Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 03-13-2018, 10:42 AM
Covfefe Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
My impression has always been that this is a US-centric message board with, yes, its share of foreign visitors — but visitors they (you) are.

If it’s really becoming some truly international thing where I have to sort out each person I’m interacting with to know what their cultural touchstones might be, then I will have to potentially reevaluate.
I don't see how you did anything terribly wrong in that regard. Banquet Bear came in with a link to the wiki on black twitter. Per that link, it is chiefly a US phenomenon. You made reference to a well known figure in the US mentioning another twitter phenomenon and rather than a simple search being done or asking, the dialogue escalated.
  #502  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:11 AM
Stonebow Stonebow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Lower 48
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I’m finding your position rather unclear. To me, sexual assault is a legal term which describes a crime. Yet you seem to be saying that he was guilty of sexual assault but not guilty of a crime, or even the lower bar of being found at fault in a civil proceeding.
Sexual assault has meanings in criminal and civil language, which vary from state to state. It also has a lay definition. The plain meaning is just 'unwanted sexual contact.' So from the pov of the lady in question, it definitely was. For Ansari, it was not. The question is whether he knew or had reason to know the conduct was unwanted.

Now, we are not asking this in a legal context since there's not a legal complaint. Or even a complaint at a university. But if you are a female pundit of whatever stripe and you choose to identify with the pov of the accuser for purposes of characterizing the event (likely because of your own similar experiences), I am not seeing it as any great sin. Bear in mind, I don't give Ansari a complete pass on whether he should have known, and understand why female pundits would not- I've presided over much more egregious cases and the accused didn't think they had done anything wrong. Hell, Brock Turner didn't (and famously, his dad) didn't think the boy had done anything wrong raping a passed out woman behind a dumpster.

I do take some offense at your 'what ifs' as you have not shown that there's any real harm being done to men, and the historical and present harm to women has been demonstrated repeatedly and exhaustively. Your justifications amount to, "I'm sympathetic, but I really have no interest in changing my worldview because that's kind of inconvenient and might at one point result in me being called out for my behavior.'

Bear in mind, I have 3 sons, and have no issues with them facing both the social or legal impact of their actions if they decide to be 'rapey.' It's not that hard.
  #503  
Old 03-13-2018, 02:46 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Stonebow, the “you might be called out for your behavior” bit was uncalled for. I specifically noted that a lot of what we are talking about is stuff I have never done, never would do, and consider scurrilous behavior. But as I keep saying, people have the right to act shitty in a lot of ways without being accused of committing a crime. This principle is no different from the fact that I applaud the ACLU’s sticking up for right of Nazis to march. That doesn’t in any way imply that I embrace a Nazi ideology. We’re talking about civil liberties here, and civil liberties have to be for everyone, even scumbags.

It’s pretty depressing, actually, to find that when I say that even scumbags get to have civil liberties, I’m met with “oh, you must just be saying that because you’re a scumbag too.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
I don’t see how you did anything terribly wrong in that regard. Banquet Bear came in with a link to the wiki on black twitter. Per that link, it is chiefly a US phenomenon. You made reference to a well known figure in the US mentioning another twitter phenomenon and rather than a simple search being done or asking, the dialogue escalated.

Thanks!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #504  
Old 03-13-2018, 05:07 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
This is a good moment for some quotes from John Stuart Mill’s seminal work On Liberty:

“Every man who says frankly and fully what he thinks is so far doing a public service. We should be grateful to him for attacking most unsparingly our most cherished opinions.”

“No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead.”

“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #505  
Old 03-13-2018, 05:10 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
I don't see how you did anything terribly wrong in that regard. Banquet Bear came in with a link to the wiki on black twitter. Per that link, it is chiefly a US phenomenon.
...what a load of horseshit. I've been a member of this board since two-thousand-and-fucking-two. I've been here longer than Slacker. Yet he calls me a "visitor." That's elitist bullshit that he pulled out of his arse because I made him look like a fool.

Quote:
You made reference to a well known figure in the US mentioning another twitter phenomenon and rather than a simple search being done or asking, the dialogue escalated.
Black twitter is a well documented cultural phenomenon which is pretty notable worldwide. "Gay twitter" and "feminist twitter" are not. Neither is the Knight Foundation or NPR culture critic Glen Weldon, even if he does "have a special interest in comics." To make the leap that just because I've heard of "black twitter" I must be American, and if I'm American then I must have heard of the Knight Foundation, I must be aware of its 2.4 billion dollar endowment, and I must know NPR culture critic Glen Weldon (who by the way, has a special interest in comics) is just fucking stupid.
  #506  
Old 03-13-2018, 05:21 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
You made me look like a fool by aggressively asserting your own ignorance? BAHAHAHAH! That’s entertainment, folks. You just can’t get a laugh like that from passive entertainment like sitcoms. Priceless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #507  
Old 03-13-2018, 05:25 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You made me look like a fool by aggressively asserting your own ignorance? BAHAHAHAH! That’s entertainment, folks. You just can’t get a laugh like that from passive entertainment like sitcoms. Priceless.
...you are fucking delusional.
  #508  
Old 03-13-2018, 05:47 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you are fucking delusional.

