NeoGAF forum owner accused of Sexual Misconduct

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

As mentioned in a recent reply, the general consensus from ethically sound studies is that false rape accusations are in single-digit percentages.  Studies with higher figures usually either have problematic methodology or are conflating merely unproven cases with false ones.  And that's rape, not groping, catcalling, sex under pressure (such as the "casting couch") and other horrible acts.

There are several things wrong with using those statistics and claiming that it's single-digit percentages.

1) Even if it's single digit percentages, that's still high. Much higher than other crimes (which FBI puts at around 2%). Most reports seems to put it in the high single digits range. So even if we just go by those statistics, we should assume that about 1 in ~12 women who claim to have been raped are lying. That's really, really bad.

 

2) Some of those statistics are old, and a lot of things seems to have changed in recent years. I can't remember "rape" being thrown around as lightly 10-15 years ago as it is today. You can't deny that the feminazi movement are throwing around rape and sexual harassment claims left and right. I can find a ton of videos of it if you don't believe me.

 

3) That does not look into allegations made against people in power. There is a possibility that people in power gets falsely accused of rape more often than other people, because of the potential "reward" for the one accusing them.

 

4) It only looks into people that actually reported it to the police. A lot of people who claim to have been raped are people on social media which never reported it to the police. My guess is that the percentage of false rape allegations are higher among social media posts than actual court cases. There is a lot higher risk of being caught lying if you bring someone to court than if you just post it on facebook or twitter.

 

5) Because of the common mentality you showed earlier, that you assume people accused of rape are guilty even when there is a lack of evidence, there is a high possibility that a lot of innocent people have been sentenced for rape even though they are innocent. Those people will show up in the statistics as true positives instead of false positives.

 

6) The definition of rape varies a lot. In some countries it has a very strict definition, and in some it's rather loose. I haven't looked over a list of which countries has the highest and lowest number of false rape claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a strong correlation between low % of false rape charges, and loose definitions of rape.

For example in Sweden, you could be charged with rape if you have sex with someone who is intoxicated, even if they say yes and is provoking you. I am not saying loose definitions of rape is bad, but there are different opinions of what should and shouldn't be classified as rape, and that most likely plays a major role in what is and isn't classified as a false rape accusation.

 

 

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Also: I'm sorry, but "she was drunk" is never an excuse.  If she's not sober enough to reliably give or refuse consent, and you force yourself on her, it's sexual assault.  No exceptions.

I am not talking about being so drunk that they could not give consent. Obvious if someone is passed out and you have sex with them it's rape.

I mean they were drunk, provoking and agreeing to sex, and then once they sobered up they regretted it. If you start making out with someone and then willingly lead them back home and let them into your bedroom then you shouldn't turn around a few months or years later and say it was rape just because you now regret it, but that happens.

 

 

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

It's that there needs to be a fundamental shift in how many men see women, and that we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that only a handful of women have encountered harassment or assault.  It's far more common than we frequently care to admit.

I can agree with that, but at the same time I think there needs to be a fundamental shift in how the general public sees men as well.

Even you brought up specifically male-on-female sexual assault. If we look at all sexual assaults including ones counting "made to penetrate" (which is to say, someone being forced to penetrate someone else) as rape, the victim is a fairly even split between men and women (with women often being the perpetrators against men too).

Right now it seems like everyone is just throwing all common sense out the window, on both sides.

I am sure a lot of people on both sides had already made their minds up regarding this case as soon as they had read the headline.

I think things like #metoo is harmful to that goal because, like I said, by bundling rape victims together with someone being called sexy by a stranger you trivialize actual issues in an attempt to make a minor inconvenience seem like an actual problem. Again, to me it's an insult to actual victims.

 

 

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

When did I say this applied to court?  Of course jurists should keep an open mind, and if you've definitively made up your mind, you shouldn't be included in a trial.  The whole point is that us in the general public should be inclined to trust women who make plausible accusations of sexual assault.  Not just because sexual predators count on the public to preserve their reputations, but because evidence suggests that most claims are legitimate and that these women desperately need support.

I don't see why the general public should be inclined to trust women who make accusations of sexual assaults but jurist shouldn't. I think you should always approach allegations as if you were on a jury. You should always keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions without evidence.

