of rich men out there. Very few of them have 33 people accusing them of rape. Even if you bring race into it, which, I must acknowledge, is a fraught situation with a history of false rape accusations by white women against black men, there are still thousands of rich black men out there, very few of which have 33 people accusing them of rape.

I get to say, I think he's a rapist. I get to say, I believe these women. People insisting that we can't make any judgement are verging on rape apology, in my opinion.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah yes, Trial by Media. I'm sure Ben Franklin would approve. Why bother with things such as evidence, corrobative witnesses, (33 women making 33 separative accusations are not corrobative), or any of that complicated mess.

There are a lot of factors here, race most assuredly being one of them, considering how Cosby is being treated as opposed to Clinton.

I refuse to pass judgement because I can't see the worth, the virtue, or the utility of doing so, unless condemning a man without evidence, solely on the number of accusers is becoming a new standard of jurisprudence. I also recognize my own prejudices in how they interact with how I perceive the totality of this case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Considering what rape victims, either female or male, are subjected to when they make an accusation of this nature, and the way that nearly everyone, as observed in this thread, bend over backwards to defend the accused, just having the courage to come forward with an accusation is a bit of a point in favor of the credibility of the statements.

My principle is to believe the victim unless a reason is apparent that they should not be believed. Cosby doesn't lose much by me refusing to watch his shows, buy his albums, or buy jello pudding pops, mostly because I already didn't. I'm not going to be on the jury, and the most harm (if it is harm) I'll do is that I might convince someone who isn't currently convinced one way or another.

There is no virtue in refraining from judgement in a matter like this, except insofar as you are involved in law enforcement or legal proceedings associated with the matter. Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b@*$!es to be lying until proven truthful.

Not buying his products isn't convicting him of a crime. Organizing a boycott isn't convicting him of a crime.

As for the argument that these women are trying to cash in by accusing a celebrity, there are thousands of rich men out there. Very few of them have 33 people accusing them of rape. Even if you bring race into it, which, I must acknowledge, is a fraught situation with a history of false rape accusations by white women against black men, there are still thousands of rich black men out there, very few of which have 33 people accusing them of rape.

I get to say, I think he's a rapist. I get to say, I believe these women. People insisting that we can't make any judgement are verging on rape apology, in my opinion.

The intersection of race and gender here does make it complicated. Rape accusations are generally dismissed, but as you say, such allegations against a black man are far more dangerous.

I like to think I'd be saying the same thing regardless of his race, but we might well not even be talking about in that case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.


Much of this is an artifact of the American legal system. With the option of settlements, it all becomes more difficult. Many countries such as Sweden do not have this option, which means reporting a crime like this then becomes a matter between the state and the accused. Retracting the accusation in such a case does nothing, nor do settlements happen. If it is at all a legal matter, the case will run its course, and nobody can gain a lot of money to shut up about it. Not surprisingly, we don't have many stories like these.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Considering what rape victims, either female or male, are subjected to when they make an accusation of this nature, and the way that nearly everyone, as observed in this thread, bend over backwards to defend the accused, just having the courage to come forward with an accusation is a bit of a point in favor of the credibility of the statements.

My principle is to believe the victim unless a reason is apparent that they should not be believed. Cosby doesn't lose much by me refusing to watch his shows, buy his albums, or buy jello pudding pops, mostly because I already didn't. I'm not going to be on the jury, and the most harm (if it is harm) I'll do is that I might convince someone who isn't currently convinced one way or another.

There is no virtue in refraining from judgement in a matter like this, except insofar as you are involved in law enforcement or legal proceedings associated with the matter. Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b!+@+es to be lying until proven truthful.

Not buying his products isn't convicting him of a crime. Organizing a boycott isn't convicting him of a crime.

As for the argument that these women are trying to cash in by accusing a celebrity, there are thousands of rich men out there. Very few of them have 33 people accusing them of rape. Even if you bring race into it, which, I must acknowledge, is a fraught situation with a history of false rape accusations by white women against black men, there are still thousands of rich black men out there, very few of which have 33 people accusing them of rape.

I get to say, I think he's a rapist. I get to say, I believe these women. People insisting that we can't make any judgement are verging on rape apology, in my opinion.

