ilovefuzz.com

PuddysJacket wrote:The irony isn't lost on me that a lot of these folks saying "believe women" had no problem casting their vote for Hillary Clinton. Where was all this grandstanding and virtue signaling back then? When you had absolutely no qualms putting your faith into someone that made a career out of dragging victims through the mud?

And before I get jumped - no, I'm not a republican.

I don't know if you want me to defend a bunch of people I don't know, or simply address your implied psychological take on me personally, but I'm pretty sure Donald Trump got elected precisely because people didn't want to be forced into voting for the lesser of two evils. Either way, it's hard for me to justify being upset with anyone who--presented with that choice--chose the conniving, self-motivated professional over the conniving, self-motivated amateur who had long demonstrated a complete disregard for democratic principles, and who aggressively pursued an agenda of outright propaganda and confusion, without even so much as a hint of tact or grace. Thankfully, as an immigrant, I was privileged enough to be forced to sit out the entire affair.

Good deflection, though.

frodog wrote:It's the kind of thing that's tempting to voice an opinion on, but then you remember it's the internet and you don't know the people or the situation in question and you don't.

Yeah, my new approach is to embrace the fact everyone is already mad, already hates what I have to say so it's best to ramblingly encourage everyone step up their game by attempting to poke holes in assertions, in order to discard bad ideas in favor of better ones but who am I kidding nobody wants to learn from the mistakes of history so maybe I'll bury a pearl here and there to see whose subconscious discovers what I'm putting down to build up

Didn't mention you personally, it was a blanket statement. By deflection do you mean going into the finer points of each scumbag in the polls? As far as outright propoganda - you're acting it out right now. This is exactly the aim of social media engineering - crucify first, to hell with evidence or facts.

rustywire wrote:

Benn Roe wrote:

PuddysJacket wrote:Who cares right? Lives ruined. Fuck em. They're men, so they can't be 100% innocent. By default they've hurt a woman somewhere along the line.

People having their lives ruined sucks, regardless of their gender. There's no question. But when you don't believe women, you exacerbate a problem with 20 times more victims than the problem you're concerned about. Mind you, believing women doesn't have to mean making death threats directed at the accused, but that doesn't change the fact that they need to be believed for us to ever have a chance at making a dent in this epidemic. Nobody is saying there aren't people who make false accusations. But they are fucking rare, and unfortunately a few men ending up falsely accused is the price we have to pay to make sure more men who are rapists end up facing justice. There has been a poisonous culture of emboldened sexual predators for all of human history, and until people start believing women, we'll continue to live in that shitty world.

What you're saying makes sense within the dispassionate confines of a court of law. Let juries presume innocence, let defense lawyers force survivors to relive their experiences in horrifying detail, and how about everyone else tries to be a decent fucking human and just believes them without conditions?

When you're that man falsely accused, or it's your father, your son, your brother etc...what then?

OK. Assuming false accusations make up such a small part of overall accusations, the default response for a social justice minded activist would be to defend the human rights of (an extreme) minority vulnerable in extreme circumstances when the power structure is so overwhelmingly titled against them, yeah? Individuals are not math, not statistics to be judged by the average. That sort of dystopian thinking is what enables and emboldens the Pol Pots to commit crimes against humanity while making plans for you (and me).

Exactly.

Hide your kids .. Hide your wife..

I'm still stuck on page 1

Speaking of evidence and facts, you have yet to comment on the fact that, per your source, nearly 95% of rape cases are not false accusations.

So, we're going to ignore 94.5% of the pool to elevate a tiny sliver of cases as what we should be using as our guiding principles in this discussion because... why?

rustywire wrote:When you're that man falsely accused, or it's your father, your son, your brother etc...what then?

OK. Assuming false accusations make up such a small part of overall accusations, the default response for a social justice minded activist would be to defend the human rights of (an extreme) minority vulnerable in extreme circumstances when the power structure is so overwhelmingly titled against them, yeah? Individuals are not math, not statistics to be judged by the average. That sort of dystopian thinking is what enables and emboldens the Pol Pots to commit crimes against humanity while making plans for you (and me).