I suppose that must be it, since droves of people are chiming in to support your assertion that Black Twitter is a thing, but Feminist Twitter is not. Oh wait: seems more like they are just quietly facepalming. Sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #509  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:06 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I suppose that must be it, since droves of people are chiming in to support your assertion that Black Twitter is a thing, but Feminist Twitter is not. Oh wait: seems more like they are just quietly facepalming. Sorry.
...how many people have been chiming in to support anything you've asserted in this thread? From sexual assault to comic books, you've been shown to be laughingly wrong about practically everything. You fail to understand exactly what black twitter is, and how it differs to other communities on twitter. You've failed at pretty much everything you've attempted to do in this thread. So don't lecture me on "support".

People aren't just quietly facepalming over everything you've said, they are "facepalming" loudly and clearly to you here in this thread.
  #510  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:32 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Way to spectacularly miss the point, B-Bear. Yes, it is abundantly clear that my opinions are opposed by the vast majority in this thread. (Which is why I posted the quotations from John Stewart Mill.)

But it is precisely that fact that should make you wonder why there are crickets now. None of those people are going to jump to my defense, but like the Sherlock Holmes dog that didn’t bark in the nighttime, it is conspicuous that they are holding their fire on this question. I don’t even know why you would make such a silly assertion to begin with, but it has been mildly diverting to toy with you as you sputter and dig in your heels in a vain attempt to support this loser of a position.

My friendly advice is that you learn from the best (that’s me) and when your position is untenable, just concede the point—but then quickly and smoothly pivot and tack to an argument where you are in a stronger position, or at least not so desperately behind the eight ball. I mean, it’s amusing to make fun of you for a little while, but then that gets tiresome and I crave more of a challenge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #511  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:39 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Way to spectacularly miss the point, B-Bear. Yes, it is abundantly clear that my opinions are opposed by the vast majority in this thread. (Which is why I posted the quotations from John Stewart Mill.)

But it is precisely that fact that should make you wonder why there are crickets now. None of those people are going to jump to my defense, but like the Sherlock Holmes dog that didn’t bark in the nighttime, it is conspicuous that they are holding their fire on this question. I don’t even know why you would make such a silly assertion to begin with, but it has been mildly diverting to toy with you as you sputter and dig in your heels in a vain attempt to support this loser of a position.

My friendly advice is that you learn from the best (that’s me) and when your position is untenable, just concede the point—but then quickly and smoothly pivot and tack to an argument where you are in a stronger position, or at least not so desperately behind the eight ball. I mean, it’s amusing to make fun of you for a little while, but then that gets tiresome and I crave more of a challenge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's some ridiculous egomania, I'll give you that, but you're gonna have to raise your egomaniacal nonsense game if you want to match Shagnasty.
  #512  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:42 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's some ridiculous egomania, I'll give you that, but you're gonna have to raise your egomaniacal nonsense game if you want to match Shagnasty.

Cite?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #513  
Old 03-13-2018, 06:55 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
None of those people are going to jump to my defense, but like the Sherlock Holmes dog that didn’t bark in the nighttime, it is conspicuous that they are holding their fire on this question.
...what the fuck are you talking about?

I asserted black twitter is a well documented cultural phenomenon and that "Gay twitter" and "feminist twitter" are not. I backed up that assertion with a cite to a wikipedia page that documents the birth, growth and rise to public awareness of black twitter, its use in activism and its prominence in the black community. There isn't a wikipedia page for gay twitter or feminist twitter because their cultural impact and their notability simply aren't the same.

I've backed up my case. There is no reason for people to "jump in" because there really isn't anything else to say on the matter.

Quote:
I don’t even know why you would make such a silly assertion to begin with, but it has been mildly diverting to toy with you as you sputter and dig in your heels in a vain attempt to support this loser of a position.
My assertion wasn't silly. My assertion is backed up by my cite.

Quote:
My friendly advice is that you learn from the best (that’s me) and when your position is untenable, just concede the point—but then quickly and smoothly pivot and tack to an argument where you are in a stronger position, or at least not so desperately behind the eight ball. I mean, it’s amusing to make fun of you for a little while, but then that gets tiresome and I crave more of a challenge.
ROFL! What position do I hold that is "untenable?" I've often conceded on these boards when I've gotten things wrong, but I haven't gotten anything wrong here. "Quickly and smoothly pivot and tacking to a different argument" is the action of a weasel and is stupid advice.
  #514  
Old 03-13-2018, 07:14 PM
Stonebow Stonebow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Lower 48
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post

It’s pretty depressing, actually, to find that when I say that even scumbags get to have civil liberties, I’m met with “oh, you must just be saying that because you’re a scumbag too.”
Believe me, that's not why I think you're a scumbag.