You make me sick and here is why! Rolling Stone magazine recently got caught in a case of "always believing the victim". Lena Dunham is being sued because she is claiming that a specific person raped her, in her autobiography. Then there's the Duke lacrosse team, where the players were proven innocent of rape (and in fact, one of them wasn't even there), and people STILL want criminal convictions.

But I don't have to look to the news to find someone falsely accused; I only need to go to a mirror. The "victim" lied. The "victim" admitted to lying in court. Yet enough people decided to take the "always believe the victim" stance, and it harms me to this day. I lost friends and family over a false accusation.

So get off your f%^(!@g high horse about how people falsely accused don't suffer harm, because I know from personal experience what BS that is!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

Ah yes, Trial by Media. I'm sure Ben Franklin would approve. Why bother with things such as evidence, corrobative witnesses, (33 women making 33 separative accusations are not corrobative), or any of that complicated mess.

There are a lot of factors here, race most assuredly being one of them, considering how Cosby is being treated as opposed to Clinton.

I refuse to pass judgement because I can't see the worth, the virtue, or the utility of doing so, unless condemning a man without evidence, solely on the number of accusers is becoming a new standard of jurisprudence. I also recognize my own prejudices in how they interact with how I perceive the totality of this case.

People get to have opinions. As long as the trial by media doesn't affect an actual legal trial (civil or criminal), it's certainly our right.

My passing judgement will have absolutely no affect on Mr. Cosby. I haven't watched or purchased anything he's been involved with in decades. I do not feel obligated to avoid drawing any conclusions from what I've heard, though I also retain the right to change my opinion should I learn of other evidence.

If the 33 accusations are in fact separate, not copycat accusations, they do go a long way to suggest a pattern. It's rare for that many people to spontaneously make false accusations, over a period of decades. I'll stress again that's not enough, by itself to actually convict and punish him. It would be more than enough for me to advise any women I knew to avoid getting in similar situations with him - not that I know anyone who's likely to.

Nor do I really get the comparison to Clinton. The differences between the cases go far beyond skin color. The earlier mention of Letterman would be a much better one, I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Much of this is an artifact of the American legal system. With the option of settlements, it all becomes more difficult. Many countries such as Sweden do not have this option, which means reporting a crime like this then becomes a matter between the state and the accused. Retracting the accusation in such a case does nothing, nor do settlements happen. If it is at all a legal matter, the case will run its course, and nobody can gain a lot of money to shut up about it. Not surprisingly, we don't have many stories like these.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. One of the key points here is that no crime has actually been reported (in a technical sense); even under US law, once a victim has reported a crime to the police, the decision to prosecute (or not) rests with the state and no longer with the victim.

Settlements don't happen under US criminal law.

And even under Swedish law, I doubt there's any way to prevent me from approaching you, saying "I know that you've committed a crime, but for 10,000 kronor I'll not fill out the paperwork with the police." Unless "failure to report a crime" is itself a crime, which I doubt,....

What's going on is purely in the realm of civil law. It may be long-delayed justice (because criminal law isn't always in the best interest of the victim) or it may be extortion, but I don't think US law is that strange.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"

Well, there's the "even less accurate statement" that I was concerned about. How hard did you have to work to make it?


I believe it would be a difficult thing to get a lawyer to sit down with you and hammer out the deal about not reporting things to the police, Orfamay.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"

The big difference is that in the latter case, it's very easy to prove whether or not it is raining outside. (That's what windows are for) On the other hand accusations of a crime committed in a date prior to the Statue of Limitations are untestable because no trial will be forthcoming. What these accusations serve to do is to promote a perpetual untestable cloud of uncertainty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

An accusation is no such thing as evidence. Let me break it down for you, thejeff.

"The dog ate the couch" is a STATEMENT.

"The couch is drenched in dog drool and there are no other dogs that could have done it" is some kind of EVIDENCE for the above statement.

You can't jump from one to the other. Trying to do so helps exactly nothing.

The content of statements IS evidence though.

For example, we have women making statements over a long number of years, independent of each other, made in completely different regions who have no association with each other, making remarkably similar statements.

