Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:31 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calder View Post
Just answering your question and not addressing the larger issue here I can answer this.

In my last job I saw two difference instances of this.

1. I personally heard my first manager at that company say he would never hire anyone with disabilities again. This was because it took almost 16 months to fire the guy and he was totally and completely incompetent. (I was hired to replace him.) In his entire tenure at the company he never wrote a single line of code that survived the QA process. In fact everything he ever wrote someone else had to fix latter. (Granted I never saw his work so this might have been hyperbole.)
That means that he was illegally discriminating against employees to avoid having the appearance of discriminating against employees when he disciplines them for performance.

It's not that big a deal. You can have standards of performance that you expect your employees to live up to. If they cannot live up to those standards, yo may terminate them.

The fact that he was a poor manager, or worked for a poor company, has nothing to do with the way that employees would actually be treated.
Quote:
2. Same company, but different department and manager. I worked with a person who was in a wheel chair. In my 4-5 years working with him he completed a total of maybe 8-10 work orders of work. For comparison sake a typical programmer completes about 150 WO in a typical year depending on their complexity. In addition, the guy was a complete and total asshole to everyone around him except for his boss. The worst part of it was I was assigned to QA his and 3 other programmers work. So I got the brunt of a lot of his crap. I personally complained about him to HR. He was never laid off and as far as I can tell he was never even reprimanded.
Once again, your company has extremely poor HR policies and managers if this is the case.
Quote:
Now, I have no clue if the above would be true for minority's, women, sexual orientation or any other category. (I have never been in management.) - I suspect it wouldn't. Also in fairness the company was not exactly well run and as I understand it HR was constantly putting out fire because the company valued technical smarts more than People skills. (Hell, that isn't near strong enough, they valued it more than just acting like a human being.) So, it is certainly possible this should be taken with a grain a salt.
A table spoon of salt goes with this one. Yes, there are bad companies out there that are not very good at managing employees. Those companies have reasons to fear hiring minorities or other "protected classes" because they are bad companies, and they don't understand what a protected class is. It does not mean that they are protected for being in that class, as many people seem to assume, even posters on this board, but they are protected from discrimination due to them being in that class.

So, for instance, I can got an employee, and say, "hey, you only completed 8 work orders last year, when the metric is 150. You are under performance review." Then you write them up with documentation to show what you talked about, that you gave them notice and a chance to work on their problems. Then you come back, and you say, "Well, we've reviewed your performance, and you have not improved at all, I am sorry, but we can no longer employee you."

And that is how the conversation should go with anyone, white, black, male, female, able bodied, disabled, nice guy, or asshole.

People tend to want to excuse their poor management skills by blaming their employees. I've never understood the dichotomy in that.
  #452  
Old 01-06-2019, 03:35 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
People tend to want to excuse their poor management skills by blaming their employees. I've never understood the dichotomy in that.
It's a lot simpler than running an actual analysis, plus it allows the person who's actually the cause of the problem to act smug.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #453  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:37 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calder View Post
Just answering your question and not addressing the larger issue here I can answer this.

In my last job I saw two difference instances of this.

1. I personally heard my first manager at that company say he would never hire anyone with disabilities again. This was because it took almost 16 months to fire the guy and he was totally and completely incompetent. (I was hired to replace him.) In his entire tenure at the company he never wrote a single line of code that survived the QA process. In fact everything he ever wrote someone else had to fix latter. (Granted I never saw his work so this might have been hyperbole.)
.
Kinda HAS to be hyperbole, doesn't it? I mean, did he have references? Did anyone check on them? Did someone ask him questions during the interview process? And the logic fails miserably. If TWO people with disabilities were hired and completely incompetent, would you look to blame people with disabilities, the durn government, or your obviously incompetent HR department.

I mean, every now and then a professional bullshitter gets through the process, but fool me once.....

I worked with a professional bullshitter once. Actually, I worked for her. How she got the job is beyond me and everyone was glad when she was gone. But would we now say 'I'll never hire an able-bodied woman again because I was burned once'??
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #454  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:02 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
However, one has to consider the benefit/cost ratio to lying. The benefit to a person saying he didn't commit rape when he did is obvious and the cost minimal - he's already accused, and if caught lying he goes to jail. But the benefit to a person saying they were raped when they weren't is much smaller and the cost much higher even if undiscovered, as many actual rape victims have learned. Ford was - and continues to be - the subject of a national smear campaign and the target of death threats for coming forward with her allegations. What benefit was there for her to do so that outweighed those costs?

That doesn't mean false allegations never happen - clearly they do - but they are usually heavily disincentivised even if the lie is never discovered, and obviously can result in jail time if the lie is revealed. While individual cases differ widely, broadly speaking there is not an equal probability of each of the two sides lying.
In addition to what Robot Arm said, many many people lie all of the time for no real benefit. Some are seeking attention, some want revenge for a perceived slight, some have a false belief, some are mentally ill, and some are just ruthlessly evil.

Further, I am not convinced that there is no benefit to this type of falsehood. Again, using Ford only as an example and not to reignite the debate, but she is now a hero those on the left. She is seen as brave, and will likely pull down some serious coin on the lecture circuit.

It also provides an ironclad excuse for anything negative in her life. For example, her grades were poor during her first two years of college. Well, clearly now that was a result of the trauma she had, not from poor study habits, partying too much, etc.

I am certainly not trying to make light of any woman who was actually sexually assaulted. I also concede that for years we did not take this seriously, but the question is what do we do going forward. I know it is not any poster's intention, but the suggestion seems to be that because we ignored women for all of these years, now the pendulum must swing back past balance and go in the other direction: where we simply believe women so long as their story is not verifiably false.

Now, nobody actually says such a thing, but what they do is find credibility through, well, anything. If she tells her story boldly, why, see the conviction in her voice, you know he did it! If she tells her story meekly, look at the trauma that poor woman has suffered, you know he did it!