You are prepared to ignore the suffering of real people in favor of your bizarre hypotheticals. If you can identify the larger principle that you feel is at risk, do let me know. But society does have the ability to move on, and if you feel left behind, consider it is you that's the issue. Some things that were illegal, are now legal. Some things that were legal are now illegal. Aside from a couple of shitty anecdotes, you don't much to offer other than this change disadvantages 'friends and acquaintances' of yours, and do nothing to recognize that there is a net positive to the changes discussed. I can cite a single example of excess and abuse for any given rule of law without invalidating the rule.
  #515  
Old 03-13-2018, 07:27 PM
HelenTroy HelenTroy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...what the fuck are you talking about?

I asserted black twitter is a well documented cultural phenomenon and that "Gay twitter" and "feminist twitter" are not. I backed up that assertion with a cite to a wikipedia page that documents the birth, growth and rise to public awareness of black twitter, its use in activism and its prominence in the black community. There isn't a wikipedia page for gay twitter or feminist twitter because their cultural impact and their notability simply aren't the same.
Hi! Your friendly, neighborhood twitter "expert" chiming in. Black twitter is absolutely a thing and glorious to behold in its ability to meme and be aware of every cultural touchstone. It also organizes for change and introduces cutting edge news.

Feminist and gay twitter are not things. Yes, these issues and groups get roundly discussed, but they are not the force of black twitter.

Sincerely,
Someone with way too many twitter accounts and followers
  #516  
Old 03-13-2018, 07:45 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenTroy View Post
Hi! Your friendly, neighborhood twitter "expert" chiming in. Black twitter is absolutely a thing and glorious to behold in its ability to meme and be aware of every cultural touchstone. It also organizes for change and introduces cutting edge news.

Feminist and gay twitter are not things. Yes, these issues and groups get roundly discussed, but they are not the force of black twitter.

Sincerely,
Someone with way too many twitter accounts and followers
...cheers
  #517  
Old 03-13-2018, 08:02 PM
HelenTroy HelenTroy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...cheers
I've been following this topic with growing horror for days. He is wrong about so very many things, but this was one too many! *Laughs and slinks back into obscurity to post links to Bossip and The Root.*
  #518  
Old 03-13-2018, 08:57 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenTroy View Post
Feminist and gay twitter are not things. Yes, these issues and groups get roundly discussed, but they are not the force of black twitter.
Why would they have to be “the force of black twitter” to be “things”? There are a lot of feminists and gay people you are dismissing here. How is it that the Knight Foundation (which hopefully you’re less ignorant about) has a report on Feminist Twitter, with fancy graphics and scholarly reports, if it is “not a thing”? Jesus. Just because you are familiar with Black Twitter and apparently not familiar with the others, does not give you the right to dismiss them as not existing. FFS

Stonebow, there is certainly a real principle here, and not one that is conveniently formulated to get me or my friends off the hook, despite your unwarranted insinuations. Nor is the principle involved novel or “bizarre”. It is certainly your prerogative to disagree with it—and that might be an interesting debate. But you first need to acknowledge that it is a principle in Western thought of very long standing (and if you don’t know that, more’s the pity).

Nearly a thousand years ago, Maimomides put the principle this way: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”

Benjamin Franklin reduced the ratio but went beyond limiting it to capital punishment cases: “It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

Do you disagree with this principle? If so, you would be in, ah, interesting company. Per Wikipedia:

Quote:
Authoritarian personalities tend to take the opposite view; Bismarck is believed to have stated that "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape".[1] Pol Pot made similar remarks.[15] Wolfgang Schäuble referenced this principle while saying that it is not applicable to the context of preventing terrorist attacks.[16] Former American Vice President Dick Cheney said that his support of American use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) against suspected terrorists was unchanged by the fact that 25% of CIA detainees subject to that treatment were later proven to be innocent, including one who died of hypothermia in CIA custody. "I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that in fact were innocent." Asked whether the 25% margin was too high, Cheney responded, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. ... I'd do it again in a minute."[17]
Liberal columnist Ezra Klein supported California's SB 967 "Affirmative Consent" law with the same reasoning as Cheney's supported "enhanced interrogation techniques". While claiming the law was "terrible" and could be used to punish people who did not commit rape, Klein states "its overreach is precisely its value" and "ugly problems don't always have pretty solutions".[18]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #519  
Old 03-13-2018, 09:13 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Stonebow, there is certainly a real principle here, and not one that is conveniently formulated to get me or my friends off the hook, despite your unwarranted insinuations. Nor is the principle involved novel or “bizarre”. It is certainly your prerogative to disagree with it—and that might be an interesting debate. But you first need to acknowledge that it is a principle in Western thought of very long standing (and if you don’t know that, more’s the pity).