I'm really reticent to respond to you, because you've proven over my few years here that you don't listen to anybody, in favour of regurgitating victim-complex-fueled political generalizations about anyone who demonstrates the slightest amount of empathy for other humans. My normal policy is not to grant you the dignity of an audience, but this is such an absurd statement you've succeeded in eliciting a response. Clever troll.

Men (as a group) are not, and never have been, the victims of any power structure disparity. That's a breathtakingly stupid comment. I've been trying to remain civil with Puddy, because I once had an acquaintance who was accused of rape and I made similarly indignant statements in defense of him on an online forum, so I know where he's coming from. It took that incident and seeing what my (relatively mild, by comparison) defense of this guy did to his accuser for me to wake up and realize I was on the wrong side of the debate, and I'm trying to help educate him before he digs himself into a hole he's going to regret.

Your comment, on the other hand, is disingenuous bullshit of a different calibre. I've never been accused of sexual assault, and I hope I never am, but I have been falsely accused in a public forum of other injustices. It sucks. But I didn't contradict my accuser's account, and tried instead to be a good example with my actions, because I recognized that fighting back would have done more harm than good to people as a whole. People will abuse and people will victimize. You can't stop all injustice, but not believing sexual assault accusers does a fuck of a lot more harm than believing them does, even if it means occasionally believing someone who's lying.

rustywire wrote:

frodog wrote:It's the kind of thing that's tempting to voice an opinion on, but then you remember it's the internet and you don't know the people or the situation in question and you don't.

Yeah, my new approach is to embrace the fact everyone is already mad, already hates what I have to say so it's best to ramblingly encourage everyone step up their game by attempting to poke holes in assertions, in order to discard bad ideas in favor of better ones but who am I kidding nobody wants to learn from the mistakes of history so maybe I'll bury a pearl here and there to see whose subconscious discovers what I'm putting down to build up

Eh, if you say so. I think we've had pretty good discussions in the past.

D.o.S. wrote:Speaking of evidence and facts, you have yet to comment on the fact that, per your source, nearly 95% of rape cases are not false accusations.

So, we're going to ignore 94.5% of the pool to elevate a tiny sliver of cases as what we should be using as our guiding principles in this discussion because... why?

I'm guessing you didn't read my reply to those figures. Not that any number or statistic is changing the mind of someone hell-bent on virtue signaling.

If you did reply I missed it, my bad. I'm posting on my phone.what page is it on?

Also, for the benefit of the long time regulars who are aware of my posting history and, uh, general sodium levels ... you're accusing me of virtue signalling?

Benn Roe,

Thank you for trying to present your argument sensibly. I couldn't agree with you more and your patience in this thread is admirable.

You too DoS.
But you've really gotta stop that virtue signalling buddy.

goroth wrote:Benn Roe,

Thank you for trying to present your argument sensibly. I couldn't agree with you more and your patience in this thread is admirable.

Cosigned.

PuddysJacket wrote:Didn't mention you personally, it was a blanket statement. By deflection do you mean going into the finer points of each scumbag in the polls? As far as outright propoganda - you're acting it out right now. This is exactly the aim of social media engineering - crucify first, to hell with evidence or facts.

By deflection, I mean literally pivoting from a discussion about believing survivors by saying "hey, but some people who agree with you did this other thing that's not relevant to the topic at-hand". It's a strategy people use all the time when their argument runs out of gas.

I'm not really sure what it is about a guy posting under his own real name and trying to explain to you how your actions are negatively impacting people that strikes you as propaganda. Do you not understand that evidence often doesn't exist in cases of sexual assault? Are you willfully ignoring how many cases of actual sexual assault occur than cases of false accusation? Do you not believe that women who have really experienced sexual assault hold back from making accusations for fear of not being believed? Where is the disconnect? Due process is important for the police and for courts, but does nothing but serve as a shield for rapists in the real world of dealing with sexual assault.

Not to detract from the serious discussion at hand, but when did it become Benn Roe instead of bennroe.

...I'm turning into Sparrow here.