You seem to be ignoring that they got caught flat out lying.
You seem to be ignoring that they got caught flat out lying.
Hmm, 166 users, 71 of whom were known depressed. 70% accuracy means they picked 50 of the depressed people as depressed, and 28 (or 29) of the non-depressed people as depressed.
Given that the national depression rate is 6.7% (take that with a grain of salt), we'd expect to see, based on this test, 32.7% of the population found to be depressed. Of that 32.7%, one in seven would actually be depressed....
Color me less than impressed with this study.
Prolonged stays in space seem to cause our bodies to break down in all kinds of interesting ways. Eventually we're going to need to either find some way around that or some way to adapt to it.
Except anything less and nobody would have cared. Corporations aren't people. You can't lock them up, all you can do is bankrupt them. Anything less than putting them out of business and as far as the corporation is concerned it's just a cost to write off.
Do you understand what testimony is? It is someone alleging that something happened and giving an account of it. Maybe you have seen courts on TV where people give testimony and it is weighed as evidence.
Testimony is a material witness saying what they saw with the chance for cross examination and mandatory production of exculpatory evidence, with lots of limitations such as hearsay, as well as the opportunity to counter the testimony or impeach the credibility of the witness or testimony. It's not anonymous allegations which the alleged victim has already completely rejected.
Okay, where is your evidence? If you don't provide any, even just a description of what you claimed happened, all you have done is discredit yourself.
You're supporting rape culture. Believe victims. False rape accusations never happen. etc.
This I have to see. You really must provide a link to this video, you can't just let wild accusations like that slide with a flippant "google it".
Already linked below by ArylAkamov.
See Shadow, this is your modus operandi. Post some bullshit, redefine words in your own head, provide zero evidence because apparently you don't even know what evidence is, and then accuse others of doing all those things.
A feminist tells you clearly that they don't believe what you think they believe, and you simply call them a liar and claim they must be the evil horrible people you think they are. What the hell is wrong with you?
I posted hard facts, like the victim herself explicitly and totally rejecting the claims made by an anonymous third party, and argued against witch hunts and lynch mobs. If you want to look at redefining words in your own head look at feminism's constant motte-and-bailey tactics as well as creative definitions like "power + prejudice".
As for claiming not to believe something... your own posts have constantly and universally proven your actual position on things. Just look at your continued support of literal child predators and abusers like Sarah Nyberg and Zoe Quinn. Your actions belie your claims. You can claim not to believe in witch hunting all you want, but as long as you continue to burn people at the stake for witchcraft your actions reveal the truth.
I'm not redefining anything, I'm describing things based on what they are in the real world. Redefining things to stifle rebate is feminism redefining sexism to exclude its own conduct and declaring "feminism = equality". Observing that in the real world feminism is violent and anti-equality isn't redefining anything.
There. We've got two accusations corroborating each other already. We can each make a couple more accounts or post as ACs and there's six to ten.
And yet the Netherlands has no problems with flooding despite most of the country being below sea level..
Of course, the Netherlands don't have a 3M km^2 watershed dumping water into them, either. And the Netherlands is smaller than Louisiana alone (by a factor of about 2.5), much less the Mississippi watershed (by a factor of about 80)....
The USA is the country which was in the right place at the right time to dominate everything for the last couple hundred years.
Couple??? No, the USA has dominated for the last century, maybe. In the 19th century, we were mostly a non-entity outside North America (and arguably South America). We didn't really take over as the dominant world power till WW2. Before that, the UK was still the big dog....
Note that I did not use the phrase "gun homicide rate" in descrbing Chicago. There's a reason for that.
Note also that "gun homicide rate" and "crime rate" are not synonymous.
Note, finally, that the 15.1/100K you mention is well over twice the national average....
allegations are used as evidence in court all the time.
That's literally the exact opposite of how trials work. A trial is held to determine if an allegation is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Allegations are not evidence, allegations must be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt BY evidence, and the accused has a right to confront those making the allegations, compell testimony, and be provided with all exculpatory evidence.
By your logic all I need to do is make a website called Amimojoisarapist.com and fill it with anonymous smears against you. Here, I'll start right now: I accuse Amimojo of rape and sexual harassment.