Also, you keep bringing up women as if only they can be victims, but the fact of the matter is that they are often the perpetrators and we should treat accusations equally regardless of the genders involved.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

For example in Sweden, you could be charged with rape if you have sex with someone who is intoxicated, even if they say yes and is provoking you. I am not saying loose definitions of rape is bad, but there are different opinions of what should and shouldn't be classified as rape, and that most likely plays a major role in what is and isn't classified as a false rape accusation.

I think this is the same in the US. Not familiar with the law details but our University has a mandatory consent and drug lesson (Online) that we need to take before you can even start lectures (If you don't take it, you're put on hold and cannot attend a single lesson until so.) and it suggested that being slightly drunk, a person cannot give consent. (Thus it being rape)

[Jito463]

9 minutes ago, tjcater said:

I think this is the same in the US. Not familiar with the law details but our University has a mandatory consent and drug lesson (Online) that we need to take before you can even start lectures (If you don't take it, you're put on hold and cannot attend a single lesson until so.) and it suggested that being slightly drunk, a person cannot give consent. (Thus it being rape)

Your university may have such a policy, but Ive never heard of any such law being implemented.

 

In regards to the posts from others, there is a very simple method to deter these events from occurring: Don't treat sex casually.  People have got it in their heads that sex is no different than grabbing a bite to eat with someone.  It's meant to be something precious that should be shared between a husband and wife, not casually bandied about like it was of no consequence.

 

I know I'll be accused of being 'puritanical' or 'Victorian' in my views, but I can say that I've never once been accused of rape or harassment and I don't have any illegitimate children in my 40+ years of life, so take my position as you will.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Your university may have such a policy, but Ive never heard of any such law being implemented.

Might be how my state handles rape then instead of the whole US. (I think, could still be wrong again.)

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Your university may have such a policy, but Ive never heard of any such law being implemented.

 

In regards to the posts from others, there is a very simple method to deter these events from occurring: Don't treat sex casually.  People have got it in their heads that sex is no different than grabbing a bite to eat with someone.  It's meant to be something precious that should be shared between a husband and wife, not casually bandied about like it was of no consequence.

 

I know I'll be accused of being 'puritanical' or 'Victorian' in my views, but I can say that I've never once been accused of rape or harassment and I don't have any illegitimate children in my 40+ years of life, so take my position as you will.

Sex between two consenting adults does not require marriage or any other ceremony or legal bond.

 

Also, frankly, rape can and does happen between married people as well. Just because you're married, doesn't mean you have to 100% accept every time your partner wants sex (and this goes both ways for the male and female - or two males, or two females, etc).

 

Casual sex is not in-and-of-itself wrong or bad. People making questionable choices with who they have casual sex with is no excuse for one party to force themselves upon the other.

 

Now with that in mind, there is a minority subset of people who believe rape can be as simple as changing your mind afterwards - that's not okay. If you gave consent at the time, you gave consent. You can't undue consent after the act has already been completed. You can undue consent during the act though (Eg: You wanted it at the start but halfway through you change your mind).

[Jito463]

Just now, tjcater said:

Might be how my state handles rape then instead of the whole US. (I think, could still be wrong again.)

I'd have to research it (since I'm not from Mississippi), but I doubt that's an actual state law.  Though I could see some activist judge making such a claim in a case, and it being used as precedence by others.  As I said though, I'd have to research it some more.

[Volbet]

29 minutes ago, tjcater said:

I think this is the same in the US. Not familiar with the law details but our University has a mandatory consent and drug lesson (Online) that we need to take before you can even start lectures (If you don't take it, you're put on hold and cannot attend a single lesson until so.) and it suggested that being slightly drunk, a person cannot give consent. (Thus it being rape)

That's sounds more like a campus policy than an actual law. 

It's not really uncommon for large campus' (whatever the fuck the plural of that is) to create some kind of rule set for student-to-student conduct. 

Although, I will say that the "to drunk to drive, to drunk to give consent" - rule is a bit conservative and too generalized.

 

I remember there was a trial where I live that dealt with this question about a year ago, and the court basically came to the conclusion that the basis of consent is to be judged case-to-case basis. 

 

20 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

It's meant to be something precious that should be shared between a husband and wife, not casually bandied about like it was of no consequence.

That sounds awfully boring and inconvenient. 

What if you marry a person and the two of you aren't sexually compatible?

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Casual sex is not in-and-of-itself wrong or bad.

1 minute ago, Volbet said:

That sounds awfully boring and inconvenient. 

What if you marry a person and the two of you aren't sexually compatible?