There are a large quantity of details and those details are consistent with each statement. It details quite clearly a pattern of behavior.

And remember, many of these statements were made to police or lawyers prior to the public accusations, before these details were made public.

Again, I'm not saying that he should be convicted in a court of law based on this. If he goes to trial, it should follow all rules that are applicable.

I am not a court room though. I am not a judge, I am not the government.

I AM allowed to form an opinion based on the information I have given to me at any point in time. Based on the information available at this point, I think it's very likely he is a serial rapist. I have no interest in listening to a comedian who has a high potential of being a serial rapist.

Here's the thing. I'm allowed to form my opinion. Telling me I'm not allowed to form an opinion is hogwash. You have an opinion about this subject too, just based on what you've read in this thread. I'm not sitting here and telling you you have the wrong one, or that you're not allowed to have it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I believe it would be a difficult thing to get a lawyer to sit down with you and hammer out the deal about not reporting things to the police, Orfamay.

From a lawyer's perspective, it would still be in their interest to report it to the police. In US Civil Law, the fact that something has been reported or that there was consideration for pressing charges by the prosecutor is valuable evidence for a settlement.

Criminal law requires "beyond reasonable doubt".
Civil law requires "preponderance of evidence".

That's a major difference and pushing for a settlement any and all evidence that can be accrued is in the plaintiffs favor.

More likely, what actually happened is that the plaintiff pushed the lawsuit and the defendants approached for the settlement. The value of the settlement from the defendants perspective is that they avoid various court records, such as having witnesses testify. They can also include stipulations on the settlements, such as the plaintiff can't disclose the amount settled for, nor can they reveal any details of the case that aren't already in public documents. Essentially, Cosby used the settlement money to buy silence. It's not accident that there are non-disclosure conditions, those have to be put into the settlement purposely by one party or the other.


LazarX, you have my sympathy for someone lying about you in that way. I'm not saying that false accusations don't ever cause harm. I'm saying that in this case, forming opinions about what Cosby may have done or not done doesn't hurt him.

While I am sure the false accusation you experienced was very hurtful, the evidencr shows that the number of false accusations of rape are dwarfed by the number of accusations made that are dismissed, not followed up on, or otherwise ignored by law enforcement, which in turn are dwarfed by the number of rapes that never get reported to the authorities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"
The big difference is that in the latter case, it's very easy to prove whether or not it is raining outside. (That's what windows are for) On the other hand accusations of a crime committed in a date prior to the Statue of Limitations are untestable because no trial will be forthcoming. What these accusations serve to do is to promote a perpetual untestable cloud of uncertainty.

That's certainly true. It's often easy to see if it's raining. Though if you have to interrupt something even to go see if you need to close your car windows, it would be foolish to do so if there's absolutely no evidence that it's raining. And since people's statements are absolutely no evidence...

Do you contend then that after the Statute of Limitations has expired victims should not come forward? That if they do, everyone should ignore and dismiss them?
Does that include people who might be at risk of the same crime if the accusations are true? Are they required to ignore them as well?

And even a trial does not prove the accused didn't commit the crime. It simply says it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is clearly shown in our legal system when a defendant is found Not Guilty in a criminal case, but liable in a civil lawsuit where the standard is the Preponderance of the Evidence. Given that my opinion will do far less harm than even the civil case, I do not think I need to be held to a higher standard.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"
Well, there's the "even less accurate statement" that I was concerned about. How hard did you have to work to make it?

Not very. It really seems to follow directly from the claim that statements aren't evidence.

Mind you, in this hypothetical, Saying "I haven't checked, but some people have said it is", would be more fair. Neglecting the evidence that does exist, even if it's far from conclusive, bothers me.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Our moderation staff really is not comfortable with the very personal nature of the arguments/debate in the last few pages, and we're not convinced that, based on how easily heated this particular topic of the moment is, it is possible to de-escalate. I'd suggest that everyone within this discussion take a step back from the conversation and try to decouple arguments surrounding the character of/your specific thoughts about others in the conversation from the points you're trying to make about ideas presented in this thread. If it doesn't seem like something that's going to happen here, we will have to lock this one.This is a fairly difficult decision we're considering because this is a long standing ongoing thread, which has been for the most part productive. Please help out our staff and keep this thread open by making sure posts here follow our Community Guidelines and be civil to each other.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

LazarX, you have my sympathy for someone lying about you in that way. I'm not saying that false accusations don't ever cause harm. I'm saying that in this case, forming opinions about what Cosby may have done or not done doesn't hurt him.