Nearly a thousand years ago, Maimomides put the principle this way: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”
AFAICT, nobody is advocating any changes to the legal principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty. But that doesn't mean that social mechanisms for dealing with certain types of shitty behavior can't change.

In particular, you are flat-out wrong when you assert:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
But as I keep saying, people have the right to act shitty in a lot of ways without being accused of committing a crime.
No, they don't. They have the right to act shitty without being unjustly convicted of having committed a crime that they didn't in fact commit. And if they do in fact get hit with legal penalties for a crime they didn't in fact commit, then their rights are being violated.

But there doesn't exist any legal right not to be suspected or accused by people around you of having committed a crime if your shitty behavior comes across as potentially or probably criminal.

If such accusations rise to the level of slander or libel, you can sue your accusers. But you don't have any right to be guaranteed protection from suspicion or accusation just because you happen to be innocent of actually violating the law.

What's happening now is that certain types of behavior that were formerly normalized as essentially just bad manners or social faux pas are now being condemned as outright intolerable. And the fact that the normalization of such behavior was often used in the past as a screen for actual crime means that a lot of intolerable behavior is now going to be suspected of being actually criminal.

As a longtime ACLU member, I completely agree that none of this should alter anybody's actual constitutional rights. But there is no constitutional right to not have people suspect you of being a rapist, even if you don't in fact happen to be a rapist.
  #520  
Old 03-13-2018, 09:26 PM
raventhief raventhief is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,171
Better a thousand women be raped and not see justice, than one innocent man be unfairly *investigated and cleared by the police*?

Last edited by raventhief; 03-13-2018 at 09:28 PM.
  #521  
Old 03-13-2018, 10:17 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelenTroy View Post
I've been following this topic with growing horror for days. He is wrong about so very many things, but this was one too many! *Laughs and slinks back into obscurity to post links to Bossip and The Root.*
I'm just gonna chime in and concur - Black Twitter is a thing. I've never heard of Feminist Twitter or Gay Twitter, which would be surprising considering the large percentage of my friends that identify as being a part of at least one of those groups.
  #522  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:27 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Kimstu, first off: you strike me as a feminist. How do you feel about this claim (now, to my surprise, coming from two different people) that there’s no “feminist Twitter”?

Anyway, just to clarify: by “rights” I don’t only mean the minimum of protection against incarceration. That’s why I like the Mill quote I posted above. Again:

“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”

So how do you apply this? Take Aziz Ansari. He has not disputed the Babe account of the “worst night of [a 23 year old’s] life”. To me, that makes him a creep (though not a criminal) who deserves social shaming. But let’s say it’s someone else, anonymously accused of full on rape (or robbery, or whatever) and the uncorroborated accusation by a single accuser is widely disseminated online, but he vehemently denies it. To my way of thinking, it’s not ethically right to join the Internet mob who just declares him a criminal, end of story. You just don’t know if it’s bullshit.

I see signs #MeToo, though an important watershed moment in many ways, may be sliding into moral panic territory. I don’t know the full story on Garrison Keillor, for instance, but MPR has not so far demonstrated to my satisfaction that he deserves to have his life and career just wiped away like Winston Smith did to yesterday’s news stories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #523  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:43 PM
raventhief raventhief is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,171
Is sexual assault something in which society "ought not meddle"?

Last edited by raventhief; 03-13-2018 at 11:44 PM.
  #524  
Old 03-14-2018, 12:04 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is a good moment for some quotes from John Stuart Mill’s seminal work On Liberty:
Seminal work for paternalistic racists, you mean - Mill is the epitome of the colonialism apologist, no surprise you admire him:

“Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians provided that the end be their improvement and the means justified by actually effecting that end.”

That's also a quote from On Liberty.