I'm not going to waste a lot of time to defend my personal opinion (since it being my opinion, it requires no defense).  Having said that, if two people truly come to love each other enough to commit to one another for life (which is what marriage is meant to be, a lifelong commitment), then I don't see any issues that would arise in regards to what takes place in the bedroom.  Sex isn't the point of marriage, it's a benefit.

 

And on that note, I've stated my opinion and why I believe it.  You can choose to agree or disagree (I knew it would be unpopular with some many when I posted it), I won't bother responding further on the matter so as not to clutter the topic.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'd have to research it (since I'm not from Mississippi), but I doubt that's an actual state law.  Though I could see some activist judge making such a claim in a case, and it being used as precedence by others.  As I said though, I'd have to research it some more.

 

18 minutes ago, Volbet said:

That's sounds more like a campus policy than an actual law. 

It's not really uncommon for large campus' (whatever the fuck the plural of that is) to create some kind of rule set for student-to-student conduct. 

Although, I will say that the "to drunk to drive, to drunk to give consent" - rule is a bit conservative and too generalized.

 

I remember there was a trial where I live that dealt with this question about a year ago, and the court basically came to the conclusion that the basis of consent is to be based on a case-to-case basis. 

After searching a bit, this seems likely as I couldn't find anything (Especially while filtering out things related to DUI and age of consent from the results so a slight chance that I may have missed something)

[yian88]

more feminist fake rape accusations

[Zes]

6 minutes ago, yian88 said:

more feminist fake rape accusations

No rape reported, and you can't confirm that either.

[dalekphalm]

30 minutes ago, yian88 said:

more feminist fake rape accusations

How would you even know if they are fake or not?

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There are several things wrong with using those statistics and claiming that it's single-digit percentages.

1) Even if it's single digit percentages, that's still high. Much higher than other crimes (which FBI puts at around 2%). Most reports seems to put it in the high single digits range. So even if we just go by those statistics, we should assume that about 1 in ~12 women who claim to have been raped are lying. That's really, really bad.

 

2) Some of those statistics are old, and a lot of things seems to have changed in recent years. I can't remember "rape" being thrown around as lightly 10-15 years ago as it is today. You can't deny that the feminazi movement are throwing around rape and sexual harassment claims left and right. I can find a ton of videos of it if you don't believe me.

 

3) That does not look into allegations made against people in power. There is a possibility that people in power gets falsely accused of rape more often than other people, because of the potential "reward" for the one accusing them.

 

4) It only looks into people that actually reported it to the police. A lot of people who claim to have been raped are people on social media which never reported it to the police. My guess is that the percentage of false rape allegations are higher among social media posts than actual court cases. There is a lot higher risk of being caught lying if you bring someone to court than if you just post it on facebook or twitter.

 

5) Because of the common mentality you showed earlier, that you assume people accused of rape are guilty even when there is a lack of evidence, there is a high possibility that a lot of innocent people have been sentenced for rape even though they are innocent. Those people will show up in the statistics as true positives instead of false positives.

 

6) The definition of rape varies a lot. In some countries it has a very strict definition, and in some it's rather loose. I haven't looked over a list of which countries has the highest and lowest number of false rape claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a strong correlation between low % of false rape charges, and loose definitions of rape.

For example in Sweden, you could be charged with rape if you have sex with someone who is intoxicated, even if they say yes and is provoking you. I am not saying loose definitions of rape is bad, but there are different opinions of what should and shouldn't be classified as rape, and that most likely plays a major role in what is and isn't classified as a false rape accusation.

 

 

I am not talking about being so drunk that they could not give consent. Obvious if someone is passed out and you have sex with them it's rape.

I mean they were drunk, provoking and agreeing to sex, and then once they sobered up they regretted it. If you start making out with someone and then willingly lead them back home and let them into your bedroom then you shouldn't turn around a few months or years later and say it was rape just because you now regret it, but that happens.

 

 

I can agree with that, but at the same time I think there needs to be a fundamental shift in how the general public sees men as well.

Even you brought up specifically male-on-female sexual assault. If we look at all sexual assaults including ones counting "made to penetrate" (which is to say, someone being forced to penetrate someone else) as rape, the victim is a fairly even split between men and women (with women often being the perpetrators against men too).

Right now it seems like everyone is just throwing all common sense out the window, on both sides.

I am sure a lot of people on both sides had already made their minds up regarding this case as soon as they had read the headline.