While I am sure the false accusation you experienced was very hurtful, the evidence shows that the number of false accusations of rape are dwarfed by the number of accusations made that are dismissed, not followed up on, or otherwise ignored by law enforcement, which in turn are dwarfed by the number of rapes that never get reported to the authorities.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Person A not being punished for harming person B is no justification to defend the idea that person X should be considered guilty until proven innocent just because person Y accused him/her.

The mere idea of convicting someone without a fair judgement should be abhorrent to a civilized society. And no one really knows how many false rape accusations happen. I've seen the number go from 2% to 41%... And both of those had nothing but severely flawed "researches" to back them up, often coming from very biased sources.

Being falsely accused of a crime, especially one as horrible as rape, can ruin someone's life. And as if that were not bad enough, it also does nothing but harm the credibility of legitimate victims.

"Innocent Until Proven Otherwise" is not a flawless system, but it's certainly better than the alternative.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"
The big difference is that in the latter case, it's very easy to prove whether or not it is raining outside. (That's what windows are for) On the other hand accusations of a crime committed in a date prior to the Statue of Limitations are untestable because no trial will be forthcoming. What these accusations serve to do is to promote a perpetual untestable cloud of uncertainty.

That's certainly true. It's often easy to see if it's raining. Though if you have to interrupt something even to go see if you need to close your car windows, it would be foolish to do so if there's absolutely no evidence that it's raining. And since people's statements are absolutely no evidence...

Do you contend then that after the Statute of Limitations has expired victims should not come forward? That if they do, everyone should ignore and dismiss them?
Does that include people who might be at risk of the same crime if the accusations are true? Are they required to ignore them as well?

And even a trial does not prove the accused didn't commit the crime. It simply says it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is clearly shown in our legal system when a defendant is found Not Guilty in a criminal case, but liable in a civil lawsuit where the standard is the Preponderance of the Evidence. Given that my opinion will do far...

So your argument then is that accusation alone is a confirmation of guilt, even if the State does not prove it's case? And the case you're citing as an example, was not a typical law case but an extreme case of the Mondo Bizarro world that celebrity legal cases wind up.

I'm not saying what the alleged victims should do. I would however recommend that if victims want to press their cases they should be coming forward sooner than later.

As for as the Cosby accusers are, I'm humble enough to say that there is nothing credible to say, no qualified opinion, and anyone who claims otherwise is just blowing air around, (or bytes if you will)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How can eyewitnesses not be considered evidence?

You can make good arguments that they are bad evidence but not evidence pushes epistemic nihilism

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will say this on rates of false rape accusations:

Although they do happen, I would be wary of any "statistics" that say it happens at high rates. It's probably around 2%, which is similar to the rates of false reporting for other violent crimes.


LazarX wrote:
So your argument then is that accusation alone is a confirmation of guilt, even if the State does not prove it's case? And the case you're citing as an example, was not a typical law case but an extreme case of the Mondo Bizarro world that celebrity legal cases wind up.

I am saying nothing of the kind. Nor am I citing any particular case as an example. It's not that rare of a tactic.

Beyond that, I'm taking Chris's advice and backing away from this thread. Hopefully we can leave this thread alive. There's been some very good discussion in it in the past.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

How can eyewitnesses not be considered evidence?

You can make good arguments that they are bad evidence but not evidence pushes epistemic nihilism

What eyewitnesses? 31 people making 31 separate claims are not corrobative eyewitnesses to each other. I find it also rather hard to believe that three dozen alleged victims of three dozen separate cases would ALL decide not to press any charges until it was way after the time it was possible to prosecute them.