Note that the "barbarians" Mills had at the forefront of his thinking were the Indians - he spent his entire working life in the East India Company - the very engine of British imperialism, which brought the world such benefits of colonialism as the Indian famines and the opium trade. I can see why you are an admirer.
  #525  
Old 03-14-2018, 12:09 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I've backed up my case. There is no reason for people to "jump in" because there really isn't anything else to say on the matter.
FWIW, I think you have made a good case, but a lot of us "visitors" were all sleeping when Slacker started using reverse argumentum ad populum like it was going out of fashion...
  #526  
Old 03-14-2018, 01:49 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Seminal work for paternalistic racists, you mean - Mill is the epitome of the colonialism apologist, no surprise you admire him:
Oh jeez. The liberal* writer Adam Gopnik wrote the following about Mill in The New Yorker (one of the most impeccably fact-checked publications of all time) in 2008:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...06/right-again
Quote:
It is a hard thing, being right about everything all the time. Nobody likes a know-it-all, and we wait for the moment when the know-it-all is wrong to insist that he never really knew anything in the first place. The know-it-all, far from living in smug superiority, has the burden of being right the next time, too. Certainly no one has ever been so right about so many things so much of the time as John Stuart Mill, the nineteenth-century English philosopher, politician, and know-it-all nonpareil...
Mill believed in complete equality between the sexes, not just women’s colleges and, someday, female suffrage but absolute parity; he believed in equal process for all, the end of slavery, votes for the working classes, and the right to birth control (he was arrested at seventeen for helping poor people obtain contraception), and in the common intelligence of all the races of mankind...

At the age of seventeen, he became a clerk at the East India Company, the private corporation that then ran India, and remained at its headquarters in London for thirty-five years, administering Indian affairs at a distance—a servant of British imperialism, but a benevolent kind. (When, later, the government tried to cut funds for Indian colonial colleges teaching Arabic and Sanskrit, Mill fought to keep the practice going, for fear of losing all contact with the élites. “Without knowing the language of a people, we never really know their thoughts, their feelings, and their type of character,” he wrote.)[...]

When, in the eighteen-sixties, the English-appointed governor of Jamaica punished a native uprising with hideous cruelty—the accused were tortured and many hanged, after trumpery trials—Mill led the fight in England against him, chairing a committee to have him tried not for maladministration but for murder. (A committee formed in defense of the governor included Dickens and Carlyle.) When Mill said that his rights were worthless unless everyone else had them, too, he really meant it. His friendship with Carlyle broke only when the Scotsman’s racism became too much for Mill, a passionate abolitionist, to bear.


*Here is the cite for Gopnik’s liberalism:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...trol-amendment



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #527  
Old 03-14-2018, 02:35 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Is sexual assault something in which society "ought not meddle"?
Sigh. Okay, let’s try it like this.

Quote:
Scenario 1: Michael and Hannah are 19-year-old college sophomores. Both of them have led pretty normal lives up to this point, by all accounts. They are reported by peers and teachers to be honest, at least as honest as any normal teenager (maybe a little sneaking around after curfew when they were in high school, or going to college parties that serve alcohol to underage students, that sort of thing).

Michael, Hannah, and various witnesses agree on a few things. The two of them met at just such a party; they had a couple drinks each but weren’t wasted; they made out at the party; they left together. Michael and Hannah agree that they went back to Hannah’s apartment, and that sexual intercourse occurred there. But Hannah went to the police and accused Michael of raping her, while Michael insists the sex was fully consensual.

Hannah was not physically injured, and no one heard anything. But she insists that this was because Michael threatened her with a beating if she didn’t submit to sex. Michael swears that nothing remotely like that happened, although he does say she seemed mad when he left, due to his refusal to give her his number and telling her that he was just out for a hookup that night, and she wasn’t his type as far as being girlfriend material.
Quote:
Scenario 2: Matt and Josh are thirty-year-old former business partners. Their startup went under, putting them both deep in debt, and they each blame the other. Mutual friends describe them both as having stewed over their anger for weeks leading up to “the incident”, but are shocked at the level to which things escalated one night.

At the wedding of a mutual friend, the two began arguing and were seen to go out on the roof of the hotel. No one witnessed what happened next, until passers-by on the street below noticed two men grappling with each other, hands around each other’s necks, leaning precariously close to going off the edge of the roof.

Hotel security ran out on the roof and found them that way, but there was no obvious way to tell who had “started it”, nor was any of the forensic evidence gathered after the fact any help. Both told the same story about the other: “He’s crazy! He tried to kill me, and I only fought back to save my own life.”
The capsule summary of the scenarios (in the media, for instance) would generally be, respectively:

Scenario 1: Michael Jones was accused of raping a 19 year old female student he met at a party (her name is kept anonymous). He has maintained his innocence.

Scenario 2: Matthew Smith and Joshua Anderson have each accused the other of assault and attempted murder related to an incident on the rooftop of a hotel, where they were both attending a wedding.

Note that in Scenario 1, there are two asymmetric aspects: only one of the two of them is named in the media, and there’s a sort of implicit idea that either he’s a sexual predator and she’s an innocent victim (and this is seen as more likely nowadays, whatever the practice in bygone years), or *maybe* his protestations of innocence are valid. But in that latter possibility, unless people really think about it carefully, the implicit idea is that then they are both innocent.