Also note that you have the feminist position wrong, as usual. It's not that all allegations must be believed and anyone accused is automatically guilty. It is simply that when people, men or women, report sexual assault the police or their employer or whoever is responsible for investigating should actually investigate. Too often they are just fobbed off or told they are mistaken. This actually makes false accusations harder to get away with, because if investigated there is a greater chance of being discovered.
And as usual you lie through your teeth to defend feminism even as the entire internet is literally filled with massive screeds that women never lie, there are no such things as false accusations therefore anyone accused MUST be guilty, that we should reverse the burden of proof for rape accusations, and that the concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to lynch mobs.
See: virtually every high media profile rape case in recent years, starting with UVA... which there are STILL an enormous number of people defending.
I didn't "demand" anything, you are projecting again. I said that what people were describing was not mainstream feminist theory. I'm saying that I don't fit this "SJW" concept, someone who demands others are silenced or avoiding debate (here I am arguing that people should be listened to when you want them ignored, and engaging you in debate) and who holds many strange and bizarre beliefs that I completely reject. Look, two paragraphs ago I had to correct you on what you thought my position was.
Mainstream feminism is passing gender jim crow laws like VAWA, shutting down men's shelters, shoving old men off ledges after screaming a false accusation of sexual assault (caught on live video), committing drive by shootings, forcing evacuations with credible bomb threats, and generally ruining people's lives at the drop of a hat. Mainstream feminism is a toxic cult and a hate movement.
Feel free to describe me as a feminist, because I am one. Also a humanist, an egalitarian, a socialist, a liberal. "SJW" doesn't seem to describe me and is mostly just an insult when you have no counter-argument, so I humbly suggest you avoid using it if you want to have a reasonable exchange of ideas.
Your positions and politics are illiberal, anti-egalitarian, and collectively form a total rejection of enlightenment and humanist values. If you were egalitarian, humanist, and liberal you would be strongly anti-feminist. You would recognize toxic abusers and their pedophile and criminal friends such as Zoe Quinn for what they are, and oppose feminism's constant attempts to completely destroy the concepts of freedom of speech, burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty, and its universal sexism and nowadays racism.
That's missing the point. Instead of labelling, respond to the questions put and rebut the arguments made.
Again: All you're doing is trying to stifle all dissent by controlling the very language used to speak. Imagine the same were done with republicans and trickle down economics. Try having an argument about economic policy when you're not even allowed to say "trickle down economics" or name the theory in any way.
That's not what rape culture is. I can explain it if you like, but it's probably easier if you just read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] about. Pay careful attention to the "Effects on Men" section. Rape culture theory holds that all men are NOT rapists, the exact opposite in fact, and that the stereotypes which pressure men to behave like that are part of what is called "toxic masculinity".
It's literally the exact opposite of what you think.
That's literally exactly what rape culture is. It's the theory that all men everywhere support and condone rape as a means to terrorize and oppress women just for being women. Feminism holds that all men are born rapists and need to be constantly told not to rape every minute of every day in the hope that even a few might stop raping women.
Toxic Masculinity is nothing more than a bait-and-switch used either to victim-blame men for things that harm men, which are virtually always directly and explicitly caused or exacerbated by feminists, or to claim that masculinity and men are inherently toxic. See also: "Male Pattern Violence" and "Violence Against Women".
What is your solution? Don't allow people to make rape allegations? I don't think that is either fair or possible.
It's telling that you truly can't tell the difference between not completely unpersoning someone because of anonymous smears that even the alleged victim has publicly (and non-anonymously) rebuked as being complete horseshit, with the people portrayed as heroes and saviors actually being pretty shitty to her, and not allowing anyone to make rape allegations.
In situations like this the only way forward is to investigate. Applelbaum hasn't even bothered to deny any specific allegations, or make any kind of defence really. I'm sorry, but all we can do is evaluate the claims on the evidence we have. Multiple, corroborating stories that can be linked to specific times and places where he made public appearances with the victims.
If I made an anonymous webpage accusing you of everything from jaywalking to pedophilia and raised up a lynch mob to ostracize and unperson you would you exhaustively deny and refute everything or simply turn away in utter disgust?
This isn't evidence. NOTHING about this is evidence. These aren't "multiple corroborating stories", they're anonymous smears with absolutely no evidence that have already been completely rejected by the woman they're about. It's trivially easy to simply make up multiple stories with a handful of real details. If I knew you in real life I could do it in a single afternoon. Would that make it true? No, it wouldn't, EVIDENCE would make it true. Anonymous accusations are not evidence.