The point I'm making is that I'm not rendering a judgment of guilty or innocence on Mr. Cosby, although I know what i'm predisposed to believe, but expressing an unqualified opinion on a hot button topic, which all opinions about this case must be.... does nothing more than promote entropy, which is the one thing I'm categorically against.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I first heard Cosby was being accused of rape my reaction was along the lines of "So their even after ol' Cosby, eh?" as defending black people from accusations and thinking it is a set up is where my mind naturally goes. Still, I put aside my feelings of collective victimization and idly looked into it, scanning articles and reading what the victims were saying and how the whole thing was playing out.

What I found quickly made me lean the other way, I think it is quite likely Cosby is a serial rapist.

Still, situations like this are complex, if he is innocent his legacy is largely destroyed and he'll be the butt of jokes prolly until he dies. If he is guilty though this social flak he is getting might be the only justice he ever faces.

*shrug* Even if he went to court and was found guilty/innocent it wouldn't mean much to me though, as I don't trust the American justice system at all(though I accept they have access to way more info than I do and are in a much better position to judge).

In the end I'll just make a Cosby is a rapist joke here and there and hope that whomever the real victims are get justice (who I think are the women but acknowledge could be Cosby)

*Shrug* life is messy and ugly. I don't know what is really happening and I could just suspend all opinion about the matter as I'll never truly know what happened to my satisfaction, but if I did that I would never have an opinion about anything, and I haven't gotten to the point in life where that is the route I wanna take.


mechaPoet wrote:

I will say this on rates of false rape accusations:

Although they do happen, I would be wary of any "statistics" that say it happens at high rates. It's probably around 2%, which is similar to the rates of false reporting for other violent crimes.

I doubt they go as high 41%... I doubt they are only 2% either, though. Truth is... No one has any idea.

I'll decide on the matter when I see any research done properly. Rape is a very difficult crime to process, since if often comes to "person A said X and person B said Y". It's even more difficult to separate what is a false accusation and what is a real one that can't be proven.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:

I will say this on rates of false rape accusations:

Although they do happen, I would be wary of any "statistics" that say it happens at high rates. It's probably around 2%, which is similar to the rates of false reporting for other violent crimes.

I doubt they go as high 41%... I doubt they are only 2% either, though. Truth is... No one has any idea.

I'll decide on the matter when I see any research done properly. Rape is a very difficult crime to process, since if often comes to "person X said X and person B said Y". It's even more difficult to separate what is a false accusation and what is a real one that can't be proven.

It's also a weird crime because victims of other violent crimes aren't frequently blamed for what happened to them, dismissed by large portions of the general population and justice system, and generally shamed (or in the case of [especially statuary] rape of men [or boys] by women, bizarrely praised) for being attacked.


mechaPoet wrote:

I will say this on rates of false rape accusations:

Although they do happen, I would be wary of any "statistics" that say it happens at high rates. It's probably around 2%, which is similar to the rates of false reporting for other violent crimes.

How is this known? To get that statistic you would have to be able to determine the veracity of the claims.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Well, Wikipedia is a good place to start. As the header indicates, though, it's largely focused on statistics from Western English-speaking countries (including Australia).


mechaPoet wrote:
Well, Wikipedia is a good place to start. As the header indicates, though, it's largely focused on statistics from Western English-speaking countries (including Australia).

Your own source seems rather skeptical of the ability to arrive at that number


Uncertain numbers are uncertain. It goes into the definition. Claiming it is "probably around 2%" is a claim completely without credible backing, i.e. an opinion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

2% sounds suspiciously close to "the lowest number that is somewhat believable", as if to hand-wave it as a non-issue.

As a very smart lady put it, it's like society is overcompensating and replacing the old myth of the Lying Woman (every victim is lying) by a new myth, the Woman Who Never Lies (every accused is guilty).

But there is no way to be sure... Since there are no good researches on the subject. At least none that aren't biased one way or another...


How would reaching that number or rather any number, even be possible?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
How would reaching that number or rather any number, even be possible?

That's the real question. I've yet to see any research that gives a satisfactory answer...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Uncertain numbers are uncertain. It goes into the definition. Claiming it is "probably around 2%" is a claim completely without credible backing, i.e. an opinion.