But au contraire: the two scenarios are actually much more similar than it appears. In both cases, two people are each accusing the other of a heinous crime. We have passed the rubicon: there is no way to put this toothpaste back in the tube and get back to a state of mutual innocence. In Scenario 1, Hannah is accusing Michael of a serious crime: rape. But Michael is not only denying this, he is also accusing Hannah of a serious offense, of slandering his name (without having to reveal hers), and putting him in potential jeopardy of serious prison time, a lifelong status as a felon, and certainly a big lawyer bill and a shitload of stress. And she too is (implicitly) maintaining her innocence.

So let’s say the criminal cases in both cases are dropped or dismissed for lack of evidence. Here’s where the social aspect comes in. I assume all of you agree that it would be unfair for large numbers of people, who don’t even know the two people involved, to go around dragging Hannah’s name through the dirt (if they could even discover her identity) as a false accuser. We don’t know her accusation was false, and it would be awful to imagine her being put through that kind of public shaming if she’s truly just an innocent victim.

But why doesn’t the same hold for Michael? Michael may be a monster who brutalized Hannah that day. Or he may be completely innocent, the victim of a malicious smear.* We just don’t know, and we should not make him pay that social price, in case he is innocent.

*That 3% false report statistic, BTW, is not what you all (and nearly everyone) make it out to be. Even if we take it at face value for what it is, it doesn’t mean “97% of women’s allegations are fully substantiated.” That’s impossible: far too often, it really does come down to “he said, she said” in a private moment behind closed doors. So what it actually means is “3% of the time, police find proof that the accuser was lying.”

That’s quite a different thing entirely, as this proof is going to impossible to get in the many cases where the person accused of rape does not deny having sex with the accuser, and there were (as there usually are not, even in this day and age) no witnesses.

So the real number is: (3+x)% of accusations, where x represents all accusations which an omniscient being could tell us are false, but which we otherwise will never know for sure. All we know is that it’s going to be significantly higher than 3%, unless you think there’s something about false accusers that makes them significantly more likely to accidentally provide airtight evidence that they are lying. And that would be a highly dubious supposition that does not fit with any reasonable “prior”, nor with Ockham’s Razor or plain old common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #528  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:17 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Who will speak for the accused rapists?

Aside from the patriarchal culture and society, which has generally protected them for decades and centuries.
  #529  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:33 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Who will speak for the accused rapists?

Implicit in your snark is the assumption that they are guilty. What about those who truly are not? Even if you argue on utilitarian grounds for sweeping then up with the guilty (a valid position, even if one I strongly disagree with), you might have the basic decency not to add insult to injury by holding them up for contemptuous ridicule, on their way to the pen, or at least to career ruin and outcast status.

I mean, you do seem to be liberal/left. Do you not have any sympathy for the decidedly left of center Innocence Project? What happened to the liberal stance on the rights of the accused?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #530  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:38 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Implicit in your snark is the assumption that they are guilty. What about those who truly are not? Even if you argue on utilitarian grounds for sweeping then up with the guilty (a valid position, even if one I strongly disagree with), you might have the basic decency not to add insult to injury by holding them up for contemptuous ridicule, on their way to the pen, or at least to career ruin and outcast status.

I mean, you do seem to be liberal/left. Do you not have any sympathy for the decidedly left of center Innocence Project? What happened to the liberal stance on the rights of the accused?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I certainly have sympathy for the falsely accused. I think that being falsely accused of rape is very rare, and having a false accusation of rape do significant harm is even rarer.
And I think that society generally protects accused rapists far, far more than it protects accusers. This might be just starting to change, hopefully.
  #531  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:46 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
How can you say “very rare”? 3% is already not that rare (more likely than rolling snake eyes with two dice); and I don’t see how you can dispute my logic as to why the true number must be significantly higher (but if you think you can, let’s hear it).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #532  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:48 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
How can you say “very rare”? 3% is already not that rare (more likely than rolling snake eyes with two dice); and I don’t see how you can dispute my logic as to why the true number must be significantly higher (but if you think you can, let’s hear it).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I couldn't find your cite.
  #533  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:49 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Also, how is publicity for the accused and anonymity for the accuser evidence that society has been protecting the former far more than the latter? Stop mindlessly regurgitating these talking points and engage with facts and logic, man!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #534  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:50 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I couldn't find your cite.