If she discloses immediately, that shows how serious she is about it and therefore she is credible. If she discloses years later, this is very common, she was likely traumatized by the assault.

If she tells a consistent narrative, look at how solidly she told that story, it must be true. If she gets several details wrong, then who can be expected to remember everything. That shows she is telling the truth because a person telling the truth would be unlikely to remember everything.

The only time a claim is considered "false" is when actual verifiable details are undoubtedly untrue. And even then it doesn't get the "false" label. We had a case around here recently where a young woman accused her step father of molesting her in 2006. She was adamant that it was in 2006 because she had turned 16 that year, remembered getting her first car right before it happened, and it happened while her mother was away at a particular business conference. She remembered her mother calling her from the conference and cried when she wanted to reach out to her mother but did not have the nerve. I watched her testimony and it was very compelling.

Several problems. First, her mother did not attend the conference that year. No problem for the state, we just shift gears in the middle of the trial and say it was 2007. Oops, the mother did go to a conference that year, but the stepfather was also out of town that week in 2007. 2008? Nope. The conference was held in town that year and the mother drove to it everyday. 2009? She was off at college during that week. The mother was very hostile to the stepfather, but conceded that at no time during their marriage was she away from the home without the family except at these conferences.

2005 says the state? She had not gotten the car yet but she had testified that she had taken a drive in it after being molested and remembers crying the whole time.

It also came out that she had only "remembered" the molestation while in an inpatient recovery center for heroin abuse when in a group setting several other patients told stories of being molested.

After hearing all of this the State quickly labeled her allegations to be false and dismissed the charges....Yeah, right! They argued all the way to the jury that she was simply traumatized and confused and that it could have happened at any time. The jury acquitted.

Of course, she was not prosecuted for false allegations or was this used as a teaching tool to investigate these allegations more thoroughly. The belief is that he got away with it. Even though he was acquitted, he is still believed to be guilty by many who only read the original arrest in the newspaper.

This sort of stuff should not happen.
  #455  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:45 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,736
Yeah, many dopers have lived sheltered lives if they seem to think that people don’t tell easily discoverable non-truths.
  #456  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:55 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Further, I am not convinced that there is no benefit to this type of falsehood. Again, using Ford only as an example and not to reignite the debate, but she is now a hero those on the left. She is seen as brave, and will likely pull down some serious coin on the lecture circuit.
The "benefits" of her position according to you seem to be entirely speculative if not outright fictional. What's actually attested about her situation seems to be quite disadvantageous overall.
Quote:
By the time it was closed to further donations, the GoFundMe account set up on Ford's behalf had raised $647,610. As of November 21, 2018, Ford had used some of the money to cover security costs to protect herself and her family, but pledged to donate the rest to organizations that support trauma survivors.

Ford has received considerable backlash for coming forward with her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, facing a number of threats that include death threats. [...] As of November 2018, Ford stated that she is still being harassed and threatened and has had to move four times as well as hire private security. Subsequently, she has not been able to resume her teaching at Palo Alto University.
Doesn't sound like much of a "benefit" to me. Any woman who would voluntarily subject herself to that kind of prolonged trauma in order to make a false accusation would have to be insane. And there's no indication AFAICT that she has any prospect at all of making any "coin on the lecture circuit".

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
I am certainly not trying to make light of any woman who was actually sexually assaulted.
Except insofar as you're trying to make out a case that accusations of sexual assault provide much more "benefit" to the accuser than they actually do.

Last edited by Kimstu; 01-10-2019 at 11:55 AM.
  #457  
Old 01-11-2019, 05:17 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
In addition to what Robot Arm said, many many people lie all of the time for no real benefit. Some are seeking attention, some want revenge for a perceived slight, some have a false belief, some are mentally ill, and some are just ruthlessly evil.

Further, I am not convinced that there is no benefit to this type of falsehood. Again, using Ford only as an example and not to reignite the debate, but she is now a hero those on the left. She is seen as brave, and will likely pull down some serious coin on the lecture circuit.

It also provides an ironclad excuse for anything negative in her life. For example, her grades were poor during her first two years of college. Well, clearly now that was a result of the trauma she had, not from poor study habits, partying too much, etc.
All I can do here is repeat BPC's summary of your previous posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet
"Why should Christine Ford have to worry about death threats and constantly needing to move to avoid getting doxxed by maniacs who want to kill her? She got a ton of money out of it, and bolstered her national persona! Now she can afford that 24/7 security detail she needs to be safe in public!" Even outside of the rest of the context here, that's just so wrong I don't even know where to start. I'm not sure if you're already aware of what you're doing or if you're missing the larger context, but you should be aware that there absolutely is a larger context, and what you're doing is super shitty.

Not as shitty as humblebragging about sexually harassing two medical professionals, but pretty shitty.
You are simultaneously grossly minimizing the very real negative effects of her testimony, wildly speculating about hypothetical benefits, and dragging in unrelated personal information for the sole purpose of smearing her. Nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
I am certainly not trying to make light of any woman who was actually sexually assaulted.
...while doing your best to allege or imply that women such as Ford who claim to be sexually assaulted likely weren't "actually" assaulted.

Quote:
I also concede that for years we did not take this seriously, but the question is what do we do going forward. I know it is not any poster's intention, but the suggestion seems to be that because we ignored women for all of these years, now the pendulum must swing back past balance and go in the other direction: where we simply believe women so long as their story is not verifiably false.

Now, nobody actually says such a thing, but what they do is find credibility through, well, anything. If she tells her story boldly, why, see the conviction in her voice, you know he did it! If she tells her story meekly, look at the trauma that poor woman has suffered, you know he did it!

If she discloses immediately, that shows how serious she is about it and therefore she is credible. If she discloses years later, this is very common, she was likely traumatized by the assault.