But wait - doesn't simply claiming it amount to 'evidence'? :p


I found the Wikipedia article pretty clear in bringing up why the numbers are uncertain. At its heart, it is not about the amount of violence used, how it happened, or whether there were sperm traces. It is about whether both parties were in on it, and that is always going to be he said she said. As the article states, the figure arrived at is a product of the process used. If all you count as false accusations is cases where the accuser was convicted of making a false accusation, you might end up at about 2%. If you count as false accusations every case that did not lead to a conviction, the figure is quite different. Both approaches assume a whole lot about the omniscience of the courts and police - which have a clear vested interest in these numbers. We shouldn't expect much improved numbers in the future.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bringing it back to a more general oppression:

10 Ways men oppress women every day


Fergurg wrote:

Bringing it back to a more general oppression:

10 Ways men oppress women every day

I LOL'ed!

Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if tumblr feminism turned some (or all) of those into real accusations!


Sleep manpnea... :-)


For shiznit and giggles:

From the Comrade Anklebiter Archives

From the New Left Archives


Fergurg wrote:

Bringing it back to a more general oppression:

10 Ways men oppress women every day

Brilliant! :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.


Reminds me of this:

Dear White Allies: Stop Unfriending Other White People Over Ferguson


Irontruth wrote:
Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.

Honestly curious about this one...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.
Honestly curious about this one...

National Review is about the lowest level of "journalism" you can get, and various 'isms are just beneath the surface. It gives me a good perspective on the ideas of people who read/post links to it however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Went looking to see if youtube would spit out anything for William Buckley and feminism, but I got nothing.

But a debate between him and James Baldwin on the subject Has the American Dream Been Achieved at the Expense of the American Negro? sure looks interesting.


Fergie wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.
Honestly curious about this one...
National Review is about the lowest level of "journalism" you can get, and various 'isms are just beneath the surface. It gives me a good perspective on the ideas of people who read/post links to it however.

Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.
Honestly curious about this one...
National Review is about the lowest level of "journalism" you can get, and various 'isms are just beneath the surface. It gives me a good perspective on the ideas of people who read/post links to it however.
Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.

Wait... You mean someone took that article seriously?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.

I did read it. The joke is that women (feminists) are just upset over silly stuff that is really trivial. See girls, boys will be boys, don't get all b#$#$y about it. Go with the flow, smile, and don't forget your rape whistle!

I'm all for some good humor, and enjoys some very non-PC stuff, but when you are the dominate group, you have to try harder then having the underlying theme be: just suck it up and deal with it. If the article is 10 ways whites oppress blacks, it is going to require different jokes then 10 ways blacks oppress whites. This is especially true if the author is a guy like David Duke.

The Onion is good at this, the National Review comes off as A-holes.
Man Finally Put In Charge Of Struggling Feminist Movement

Sidenote: I have no idea what "manspreading" really has to do with feminism, (and I'm not that interested) as it is a silly term from a NYC transportation advertisement group that has done a really bad job in the past, and in my opinion is a total waste of tax money. In NYC killing people with your car is 100% legal, so spending money to go after subway riders for sitting some specific way is kind of an insult to begin with.


Fergie wrote:
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.

I did read it. The joke is that women (feminists) are just upset over silly stuff that is really trivial. See girls, boys will be boys, don't get all b!$++y about it. Go with the flow, smile, and don't forget your rape whistle!

I'm all for some good humor, and enjoys some very non-PC stuff, but when you are the dominate group, you have to try harder then having the underlying theme be: just suck it up and deal with it. If the article is 10 ways whites oppress blacks, it is going to require different jokes then 10 ways blacks oppress whites. The Onion is good at this, the National Review comes off as A-holes.

Sidenote: I have no idea what "manspreading" really has to do with feminism, (and I'm not that interested) as it is a silly term from a NYC transportation advertisement group that has done a really bad job in the past, and in my opinion is a total waste of tax money. In NYC killing people with your car is 100% legal, so spending money to go after subway riders for sitting some specific way is kind of an insult to begin with.

Manspreading is a term the NYC transportation groups took up because of complaints from feminist groups who coined the term.

2,901 to 2,950 of 3,118 << first < prev | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World All Messageboards