It was the number given upthread by someone arguing your side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #535  
Old 03-14-2018, 04:59 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
I’m glad you spurred me to find my own numbers. Others in this thread may not be so appreciative (“Thanks a lot, Andy!”). Per Wikipedia:

Quote:
In March 2017 a new research on the prevalence of false rape allegations in the United States in the period 2006-2010 was published on the Journal of Forensic Psychology. The goal of the research was to obtain recent figures of the prevalence of unfounded allegations of rape and compare to unfounded allegations of other crimes. According to the data provided by the FBI, about 5000 allegations of rape every year corresponding to an average 5.55% of the allegations of rape were deemed false or baseless after investigation. That was at least five times higher than for most other offence types. Cases of disputed consent were not included in the results as they were subject to judicial review in court.[7]
My mathematical/logical point from upthread still applies in that there is a huge group of cases we can never know how many of which are false; but certainly it has to be some of them. But even if it’s just 5 1/2%, that is far from “very rare”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #536  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:05 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Note also that “five times higher” than other crime reports. Meaning, instead of “believe women” (who report rape), we should be much more skeptical of them than people—male or female—who report other crimes. I am actually shocked to learn this, and appalled—in part because it does a disservice not just to the men falsely accused, but to the woman who are honestly reporting real assaults!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-14-2018 at 05:06 AM.
  #537  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:23 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Also, how is publicity for the accused and anonymity for the accuser evidence that society has been protecting the former far more than the latter? Stop mindlessly regurgitating these talking points and engage with facts and logic, man!
I'm unaware that all accusations become public.

As for the 5.5%, "false or baseless" doesn't necessarily = malicious or dishonest. And considering our history and our society, I'm not sure if numbers like this tell us much more than police conclusions in the Jim Crow South told us about crime by black people.
  #538  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:45 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
You ask for a cite, then dismiss it when it hurts your argument. Whatever, dude.

And yes: anyone being booked on a criminal charge is a matter of public record, which used to get routinely reported in the newspaper, in the “police blotter”, even if not covered elsewhere in the paper.

Could the Internet age afford more anonymity? The information is still public record, but your grandma might not— well, scratch that: your grandma still reads the newspaper. Maybe I should say your niece might not see it because she doesn’t read through the newspaper.

On the other hand, rape arrests are still fairly big news unless you are in a very large city. So they are likely to make the TV news, and whatever local online sources you look at on Facebook. And of course, if even one person in a social network sees it, it will spread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #539  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:04 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Oh jeez. The liberal* writer Adam Gopnik wrote the following about Mill in The New Yorker
That's nice, and all, but what in it says that Mill didn't write what I quoted?

And personally, I don't give a shit if you think he was the "benevolent kind" of British imperialist flunky. That's just code for paternalistic racist oppresion vs any other kind. He directly said that the people that his own administration lorded it over were like children:
Quote:
For the same reason we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end perhaps otherwise unattainable.
  #540  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:10 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 22,522
Oh, one other thing - I also don't give a fuck about the "liberal" bona fides of anyone you cite. We don't all march in lockstep, you idiot.
  #541  
Old 03-14-2018, 06:12 AM
HelenTroy HelenTroy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Why would they have to be “the force of black twitter” to be “things”? There are a lot of feminists and gay people you are dismissing here. How is it that the Knight Foundation (which hopefully you’re less ignorant about) has a report on Feminist Twitter, with fancy graphics and scholarly reports, if it is “not a thing”? Jesus. Just because you are familiar with Black Twitter and apparently not familiar with the others, does not give you the right to dismiss them as not existing. FFS
I'm not dismissing the existence of feminists or gay people on twitter. What a silly thing to say, especially after I believe I mentioned they existed. There is a difference between feminists on twitter or discussions of feminist topics on twitter, two very real things, and Feminist Twitter. Same for gay people/topics on twitter.

Also, the fact you are pearl-clutching over the terminology I use is adorable in its complete lack of awareness of current linguistics. Lol.

You are intensely unable to discuss things with nuance, unless of course you're being a rape or sexual assault apologist and then you have all the nuance in the world to dismiss every scenario that doesn't fit the very narrow definition you've decided on for both.

~Insert Rihanna rolling up her window gif here.~
  #542  
Old 03-14-2018, 07:14 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You ask for a cite, then dismiss it when it hurts your argument. Whatever, dude.

And yes: anyone being booked on a criminal charge is a matter of public record, which used to get routinely reported in the newspaper, in the “police blotter”, even if not covered elsewhere in the paper.

Could the Internet age afford more anonymity? The information is still public record, but your grandma might not— well, scratch that: your grandma still reads the newspaper. Maybe I should say your niece might not see it because she doesn’t read through the newspaper.

On the other hand, rape arrests are still fairly big news unless you are in a very large city. So they are likely to make the TV news, and whatever local online sources you look at on Facebook. And of course, if even one person in a social network sees it, it will spread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I asked for a cite because there was no cite. Once there's a cite, then I can actually look at it, evaluate it, and respond to it, which is what I did. And I don't believe that the police concluding that a certain amount of allegations are false or baseless tells us much about how common maliciously false rape accusations (and I assume you're concerned about maliciously false accusations, as opposed to mistaken identity or honestly different recollections of an event, right?).