If she tells a consistent narrative, look at how solidly she told that story, it must be true. If she gets several details wrong, then who can be expected to remember everything. That shows she is telling the truth because a person telling the truth would be unlikely to remember everything.
It's neat how you've taken the usual narrative used to discredit claims of sexual assault and reworked it to your preferred narrative. What usually happens is: if she tells her story boldly, clearly it shows she wasn't traumatized and therefore wasn't raped. If she tells her story meekly, she obviously doesn't believe what she's saying. If she discloses immediately, she's just feeling "morning after" remorse for a bad one-night-stand and is just trying to protect her reputation. If she discloses years later, she must have made up the assault and is just jumping onto a bandwagon for personal gain.

Any of that sound familiar?

Quote:
The only time a claim is considered "false" is when actual verifiable details are undoubtedly untrue. And even then it doesn't get the "false" label. We had a case around here recently where a young woman accused her step father of molesting her in 2006. She was adamant that it was in 2006 because she had turned 16 that year, remembered getting her first car right before it happened, and it happened while her mother was away at a particular business conference. She remembered her mother calling her from the conference and cried when she wanted to reach out to her mother but did not have the nerve. I watched her testimony and it was very compelling.[...]
Ah, the "some false rape allegations exist, therefore the default assumption should be that any rape allegations are false" argument. I mean, I assume that's why you mentioned this; otherwise it's irrelevant to the point.

Last edited by Gyrate; 01-11-2019 at 05:18 AM.
  #458  
Old 01-11-2019, 06:05 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
All I can do here is repeat BPC's summary of your previous posts:You are simultaneously grossly minimizing the very real negative effects of her testimony, wildly speculating about hypothetical benefits, and dragging in unrelated personal information for the sole purpose of smearing her. Nice.
Slight correction: while what I said definitely still applies here, I was summarizing Urbanredneck's posts. (It's a bit like the difference between Douglas Murray and Ann Coulter.)

UltraVires, are you aware of the Sarkeesian Salsa as a pattern in online discourse? Are you aware that you are empowering and endorsing step four with posts like that? Do you have any evidence of claims like "She [...] will likely pull down some serious coin on the lecture circuit."? You say "I am certainly not trying to make light of any woman who was actually sexually assaulted." This is not what that looks like. Posts like yours make coming forward harder, and carry the subtext of, "Say what you want, we aren't going to believe you, and we're going to slander you for coming forward." Even if you don't intend it, that's what it does.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-11-2019 at 06:09 AM.
  #459  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:09 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Slight correction: while what I said definitely still applies here, I was summarizing Urbanredneck's posts. (It's a bit like the difference between Douglas Murray and Ann Coulter.)
My apologies for mixing up my U-themed posters. I hate when I inadvertently misattribute - everyone is responsible for their own content and no one else's. So your point is well-made.

Quote:
UltraVires, are you aware of the Sarkeesian Salsa as a pattern in online discourse? Are you aware that you are empowering and endorsing step four with posts like that? Do you have any evidence of claims like "She [...] will likely pull down some serious coin on the lecture circuit."? You say "I am certainly not trying to make light of any woman who was actually sexually assaulted."
Again, note the implied caveat that he will of course taken seriously any woman who was actually sexually assaulted. One wonders what his criteria for determining to his own satisfaction which amongst all the women claiming sexual assault fall into this category, as Dr Ford apparently does not. Perhaps it is reflected in his own words, and the only time a claim is considered "true" is when actual verifiable details are undoubtedly true.
  #460  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:14 AM
blindboyard blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Slight correction: while what I said definitely still applies here, I was summarizing Urbanredneck's posts. (It's a bit like the difference between Douglas Murray and Ann Coulter.)

UltraVires, are you aware of the Sarkeesian Salsa as a pattern in online discourse? Are you aware that you are empowering and endorsing step four with posts like that? Do you have any evidence of claims like "She [...] will likely pull down some serious coin on the lecture circuit."? You say "I am certainly not trying to make light of any woman who was actually sexually assaulted." This is not what that looks like. Posts like yours make coming forward harder, and carry the subtext of, "Say what you want, we aren't going to believe you, and we're going to slander you for coming forward." Even if you don't intend it, that's what it does.
Sarkeesian has made hundreds of thousands of dollars and received absolutely no harm from the so-called threats she claims to have received. Just like, as Kimstu posted, Ford has received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of her actions, whether she claims she will donate it to charity or not. The evidence isn't that the benefits are illusory but the harm are real, it's that the harms are either fictional or completely ineffective while the benefits are massive and lasting.
  #461  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:25 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard View Post
Sarkeesian has made hundreds of thousands of dollars and received absolutely no harm from the so-called threats she claims to have received. Just like, as Kimstu posted, Ford has received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of her actions, whether she claims she will donate it to charity or not. The evidence isn't that the benefits are illusory but the harm are real, it's that the harms are either fictional or completely ineffective while the benefits are massive and lasting.
https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6...use-by-threats



Is that fact that none of the countless loonies who went out of their way to insult, shame, harass, doxx, and threaten Anita Sarkeesian actually managed to kill her enough of a reason to treat the harms as "ineffective"?

Wait, hang on, let me double-check - did you just say

Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard View Post
so-called threats she claims to have received
Wow. Jesus, dude, what the fuck?

UltraVires, would you be interested in distancing yourself from someone on your side of this issue a little bit? It might do your reputation a bit of good.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-11-2019 at 09:25 AM.
  #462  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:42 AM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,002
I don't think Ford is a suitable example of profiteering from being an accuser for several reasons:

1. She was and is already fairly wealthy from her income (and her husband's) before the Kavanaugh hearings, and the added wealth from the GoFundMe isn't significant compared to it.

2. She didn't voluntarily want to come forward at first, it was Feinstein and the others who "volunteered" her.

3. She had no way of knowing that she was going to get money in a GoFundMe; it's not like there was a contract of "Go accuse Kav and you'll get $600k."
  #463  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:51 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't think Ford is a suitable example of profiteering from being an accuser for several reasons:

1. She was and is already fairly wealthy from her income (and her husband's) before the Kavanaugh hearings, and the added wealth from the GoFundMe isn't significant compared to it.