Say it with me again: Accusations are not evidence. Accusations NEED evidence.
That's the fundamental problem with your ideology, you treat accusations AS evidence and thus always reach a guilty verdict even when the woman those accusations are made on behalf of personally and publicly rebukes the entire thing as being total horseshit.
Which is, by the way, the only evidence we have so far: The woman who was supposedly the victim in all of this has completely denied the entire thing, told the real story of what happened to her, and even pointed out that the people supposedly "protecting" her were behaving shitty towards her and trying to force her into a role of agency-less victimhood.
As for slurs, why don't you start by not ever calling anyone an "SJW" again? Take the high ground.
First people demanded that nobody refer to that ideology and its adherents as feminists. So the term SJW was invented. Now you demand nobody use the term "SJW" and act as if it were a slur like neckbeard, fuckboy, pissbaby, and all the other identity-based slurs invented by SJWs. If another new term were invented you would demand nobody use that either.
What you're doing is nothing more than attempting to stifle dissent by making it impossible to even name or discuss your ideology and in-group. It's the exact same as if the GOP were to claim everyone using the words "neoliberal economics" or "trickle down economics" were terrorists.
Lucky we aren't talking about a lynch mob then. We are talking about people wanting to distance themselves from a disturbed individual. Nothing more, nothing less. That's how the world works.
And out comes the dissembly and revisionist history. This wasn't about people wanting to distance themselves from someone, this was about an anonymous mob engaging in mass public character assassination using stories that even the supposed victim publicly called bullshit on. But even with the woman herself saying these stories were almost wholly fabrications and the self-claimed good guys were shitty people who treated her poorly the attempt at character assassination and total social/political/business ostracization was successful.
This isn't about a "disturbed individual", it's about unpersoning someone with anonymous accusations that are an automatic social death sentence regardless of what even the supposed victim herself said.
And how are your slurs relevant here? Never heard pissbaby nor fuckboy before, did you just make them up? Those that spout SJW (which is anybody that thinks women have any right to anything judging the idiots using the word here and elsewhere) and try to portrait men who doesn't like sexual misconduct or even (gasp!) rape as weak, effeminate or "cucks" that are just fishing for pitty-sex. The reality is that mature, confident men with a normal sex-life (whatever their sexuality) doesn't like sexual misconduct nor rape.
So first you accuse a group of people of making up a "slur of the day" because you believe that is relevant, then when I point out that it is in fact your in-group which has a proven record of doing exactly that you claim the opposite, and that you have never heard two incredibly common slurs which you could see used very regularly with a simple google search.
You also just proved my point about witch hunt accusations and character assassination by doing it yourself. Your last sentence is a transparent personal attack (which you will presumably deny with accusations of "defensiveness" or other emotional straw manning) implying anyone who disagrees with you or dares to apply a group name to an organized and violent toxic ideology is not mature, not confident, sexually deviant, and supports rape.
That's literally right out of the playbook of the religious right. You're pulling a voldemort here and making it impossible to even name the ideology and group being disagreed with. It's the exact same as if the GOP were to say that anyone who uses the phrase "neoliberal economics" is a terrorist.
Some years ago I thought the characterization of many men as not only thinking women as weaker, less worth than men but even secretly hating women was bullshit. Thanks to you and your ilk I now realize that this is true and that many in the technical field hold those views.
The only people who hate women and see them as weak and less worthy are the ones whose entire worldview revolves around forcibly keeping women down as weak defenseless non-agent victims in need of perpetual rescue. Nobody hates women more than feminists.
No evidence? Several persons, male and female, have described in detail how this individual acts. That's evidence. It would be evidence in a court of law and it is evidence outside it.
It's obvious you and your ilk defines evidence as "anything I agree with" and not as the rest of the world does. And that factor repeats - you and your ilk doesn't know how the world works but don't like anything that goes against your fucked-up concept world.
Again you are projecting. Anonymous libels are not evidence, it's how lynch mobs work. The victim herself has publicly stepped forward and completely rebuked the entire narrative, and even pointed out the people portrayed as heroes and saviors were treating her poorly at best in their hamhanded attempts to force her into victimhood so they could "rescue" her.
I could just as easily make a website full of anonymous accusations about you. Would that be evidence?
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."