I think things like #metoo is harmful to that goal because, like I said, by bundling rape victims together with someone being called sexy by a stranger you trivialize actual issues in an attempt to make a minor inconvenience seem like an actual problem. Again, to me it's an insult to actual victims.

 

 

I don't see why the general public should be inclined to trust women who make accusations of sexual assaults but jurist shouldn't. I think you should always approach allegations as if you were on a jury. You should always keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions without evidence.

Also, you keep bringing up women as if only they can be victims, but the fact of the matter is that they are often the perpetrators and we should treat accusations equally regardless of the genders involved.

I'm going to keep this short and sweet because I think I'd otherwise be harping on minor details.

 

The point is not to assume guilt.  It's to be inclined to believe a woman when she makes these accusations.  There's an important distinction.  That means you take their claims seriously; that means you offer compassion and support if there are signs of trauma; and it definitely means you don't start throwing counter-accusations at women without reasonable suspicions that something isn't right.

 

And sorry, but 90% of rape victims in the US are women.  Pew Research has conducted studies for a few years showing that women are far more likely to face sexual harassment online.  And of course, when's the last time you saw women catcalling guys or blocking their path to insist on a phone number?  The simple reality is that sexual harassment and rape are disproportionately targeted at women, and pretending that it's somehow evenly split is an insult to women.

 

Also, pro tip: if you ever want women or male supporters to be receptive to an argument, you don't use "feminazi."  Ever.  That's Godwin's Law applied to gender relations; you've automatically lost because you've demonized everyone who claims to be a feminist, no matter how moderate their views actually are.

[JuNex03]

22 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Also, pro tip: if you ever want women or male supporters to be receptive to an argument, you don't use "feminazi."  Ever.  That's Godwin's Law applied to gender relations; you've automatically lost because you've demonized everyone who claims to be a feminist, no matter how moderate their views actually are.

"feminazi" =\= "feminists", and I don't think that that @LAwLz was referring to the latter.

[apm]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

How would you even know if they are fake or not?

you cant.  

neither provide any proof and obviously didnt go to the police.

[Zes]

12 minutes ago, apm said:

you cant.  

neither provide any proof and obviously didnt go to the police.

Not going to the police doesn't mean it didn't happen, a lot of women are afraid they won't be taken seriously. Here in Argentina it's quite common to even hear about police mocking the woman or justifying the abuser. It's sickening.

[Sauron]

On 10/23/2017 at 9:13 PM, knightslugger said:

Question #1: Why was she nekkid in the first place?

Question #2: If she was that distraught about it, and he was just being too Alpha, and it was genuinely unwanted advances, why didn't she contact authorities right then and there?

Question #3: (In reference to the grope at the bar) What ever happened to consent? If I ask for something in return for buying a drink for someone, whatever that may be, and that other person AGREES... then what the flucking shot does she have to be upset about?

1) Apparently she was taking a shower, the guy just walked in.

2) She claims she was scared, since the guy had given her a lift there and was her only way home. As a semi-famous individual, apparently he was also influential enough to potentially get back at her if she moved against him explicitly. In other words, she was afraid of making things worse for herself by contacting the authorities immediately.

3) You misunderstood - HE consented to buy her a drink. Then, he proceeded to grab her butt for... reasons. At no point the woman said he could grope her in exchange for the drink, she just asked him to offer her a drink. Whatever the "implications" of asking a stranger for a drink, groping her on the spot without asking is not justifiable.

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, Commodus said:

As mentioned in a recent reply, the general consensus from ethically sound studies is that false rape accusations are in single-digit percentages.  Studies with higher figures usually either have problematic methodology or are conflating merely unproven cases with false ones.  And that's rape, not groping, catcalling, sex under pressure (such as the "casting couch") and other horrible acts.

 

Also: I'm sorry, but "she was drunk" is never an excuse.  If she's not sober enough to reliably give or refuse consent, and you force yourself on her, it's sexual assault.  No exceptions.

 

I think you misunderstood what #metoo is about.  It's not about the specific gravity of each case; it's about pointing out how many women have dealt with sexual harassment or assault in their lifetimes.  Rape is far more grave than catcalling, to be sure, but that's not the point.  It's that there needs to be a fundamental shift in how many men see women, and that we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that only a handful of women have encountered harassment or assault.  It's far more common than we frequently care to admit.