2. She didn't voluntarily want to come forward at first, it was Feinstein and the others who "volunteered" her.

3. She had no way of knowing that she was going to get money in a GoFundMe; it's not like there was a contract of "Go accuse Kav and you'll get $600k."
4. The entire concept is horribly gross and does not work the way people seem to insist it would.
  #464  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:38 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard View Post
Sarkeesian has made hundreds of thousands of dollars and received absolutely no harm from the so-called threats she claims to have received.
It depends how you define "harm", I suppose, and what sort of "harm" you think is appropriate as retaliation for merely making some public observations about cultural phenomena manifested in video games.

If your point is that Sarkeesian has managed to avoid direct physical attack from any of the people who hysterically urge attacks on her, you are correct. But if you think that being threatened itself is an absolutely harm-free experience, I encourage you to read even a little of the massive amounts of hate-filled shit that Sarkeesian has been bombarded with daily. Moreover, as you may not be aware, sending a threatening communication to anyone is a federal crime, not just a "harmless" prank.

And if you believe that personally-directed online threats and hatred are the only harm that's been inflicted on Sarkeesian---in retaliation for, I repeat, nothing more than stating some rational and moderately-expressed opinions about video games---then you haven't been paying attention to, e.g., the mass shooting threat that resulted in the cancellation of one of her speaking engagements, as well as a bomb threat against an awards ceremony that led to a police investigation of the site:
Quote:
An anonymous e-mailer threatened to blow up a bomb at the Game Developers Choice Awards this past March unless the hosts rescinded an award recognizing feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian [...]

"The email stated the following: 'A bomb will be detonated at the Game Developer's Choice award ceremony tonight unless Anita Sarkeesian's Ambassador Award is revoked. We estimate the bomb will kill at least a dozen people and injure dozens more. It would be in your best interest to accept our simple request. This is not a joke. You have been warned.'"

The threat merited the attention of the San Francisco Police Department's Explosive Ordinance Disposal Division, which sent officers and bomb-sniffing dogs to the Moscone Center, where GDC is held. [...]

"additional security staff were brought in to conduct random bag checks as attendees entered the Awards [...]"
To claim that a bunch of vicious and malevolent online bullies aren't actually "harming" a person when their credible threats have driven her out of her home, required heightened security arrangements for her personal and professional life, caused lockdowns at the venues that the threats are directed against, and led to FBI investigations, is nothing but misogynistic bullshit.

It's also quite disparaging to the law enforcement personnel and event organizers whose time and resources are constantly wasted by these so-called "harmless" assholes doing their utmost to make other people believe that they are about to physically harm their victim and the people around her.

Last edited by Kimstu; 01-11-2019 at 12:39 PM.
  #465  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:15 PM
blindboyard blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6...use-by-threats



Is that fact that none of the countless loonies who went out of their way to insult, shame, harass, doxx, and threaten Anita Sarkeesian actually managed to kill her enough of a reason to treat the harms as "ineffective"?

Wait, hang on, let me double-check - did you just say
They are ineffective in that they have not had effect. Saying no-one has "managed" to kill her implies some have tried, this is not the case. None have tried to kill her, none have tried to injure her, none have tried to damage her property.

Your cite there where she claims to be driven from her house by trolls is a claim, she may or may not have left her house, and the tweets she gives as the reason for fleeing her home are from someone claiming to love her, to want to drink in her smile, and to want to kill her. Standard celebrity stalker shit, in other words, although she felt the need to blame her political opponents.

Quote:
Wow. Jesus, dude, what the fuck?

UltraVires, would you be interested in distancing yourself from someone on your side of this issue a little bit? It might do your reputation a bit of good.
I'm not sure what you're so shocked about. The plausibility of claims of this nature is the issue at hand, is it not? So try not to be surprised when people doubt your idol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't think Ford is a suitable example of profiteering from being an accuser for several reasons:

1. She was and is already fairly wealthy from her income (and her husband's) before the Kavanaugh hearings, and the added wealth from the GoFundMe isn't significant compared to it.

2. She didn't voluntarily want to come forward at first, it was Feinstein and the others who "volunteered" her.

3. She had no way of knowing that she was going to get money in a GoFundMe; it's not like there was a contract of "Go accuse Kav and you'll get $600k."
I don't particularly believe that Ford herself is acting for personal gain, my position it that we currently have no sufficient evidence to know if she is telling the truth or lying, but I don't think these arguments militate against the idea that she is lying for personal gain.

Many people wrongly idolise the rich. The prospect of hundreds of thousands of dollars for nothing is no less alluring to the rich than the poor, if anything their richness implies that they have a history of being willing to compromise their principles for cash. Add in the prospect of personal fame and political advancement and you have a variety of motives which would be unaffected by wealth.

For volunteering, she volunteered to Feinstein. Feinstein didn't find out independently and then out her.

As for not knowing there would be an income, that is a firmly predictable outcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
It depends how you define "harm", I suppose, and what sort of "harm" you think is appropriate as retaliation for merely making some public observations about cultural phenomena manifested in video games.

If your point is that Sarkeesian has managed to avoid direct physical attack from any of the people who hysterically urge attacks on her, you are correct. But if you think that being threatened itself is an absolutely harm-free experience, I encourage you to read even a little of the massive amounts of hate-filled shit that Sarkeesian has been bombarded with daily. Moreover, as you may not be aware, sending a threatening communication to anyone is a federal crime, not just a "harmless" prank.

