In the quoted post, I am expressing an opinion. It may be an *unpopular *opinion, but that in itself does not, in my book, rise to “jerk-ness”.
What test could a neutral observer apply to determine that this post is “jerky” and not simply "unpopular?
Cool. So which rule is being violated? Which words violate the rule? How?
You assumed that assault victims are probably lying, then you connected that to sexual assault victims. That’s about as far as I can go without junior modding or getting modded myself.
There is no test. If you’re so out of tune with what’s considered jerky behavior–a term deliberately left vague in the rules–I recommend a different community.
See, this is a post that I consider “jerk-ish”. You personally insult me by claiming I would be unable to understand any rule you give, and suggest I leave the board.
Also this post is personally aimed at me.
I’m not going to report this post, but do you see how you have been a jerk?
So you turn around and do the exact same thing you’re accusing LHod of.
Assault victims, in inner city ERs, who claim to have been jumped by 2 or more guys who claim to have done nothing, are usually lying.
Sexual assault victims who wait 37 years to come forward and happen to have a story that is corroborated by nobody and is maximally damaging sounds like a lie. It also sounds improbable to be the truth - human memory is crap even in the short term.
There are physical assault victims from inner city suburbs who in fact were doing nothing and were attacked, and sexual assault victims who are telling the actual truth and not a one-sided version of it…but both are unlikely.
But anyways this is just my well developed opinion based on experience in ERs and dealing with liars. I guess I can’t express it.
And there you go again.
Expressing an opinion is “there you go again”? That’s what I think. Just elaborating in more detail.
Do what? I point out how LHod is being a jerk. How is this also being a jerk?
In our country, it is not at all unbelievable that someone would wait 37 years before coming forward, because the reaction you demonstrated discourages women from coming forward. This is a huge problem today, and was even bigger 37 years ago. Only one in three rapes is ever reported, by the most generous estimates.
Ignoring all of this and declaring these women to be liars IS jerkish.
Shouldn’t you quote your post that earned you the first warning for being a jerk?
IMO, this clearly deserves a warning.
However, I don’t think your second warning was called for.
Where did I say “these women” are all liars? I don’t believe Ford from reviewing the evidence. I think she’s an obvious liar given the suspicious story and timing. Also I think anyone reporting any crime more than a few weeks after it happened should also provide corroborating witnesses and/or evidence to be believed. This is because we know from decades of research that human memory is poor quality and biased, especially if more than a few weeks have passed.
I am actually somewhat agreeing. I meant to post:
How about we go a step further. Unless we have an equal representation of all races and genders this means the mod pool is biased. Let’s actively discriminate against mod applicants who are of over represented races and genders in favor of under-represented races and genders. Who we should lower the bar for
Now, yeah, in this particular situation, women/minorities are likely under-represented. I don’t know, there’s no photos of the mods anywhere. But I assume they are all old white guys.
Did you really just double down on the suggestion that women and minorities would need “the bar to be lowered” if they want to be moderators? :smack:
Since the OP has been banned, this is closed.