 

I know what the justice system entails, and I'm not saying that you should make a definitive conclusion.  Rather, it's that sexual assault allegations are more often than not true based on both stats and, frankly, the pervasive nature of male-on-female sexual harassment and assault.  You should be inclined to believe a plausible accusation, even though it's important to verify the claim.  Part of why the Harvey Weinsteins of the world get away with their crimes is because they're counting on others to back them up, to cast those doubts and make their victims look like liars and money grabbers.  Hell, remember the Brock Turner case?  Even though he was caught in the act, the judge and his parents were more concerned about his future than the lifetime of trauma he inflicted on the woman he raped.  If we lean toward trusting women, we discourage harassment and rape by guys who might otherwise assume they'll have public support.

I agree that you should always take accusations like these serious and should investigate it thoroughly. You still need evidence never the less. Also the whole drunk thing is a very hard thing to say is rape. If both parties are drunk and neither can technically consent then did they rape each other? I mean bottom line is that is a very grey area and should be treated as such. I mean if a girl comes on to you while they are drunk and regret it in the morning is it the guys fault for not refusing? I mean it seems unfair to simplify it to if a girl is drunk and you have sex with them then it's rape. I mean I know plenty of guys who have gotten drunk and ended up having sex with a girl and really regretted it then next day. Does that mean those women raped them because technically they couldn't consent as they were thoroughly drunk?

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

I'm going to keep this short and sweet because I think I'd otherwise be harping on minor details.

 

The point is not to assume guilt.  It's to be inclined to believe a woman when she makes these accusations.  There's an important distinction.  That means you take their claims seriously; that means you offer compassion and support if there are signs of trauma; and it definitely means you don't start throwing counter-accusations at women without reasonable suspicions that something isn't right.

 

And sorry, but 90% of rape victims in the US are women.  Pew Research has conducted studies for a few years showing that women are far more likely to face sexual harassment online.  And of course, when's the last time you saw women catcalling guys or blocking their path to insist on a phone number?  The simple reality is that sexual harassment and rape are disproportionately targeted at women, and pretending that it's somehow evenly split is an insult to women.

 

Also, pro tip: if you ever want women or male supporters to be receptive to an argument, you don't use "feminazi."  Ever.  That's Godwin's Law applied to gender relations; you've automatically lost because you've demonized everyone who claims to be a feminist, no matter how moderate their views actually are.

The thing about a guy getting raped is that they won't report it. Saying that it's only 10% is way too low. Also often times it's male on male but never the less it happens more often than what is reported. Also I am not sure why it matters who gets targeted more? Rape is rape regardless of who it happens to.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

The thing about a guy getting raped is that they won't report it. Saying that it's only 10% is way too low. Also often times it's male on male but never the less it happens more often than what is reported. Also I am not sure why it matters who gets targeted more? Rape is rape regardless of who it happens to.

When most of it is committed against women, it reflects something more than just statistics -- it reflects a pervasive culture that fosters that kind of behavior.  It's what you get when guys feel they're 'owed' something for buying a woman a drink.  When they think "she was asking for it" because she showed cleavage or got drunk.  When a boss corners them and implies that they won't move up the ranks unless they sleep with him.  And to tie this all back, when guys will bend over backwards to defend unfamiliar men against sex crimes because they're more interested in protecting a man's reputation than the truth.

 

Also, I wouldn't expect the rape ratios to change too much if you could count unreported crimes.  We know that most rape is male-on-female, right?  Well, as of 2014, the US estimated that just under 35 percent of sexual assaults are reported.  In other words, the number of male-on-female assaults is drastically underreported, too.  It's hard to say for sure how the ratios would work out, but it's doubtful that there would be a tidal shift that suddenly makes female-on-male or male-on-male rape nearly as serious an issue.

[Brooksie359]

15 minutes ago, Commodus said:

When most of it is committed against women, it reflects something more than just statistics -- it reflects a pervasive culture that fosters that kind of behavior.  It's what you get when guys feel they're 'owed' something for buying a woman a drink.  When they think "she was asking for it" because she showed cleavage or got drunk.  When a boss corners them and implies that they won't move up the ranks unless they sleep with him.  And to tie this all back, when guys will bend over backwards to defend unfamiliar men against sex crimes because they're more interested in protecting a man's reputation than the truth.