And if you believe that personally-directed online threats and hatred are the only harm that's been inflicted on Sarkeesian---in retaliation for, I repeat, nothing more than stating some rational and moderately-expressed opinions about video games---then you haven't been paying attention to, e.g., the mass shooting threat that resulted in the cancellation of one of her speaking engagements, as well as a bomb threat against an awards ceremony that led to a police investigation of the site:


To claim that a bunch of vicious and malevolent online bullies aren't actually "harming" a person when their credible threats have driven her out of her home, required heightened security arrangements for her personal and professional life, caused lockdowns at the venues that the threats are directed against, and led to FBI investigations, is nothing but misogynistic bullshit.

It's also quite disparaging to the law enforcement personnel and event organizers whose time and resources are constantly wasted by these so-called "harmless" assholes doing their utmost to make other people believe that they are about to physically harm their victim and the people around her.
I believe you are mischaracterising the activities of both Anita and her opponents.

Regarding her own activities, she doesn't simply review games, rather she has a political agenda which involves trying to limit expression in the media she has targetted and she has pursued that agenda in a way which is dishonest and insulting and which misrepresents her targets. This doesn't justify any form of harassment, but she is knowingly and intentionally making imflammatory statements, and profiting from the predictable results. And she's done so very well. Meeting Joss Whedon, appearing on the old Colbert Report, being taken seriously while giving testimony to the UN, and of course making rather large sums of money.

As to her oppenents and their conduct, I don't believe there have been credible threats. The article you cite gives examples of the supposed threats against her, and none are threats. One wants her to be raped, one wants to beat her in a video game, one says "shut the fuck up bitch", all through twitter. None of these are threats, credible or otherwise. The bomb threat and shooting threat were determined not to be credible by police investigation, and are properly categorised as prank calls.

So to me this seems to be whatever the opposite of misogyny is. It is special pleading for women. Public figures receive attacks on twitter. Public venues receive bomb threats and in America also threats of mass shootings. But when it happens to women it becomes something to complain about. When Anita gets standard creepy stalker messages it is assumed to be because of her politics and her womanhood, and when she goes on a stage and denounces people in the audience and has them hassled by security it is written off, not similarly claimed as an act of political violence and "harm".
  #466  
Old 01-12-2019, 04:14 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard View Post
Regarding her own activities, she doesn't simply review games, rather she has a political agenda which involves trying to limit expression in the media she has targetted and she has pursued that agenda in a way which is dishonest and insulting and which misrepresents her targets.
That is, she simply reviews games. But her reviews happen to include, as I said, her rational and moderately-expressed opinions about cultural phenomena manifested in video games. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a game reviewer/critic having a "political agenda", or with expressing negative opinions about video games on ideological/political grounds.

You don't have to agree with their opinons, but you don't get to try to shut them up by committing the federal crime of sending them threatening communications to make them afraid for their physical safety.

And the claim that Sarkeesian is somehow culpable for "trying to limit expression in the media she has targetted" is laughably disingenuous. Yes, she thinks some video game designers ought not to do things in their games that she considers sexist and/or misogynistic. That's her opinion, which she's fully entitled to have and to express. You are allowed to disagree with her about that opinion. She's not in any way censoring or suppressing anybody else's views or forcing game designers to "limit their expression".

The problem is that a bunch of misogynistic fragile-snowflake gamerbabies got all upset that somebody---and worse, a woman---was daring to express opinions suggesting that something about their beloved games might be considered bad. And they responded not by rational disagreement and counter-criticism, but by vile hate-speech and threats of sexual violence and mass murder. Trying to normalize that pathological behavior by calling it "standard" and dismissing it as "harmless" is not okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard
Your cite there where she claims to be driven from her house by trolls is a claim, she may or may not have left her house
As already mentioned, it is documented that Sarkeesian alerted the San Francisco Police Department to these threats and that the FBI was called in and opened an investigation on them. The FBI doesn't open investigations just for shits and giggles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard
As to her oppenents and their conduct, I don't believe there have been credible threats. The article you cite gives examples of the supposed threats against her, and none are threats. One wants her to be raped, one wants to beat her in a video game, one says "shut the fuck up bitch", all through twitter. None of these are threats, credible or otherwise.
You don't think, e.g., "I'll drink your blood out of your cunt after I rip it open" is a threat?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard
The bomb threat and shooting threat were determined not to be credible by police investigation, and are properly categorised as prank calls.
The threats were considered sufficiently credible to warrant police investigation, which as I said costs time and money. The fact that they were subsequently found not to involve any concrete plans to commit violence doesn't mean that it was okay to make those threats.

If you believe that making a "prank call" threatening to kill people counts as "harmless" just because you don't have any sincere intention or plans to follow through on your threat, then I urge you to test that belief by making a similar threatening call yourself to some venue planning to host some controversial speaker viciously targeted by asshole threat-spewers. Give them your contact info so they know where to find you, and see for yourself what the cops and/or the FBI think about such "harmless" "pranks".


Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard
It is special pleading for women. Public figures receive attacks on twitter. Public venues receive bomb threats and in America also threats of mass shootings. But when it happens to women it becomes something to complain about.
It is something to complain about, no matter who the target is. Law-abiding people and institutions should not be threatened with illegal violence or harassed with hateful obscenities. And it's not just women who complain about such things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blindboyard
When Anita gets standard creepy stalker messages
The fact that you think it's "standard" or unremarkable for women in the public eye to constantly receive "creepy stalker messages" threatening them with sexual violence is part of the problem, not part of any reasonable critique of public reaction to the problem.

Last edited by Kimstu; 01-12-2019 at 04:16 PM.
  #467  
Old 01-12-2019, 04:25 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,494
Y i k e s.

Just yikes.

blindboyard, how many people in your twitter inbox telling you they want to kill you woukd be enough to make you worry? How many saying that and telling you yiur home address?

Jesus, dude, I respect Kimtsu's patience but that shit is fucking gross.
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
  #468  
Old 01-12-2019, 04:36 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,481
Any reasonable person would consider death threats by default to be credible. People with the morality not to kill people don't make death threats. The only thing stopping them is a fear of getting caught. And that carries the unfortunate implication that, if they ever thought there was a way they could pull it off without getting caught, they would. And all it takes is one.

