Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Rape sympathizers (Score 1) 220

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 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.

Comment Re:Rape sympathizers (Score 1) 220

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 [] 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".

Comment Re:Rape sympathizers (Score 3, Insightful) 220

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.

Comment Re:Rape sympathizers (Score 1) 220

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?

Comment Re:Rape sympathizers (Score 5, Insightful) 220

Your projection is incredible. The only people inventing meaningless slurs are the ones that throw out shit like "neckbeard" or "pissbaby" or "fuckboy", and lynch mobs are not investigations.

Face it, rape accusations have become THE form of character assassination. It's the new "witch". There's no evidence, proving your innocence is impossible, and the mere accusation is a death sentence.

Comment Re:Great, so when will they ban the SJWs? (Score 3, Informative) 117

Ami we've been through this. I and others have repeatedly given you documentation of everything from her doxing and worse of "rival" feminists The Fine Young Capitalists as well as her involvement in attempting to swap Mike Cernovich, and then there's the matter of public record now of her toxic use of the legal system to continue her long history of domestic abuse against her ex.

But because she has a vagina, calls herself a feminist, and cried victim first you and other SJWs rally around her like the second coming of christ.

Comment Great, so when will they ban the SJWs? (Score 3, Informative) 117

Nyberg is not only a vicious troll but also a self-admitted child predator who's openly been given pictures of people's children for sexual gratification, and Quinn along with most of the others spend their entire time on twitter spewing racist and sexist hate at people inbetween rounds of doxings.

Or is this actually about policing opinions and politics and not trolling and hate speech.

Comment Re:Milo a Troll ? (Score 0) 637

They ban or shadowban notable users and drive off huge portions of their userbase who are victims of harassment in order to protect the most vicious and toxic trolls like Sarah Butts, Zoe Quinn, Teridax, and anyone claiming to be a feminist. This isn't about muh horsemint it's about enforcing ideological purity while allowing a toxic clique to do whatever the hell they want.

Also pretending only the government is relevant in discussions of censorship is absurd on its face. If there's a large mob with a burning cross and some rope on your front lawn telling you to stop talking you're being censored as surely as if congress passed a law.

Comment Re:I'd be sympathetic to Rotten Tomatoes but... (Score 1) 407

It made less than $50mil in its opening weekend and basically got creamed after that by Star Trek and Secret Life of Pets. Or to put it in perspective: The Killing Joke made $3.2 million on a monday night with only two showings on a single screen in a handful of theaters around the country. Ghostbusters made $3.4 million.

The production budget alone was around $150 million, and another $100 million was spent on marketing. Enforced narratives aside Ghostbusters was pretty much a disaster for the studio.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is hardly a thing in the world that some man can not make a little worse and sell a little cheaper.