 

Also, I wouldn't expect the rape ratios to change too much if you could count unreported crimes.  We know that most rape is male-on-female, right?  Well, as of 2014, the US estimated that just under 35 percent of sexual assaults are reported.  In other words, the number of male-on-female assaults is drastically underreported, too.  It's hard to say for sure how the ratios would work out, but it's doubtful that there would be a tidal shift that suddenly makes female-on-male or male-on-male rape nearly as serious an issue.

men typically deal with emotions differently than women. Admitting to being raped as a man is demasculinizing. most men will avoid this just like they would avoid showing most types of vulnerability. I mean when women endure emotional distress they usually develop anxiety or depression which would lead to seeking help. men on the other hand tend to develop addiction issues trying to self medicate and avoid the issue. this makes women far more likely to report compared to men.

[apm]

4 hours ago, Zes said:

Not going to the police doesn't mean it didn't happen, a lot of women are afraid they won't be taken seriously. Here in Argentina it's quite common to even hear about police mocking the woman or justifying the abuser. It's sickening.

listen and believe doesnt work for me, either the victim goes to the cops and gets checked out by a doctor asap or nothing will happen.

rape is pretty hard to proof, but its still innocent until proven guilty.

[Derangel]

44 minutes ago, apm said:

listen and believe doesnt work for me, either the victim goes to the cops and gets checked out by a doctor asap or nothing will happen.

rape is pretty hard to proof, but its still innocent until proven guilty.

Situations like this very rarely get reported. For one simple reason: It is nearly impossible for there to be a conviction or any real chance that the police will take further action. Even if the police take further action all the other party has to do is deny it or say there was consent and that's it. These situations provide zero proof beyond he said-she said. When add in the fact that both of them had been drinking that makes it even more likely that the police will just toss the report into a file somewhere and forget about the moment the person walks out the door. Rape and other forms of sexual assault are actually easier to prove since there is a much higher chance of evidence existing beyond a simple claim, especially if the victim reports it right away.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

The point is not to assume guilt.  It's to be inclined to believe a woman when she makes these accusations.  There's an important distinction.  That means you take their claims seriously; that means you offer compassion and support if there are signs of trauma; and it definitely means you don't start throwing counter-accusations at women without reasonable suspicions that something isn't right.

I agree that accusations should be taken seriously and investigated. You should not assume that a woman is lying when accusing someone of rape. But likewise, you should not assume someone who is accused of rape is guilty without evidence.

 

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

And sorry, but 90% of rape victims in the US are women. 

That study is flawed because it only looks at the amount of reported cases, which will not include things such as rape in prisons (which is so common it's become a widely accepted joke with "don't drop the soap!"), the statistics are over 17 years old (it has gotten a lot more common with men reporting rape these days, thanks to a greater awareness and acceptance) and chances are it does not count "forced to penetrate", since some definitions of rape only includes being penetrated.

 

I agree with you that women gets more sexual harassment online. I don't think there is anyone debating that. The total amount of harassment received will probably be fairly equally split though.

 

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

Also, pro tip: if you ever want women or male supporters to be receptive to an argument, you don't use "feminazi."  Ever.  That's Godwin's Law applied to gender relations; you've automatically lost because you've demonized everyone who claims to be a feminist, no matter how moderate their views actually are.

Well sorry buddy but I will continue to call a specific group of people "feminazis". I would consider myself a feminist. I want equality where it makes sense, and in areas where it doesn't make sense I want compromises which makes sense. A certain group of disgusting people who has infiltrated the feminist movement, those I call feminazis, and they do not want equality. I don't see them as real feminists so I make a deliberate attempt at separating them from the good willed people I want to be associated with.

 

You know, people like in ANTIFA who proudly assaulted CBS journalists because apparently they felt "unsafe". Sorry but feeling unsafe because you are being filmed does not mean you are allowed to attack people with baseball bats. I can't find the Facebook post from that particular ANTIFA group right now, but in their post they actually said the reported made people uncomfortable because he was a white man.

 

I can barely think of these barbaric imbecilic as humans, let along feminists. They are ruining the reputation of real feminists. That's why I want to make it clear I separate the two.

[mr moose]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/innocent-man-death-row-pennsylvania-huntingdon-state-correctional-institute-pittsburgh-22-years-a7814041.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005429/Illinois-man-wrongfully-jailed-20-years-rape-murder-girl-11-did-not-commit-awarded-20m-compensation.html

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/dna-error-put-innocent-man-in-jail-for-26-years-for-rape-and-murder-20140722-zvk0a.html

 

And these aren't even on the back of a woman making the accusation.   Another whole area of law that is all fucked up and causing more grief than correction.