Death threats are not casual. They are terrorist threats. These people deserve jail time, and it is largely the thing keeping me from backing full online anonymity. Threats of physical harm are assault--they are violence.

They are harm.
  #469  
Old 01-12-2019, 04:45 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,364
Yes. blindboyard's attempt to normalize or downplay death threats as nothing worse than "prank calls" is disgusting.

A prank call is something like calling the supermarket to say "Excuse me, do you have Mr. Clean in a spray bottle? You do? Well, better let him out!"

Sending people a message saying
Quote:
A bomb will be detonated at the Game Developer's Choice award ceremony tonight unless Anita Sarkeesian's Ambassador Award is revoked. We estimate the bomb will kill at least a dozen people and injure dozens more. It would be in your best interest to accept our simple request. This is not a joke. You have been warned.
is not a prank call. It is terrorism.

Last edited by Kimstu; 01-12-2019 at 04:45 PM.
  #470  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:27 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yes. blindboyard's attempt to normalize or downplay death threats as nothing worse than "prank calls" is disgusting.

A prank call is something like calling the supermarket to say "Excuse me, do you have Mr. Clean in a spray bottle? You do? Well, better let him out!"

Sending people a message saying


is not a prank call. It is terrorism.
It is a shame and my fault that the thread took on this little side diversion, but I think it is fair to say that ever poster in this thread opposes death threats made against any person. It is horrific that Ford or anyone else should have to endure those threats.

However, I believe that blindboyard's point is that anyone with a national presence who speaks on any controversial topic receives these types of threats. I am only a middle sized fish in a small pond, and I occasionally get them. I just put a security system in my house and keep a gun at the ready.

But as wrong as these threats are, with the advent of the internet, they are going to be inevitable, and most of them are just drunken boasts by people with no intention of doing anything and have already won when the receipient of the threat gets all upset.

Yes, they are terrible. Yes, they are wrong. But they are a known fact of life when you enter the national arena. That doesn't make a sexual assault claim more believable when we had a pre-existing system that was awash in death threats already.

For purposes of debate, I withdraw my Ford example. I was merely trying to rebut the point that there are no benefits to making false allegations. For this thread so as not to further hijack it, I am not expressing an opinion on Ford's veracity.
  #471  
Old Yesterday, 08:57 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
You have. You keep on using appeals to fear to make your argument. You use fear of losing one's career or ruining someone's life as the reason. You use it even in this very thread to make a low percentage chance seem bigger than it actually is. Fear is the underlying basis of everything you have brought up.

I've told you before that you were making emotional arguments, and that these are less convincing, but you have not chosen to stop doing so.
This isn't emotional. This is about principles. People shouldn't have to suffer bad consequences from unproven accusations regardless how noble you think the cause you're supporting is.

And these bad consequences aren't imaginary. A person who believes (as you say they should when an accusation is made) that someone is rapist won't associate with him, hire him or date him, as I repeatedly stated. So, if your advice is followed people will suffer very significant bad consequences on the basis of mere accusations. And of course, the more this will happen, the greater the incentive will be to bring false accusations.

Finally you keep insisting about the rarity of such false accusations. But any figure I've ever seen about false rape accusations are based on the determination or demonstration by the police that the accusation is false, which will necessarily result in an underestimation by the police of false accusations, because in most cases, it will be impossible to demonstrate it was false. I don't think for an instant that you would state that only the accusations of rape that are demonstrated to be true are actually true, but you have no issue with assuming that only the accusations that are demonstrated to be false are false. This approach is obviously ideologically based, because the same rules aren't applied to each side of the equation, in order to get the figures that will fit the best the preferred narrative.

On top of it, it's quite obvious that it's pretty much impossible to actually determine the rate of false accusations, because it's pretty much impossible to determine whether or not a rape took place. While people rarely end up willingly with a knife planted between their shoulders, they have sex willingly all the time and "it was consensual" is a perfectly credible explanation most of the time outside of violent rapes, assuming that you can even prove that there was a sexual contact, which isn't a given. You might deplore that a large part of the victims won't ever see justice, but this is an unavoidable consequence of rape being inherently difficult to prove. That victims of rape are in a hard place doesn't mean that it should be compensated by putting people accused of rape in an equally hard place. Basically, two wrongs don't make a right.



Quote:
The court of public opinion is not a real court. It is merely a metaphor for what the majority of the populace believe. There are no "standards of evidence" in such a situation. There is simply information which each individual on their own uses to make up their own mind.
But then you advise them about how they should make up their mind. And your advice is "believe the accuser". Which I think is inherently wrong. Even though it's not a court of law, when the benefit of the doubt is (in theory) required to benefit to the accused, the principle is sound. You can't help having your own opinion, but the default stance should still be to give the benefit of the doubt. Not to assume that any accusation by some random stranger against some other random stranger is true, because you have no way to know.

Quote:
Our position is simply that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the accuser should be believed, just like with every other situation out there. Rape is not some special case where we should default to disbelieving the accuser.
But this *not* what is done with every other situation out there. If, say, some neighbor you aren't particularly friendly with tells you that another neighbor you aren't particularly friendly with is a thief would you believe him just on the basis of his statement? Then why would you do so if instead of "thief", he said "groper"? You are the one pleading for a special case, not me.

Besides, not believing the accuser doesn't mean that you believe the accusation is false, either. You have no way to know, why would you pick a side? You're arguing that, from a position of admitted ignorance, you should still believe one of the two contradictory narratives. Advocating for this isn't a rational position.

Quote:
In attempting to argue that, you have always included extra evidence, and then asked us why we should still believe the accuser. But we never said we did. If I am friends with Bob, and he is accused, I have the evidence of our relationship to help me decide of the accusation is credible.
Sorry, but that's exactly what is argued. That the accuser should be believed by default. That's what we're told to do. If you don't think that in the case of an accusation of rape/sexual assault/groping/whatever, the accuser should be believed by default, then this exchange is pointless because we aren't in disagreement.