As for arrests going public, that's not what was being discussed. You said or implied that with accusations, the accused becomes public while the accuser does not. I'm highly skeptical of this.
  #543  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:05 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
If I were the one so ignorant about such a basic fact, people would be having a field day. Have you never read a news story about a rape case?

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...anonymity.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #544  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:07 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If I were the one so ignorant about such a basic fact, people would be having a field day. Have you never read a news story about a rape case?

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...anonymity.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This doesn't conflict with anything I said. I remain skeptical of your claim that any time someone is accused of rape, the accusation and the name of the accused becomes public. If that's not your claim, then I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-14-2018 at 08:08 AM.
  #545  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:18 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
Looks like you’re being slippery to cover for some embarrassment, but whatever. Maybe if you reflect on some of these facts I’m providing you, you might change your position some.

But yes: arrests are a matter of public record, even if prosecutors ultimately decide not to go to trial. Hence the asymmetric nature of the accusations in this scenario I laid out. One person is not really being meaningfully accused in a public sense because no one knows who she is. The other one is very publicly being accused, but without the public having the chance to evaluate the credibility of the accuser.

But I forgot: somehow everything is tilted in favor of the man in this situation, in some nebulous way.

BTW, Dibble: kudos for bringing us back to colonialism at least. Your purity test illustrates very well my complaint from so many pages back about not viewing colonialism with all its shades of gray. If you don’t understand that the people being colonized were better off with more colonizers like Mill and fewer who were out for exploitation and cruelty, I don’t know what to tell you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #546  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:24 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Looks like you’re being slippery to cover for some embarrassment, but whatever. Maybe if you reflect on some of these facts I’m providing you, you might change your position some.
You're jumping all over the place because so many of your claims are bullshit (or, at best, unsupported). I make a point of being pretty specific, and you haven't actually refuted anything I've said.

Quote:
But yes: arrests are a matter of public record, even if prosecutors ultimately decide not to go to trial. Hence the asymmetric nature of the accusations in this scenario I laid out. One person is not really being meaningfully accused in a public sense because no one knows who she is. The other one is very publicly being accused, but without the public having the chance to evaluate the credibility of the accuser.
So what? This doesn't dispute anything I've said. Tons of accusations never lead to arrests.

Quote:
But I forgot: somehow everything is tilted in favor of the man in this situation, in some nebulous way.
Yes, I get that you are unconcerned by the overwhelming amount of women who have been raped or assaulted and never received justice, but terribly worried by the very tiny number of falsely accused men whose lives were adversely affected. It doesn't reflect well on you, and I think you should rethink that.

Quote:
BTW, Dibble: kudos for bringing us back to colonialism at least. Your purity test illustrates very well my complaint from so many pages back about not viewing colonialism with all its shades of gray. If you don’t understand that the people being colonized were better off with more colonizers like Mill and fewer who were out for exploitation and cruelty, I don’t know what to tell you.
They would have been far, far better off without any colonizers at all. Might as well defend slavery by pointing out that some slave owners didn't routinely rape their slaves.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-14-2018 at 08:24 AM.
  #547  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:30 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,564
FFS. Did you read the excerpt from the New Yorker piece? All those strong progressive positions in the middle of the 19th fucking century, but you’re just going to dismiss him because he’s not quite in tune with what a woke person in 2018 would think.

Yet the vast majority of modern day Muslims’ beliefs are much further from this ideal, but they get a pass from TWC, apparently solely because of their complexion and hair texture. It’s absurd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #548  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:36 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
FFS. Did you read the excerpt from the New Yorker piece? All those strong progressive positions in the middle of the 19th fucking century, but you’re just going to dismiss him because he’s not quite in tune with what a woke person in 2018 would think.
Where did I dismiss him or his beliefs? You used Mill to defend colonialism (or one type of colonialism). That's like defending certain types of slavery. Mill may have had many admirable qualities, and views that were particularly progressive for his time, but he still said things (paternalistic and racist things) in support of colonialism and imperialism, and it's entirely reasonable to criticize him for these things.

Quote:
Yet the vast majority of modern day Muslims’ beliefs are much further from this ideal, but they get a pass from TWC, apparently solely because of their complexion and hair texture. It’s absurd.
Not sure who TWC is, and I don't know what you're talking about.
  #549  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:51 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Nope! I said stop!
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 18,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post







Not sure who TWC is, and I don't know what you're talking about.

He’s not getting traction on his move from colonialism to false rape accusations, so now he’ll try anti-Muslim bigotry and see how that works.
  #550  
Old 03-14-2018, 08:55 AM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 12,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post



Not sure who TWC is, and I don't know what you're talking about.
One of these.
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 06:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017