And of course if your friend Bob tells you he has been raped, you're going to believe him, even though maybe you could be wrong. You trust Bob. Except what if your friend Bob tells you he has been raped by your friend Johnny, whom you also trust?
Trusting someone isn't an objective evidence that he isn't liar, or worst, as demonstrated on a regular basis when they interview people who knew the last serial killer arrested. However, I don't expect people to be unfeeling machines. Presumably, if your daughter tells you that she has been raped, you'll believe her, even if it seems implausible. And if your son tells you that he's falsely accused of rape, you'll believe him, even if it seems implausible.

The problem isn't there. The problem is the advice given to believe the accuser when for instance they're two strangers, or two employees reporting to you. And when you begin to argue, as you seem to have done, that by "believe" you don't really mean "believe" but something that rather looks like "take seriously", then you should really not use this word. Because even if it was honestly what you meant, it's not what people will hear. They will hear that the proper conduct is to believe the accuser as in "assume that the accusation is true". And I'm pretty convinced that this is *exactly* the message that most people making this statement want to convey. They do want people to assume that the accusations are true by default.



Quote:
You have used the religious definition of "believe" to try and say we mean something that we don't. "Believing" is simply a lesser standard than "knowing." If I say "I believe he is in the bathroom," that means I don't know for sure, but I currently think it is most likely that he is in the bathroom. If more evidence came around that showed me that he wasn't in the bathroom, I would change my belief.
I mostly answered this above. This is neither the meaning that people will hear, nor, I'm pretty sure, the meaning most people making this statement want to convey.

Besides, even the way you word it, you're still stating that 1) it is most likely that the accusation is true. Even though you have no way to know 2) more evidence will be required to make you think that it isn't true, which means that you place the burden of proof on the accused. That's not a neutral position at all. Neither in a court of law, nor as an employer, nor as random person who reads about the last high-profile scandal in the papers. Even formulated this way, you're still stating that the accusation should be assumed true by default.


Quote:
By ignoring what actually happens when people say to believe, you've come up with this false meaning behind the term. No one has said that you should continue believing an accusation that does not seem credible. But that is what you accuse us of saying.
No, I'm not accusing you of of continuing to believe an accusation that does not seem credible. I never stated such a thing. I'm accusing you of telling us to believe an accusation even if there's no particular reason to believe it is true. Pretty much all such accusations are going to be credible. It could be true that employee A groped employee B. But it could also be false. And you have no way to know.



Quote:
This comparison is inapt. The "believe women" standard has already been adopted in many places, and it is working. The consequences you are afraid of have not happened. The situation before this was much worse.

So, using your analogy, it would be as if some companies voluntarily changed to a 100% tax rate and the businesses were perfectly fine. You are then arguing that it is impossible, but we simply point to the reality that it's working just fine.

Granted, in reality, a 100% tax rate could not work. But that's the metaphor you chose, likely to make it seem absurd.
Where has it been applied? How is it applied? And how is it working? Because, for instance, if you apply it in the workplace, it should result in immediate firing of any person accused. Otherwise, you aren't believing the accuser, you're just listening to her with a compassionate smile. Because companies aren't going to keep employees they *actually* believe are sexually assaulting their coworkers.


[quote]No. He avoided your question because your premise was faulty. We have shown that your claim about the "social death of the accused" is false. The "believe the accusers" standard already exists, and yet your doomsday scenario has not happened.

Quote:
"What if it does?" is a meaningless question when such has not happened, and you have provided no evidence showing it would happen. It is merely an appeal to fear.

If we answer the question, we have to tacitly accept your framing of the situation. It's a common enough rhetorical strategy. (See "will you stop beating your wife?" as the quintessential form.) And we are refusing to walk into that rhetorical trap.

If you'd just argue rationally instead of appealing to emotion, we wouldn't need to do this.
My statement has absolutely nothing to do with "will you stop beating your wife". It's the simple idea that if a concept is good (say, "you shouldn't randomly kill people") then in the hypothetical situation where everybody follow it (nobody randomly kills anybody anymore) the situation is improved. It's very obviously a purely intellectual argument, and contrarily to your statement has absolutely nothing to do with an appeal to emotion, either.

You said that you have shown that my assumption ("if everybody was believing the accusers, then it would be the social death of the accused") is false. No, you didn't show such a thing. And unless you're absolutely ignorant about how rapists are perceived on this planet, and/or are yourself totally fine with associating with rapists, hiring rapists, marrying rapists and so on, you can't seriously argue that someone who is universally believed to be a rapist will enjoy a perfectly normal life.



Quote:
You are indeed not aware.
I'm not answering the part about the judge, because indeed i'm not aware, having only read diagonally the thread about this issue.

There's still however a point I would make. I don't in fact agree that someone should be barred from even the highest functions on the mere basis of an accusation. That's a principle that has often been invoked over here (except when it wasn't), in particular to demand the resignation of ministers that are being investigated. I disagree with this concept. You can't deny someone a deserved high office when you have no serious evidence that he did anything wrong.



Quote:
No, it's based on the statistics. And then supplemented with proof of how, even when false accusations do happen, the accused rarely face consequences. You can't bring up a single case, despite being asked many times. So none of this matters.
No, it's not based on statistics, as I pointed out above. There are no statistics available because nobody knows which accusations are false and which are true, and if you want to go with the number of accusation shown to be false, you should only compare them to the number of accusation shown to be true. Which is in fact exactly what I read the first time I saw such (US) figures quoted in France. The statement was more or less "don't use this 2% figure (I'm pretty sure it was 2%) because by applying the same logic in reverse to this study, one can state that only 12% (or whatever the low figure was) of rape accusations are truthful."

I didn't see these proofs that people who have (provably) been falsely accused of rape have suffered no consequences. Maybe you've mentioned an anecdote about someone who was rich and famous and was still rich and famous after such a false accusation? To begin with, the period before the accusation has been proven false is unlikely to not have been extremely unpleasant. And besides, personally, every time I've read an account about a man who had been falsely accused, the described consequences were pretty terrible. I'm sure that if you google it and read the first article about such an event, it won't say that it the accusation has been consequence-free. Anyway, once again unless you aren't from this planet, you can't pretend to believe that a rape accusation is consequence free.

Quote:
What matters is that this is much less frequent and much less devastating than actual rape,
Totally irrelevant. The consequences of murder are devastating too, and we still should make sure that people who aren't actually shown to be murderers will suffer as little negative consequences as possible from a possible accusation of murder. Once again, two wrongs don't make a right.


Quote:
and that your counterproposal of going back to the way things were means that many rapists will not be stopped. You provide nothing to fix this problem.
I never counter-proposed anything. I just stated that, no, we shouldn't assume that an accusation is true just because it has been made.

And indeed, many rapists won't be stopped, and I provide nothing to fix this problem because there's no way to fix this problem, since, as I already said, rape is crime that is inherently difficult to prove. I also have no proposal to fix the issue of people dying from cancer in case you would wonder.

But I definitely oppose the idea that the bar of evidence should be lowered in the case of rape or sexual assault. Be it in a court of law, in the court of public opinion or in the workplace. It sure would result in more rapist being punished, bit it would result also in more innocent being punished as well. And I still stick to the principle that it's better to have ten guilty men walk free than one innocent man being punished.


Quote:
All you care about are the falsely accused, despite their rarity and low likelihood of significant consequences. It doesn't matter that we've been able to stop more rapists and sexual abusers without any serious consequences.
You're assuming rarity, and saying that the likelihood of significant consequences is low in the case of an accusation of rape is plainly laughable, unless, again, you aren't from this planet. On top of it, I would point out that in most cases, *we won't ever know* if an accusation was true or false, but this accusation, in this day and age, will follow the accused his whole life. Everybody googling his name will find out about the accusation, and don't pretend that this won't have any consequence. Unless it has been *proven* to be false, which is unlikely, his future potential employers, neighbors, dates, friends will think "do I really want to hire/invite over/marry/go out with this guy who is accused of being a rapist?". How do you think this will turn out for him? Great career, a lot of enthusiastic lovers, and many friends is what you expect? But still it doesn't seem enough for you and you would want these people to "believe" (whatever meaning you give to this word) the accuser, as if the mere suspicion of being a rapist for the rest of one's life wasn't enough.

And yes, I care more about the falsely accused. That's one of our fundamental principles of justice. Once again, rather "ten guilty men walking free..." or in this case ten guilty men finding jobs, having dates, and being respected rather than one innocent man not having any of these things.

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't follow the same kind of reasoning if we were talking about other crimes. That you wouldn't want any bar to be lowered. That you wouldn't say to people cautioning against hasty accusations "why don't you think about the victims of murder? Why do you care so much about a guy who's probably a murderer? Isn't it important that we stop more murderers? All you care about are the people accused" I'm pretty sure in fact that you'd take pretty much the opposite stance.

And by the way, since you mentioned it earlier in your post, this statement you made "what don't you think about the victims?" *is* an appeal to emotion.


Quote:
And, to put it simply, we aren't going to let the status quo remain. If there ever does actually become an actual problem with false accusations ruining lives, then we can talk about caring about them. For now, we need to fight for the accusers--which requires us to believe them.
No, it doesn't. You don't need to believe someone to investigate. In fact, you *shouldn't*. You can't investigate impartially if you start with a preconceived opinion. I guess you can understand why nobody who says "I believe this guy's stance" from the get go should be allowed to investigate or assess a case. There can be no justice when guilt is assumed.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #472  
Old Yesterday, 10:34 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Then what are you going on about with your false dichotomy that you can only either believe men or women?

Yes, it is called being capable of critical thinking and evaluation of evidence.

You can't believe at the same time two contradictory things, like "he groped me" and "I didn't grope her".



Quote:
Your argument that you should never believe women does not allow for any critical thinking or evaluation of evidence, but instead, starts from the position that the woman is a liar out to harm a perfectly innocent man.
I never made this argument. It's entirely born in your imagination.


Quote:
Certainly not to the satisfaction of someone who will take words out of context and do their best to deliberately misunderstand them in order to create a false narrative to rail against.
I'm not a native speaker. However, I checked the dictionary for the definition of "believe". It agreed with me.

Quote:
To believe a woman is to give her story a fair shake, to accept it as a potentially credible allegation, and to follow up and determine the validity of it based on the evidence presented, as well as patterns of behavior of the people involved.
No. This isn't "believing". It's "giving her story a fair shake".

Quote:
To not believe women is to consider any accusations that they make to be lies to stir up trouble.
See, this is a problem, you oppose believing women. You would call a woman a liar to her face if she came to you with a concern about a co-worker or superior who is harassing her, and accuse her of just making up stories to hurt someone.
That would be a sound argument if I had ever stated that I opposed believing women. Unfortunately, I never said that, so what you wrote is totally irrelevant.

Of course, your nice story about me calling a woman a liar to her face is also totally born in your imagination.

You think I also live on a secret island from where I plot to take over the world?
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; Yesterday at 10:39 AM.
  #473  
Old Yesterday, 03:57 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
That would be a sound argument if I had ever stated that I opposed believing women. Unfortunately, I never said that, so what you wrote is totally irrelevant.
The entirety of your argument is that you said that I was opposed to believing men. I never said that, so every single thing that you have said in this thread is not just irrelevant, it is fundamentally wrong in every conceivable way.


The fire marshal just stopped by, and is threatening to fine me if I don't haul away some of this straw you've plopped down here.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017