Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 196: You Dun Boofed!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fuck everyone.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

What the fuck kind of policy is this

https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/1045792061960716294

One that's fucked up and needs to change.

Later in the thread they detail how under this policy the only version of the Quran is one from the mid 1800s, translated by a Christian who had zero respect for Islam.
---

Panthera posted...

Inviso posted...

6 in 100. 6 in goddamn motherfucking 100 rapists are convicted for their crimes. Boo fucking hoo to all the incel douchebags that think they're fucking oppressed in society. Given how little value society as a whole tends to give to women who actually find the courage to speak up about their assault in a culture that is all-too-willing to give their rapist the "benefit of the doubt", and how slim the odds are of their attacker actually receiving any sort of punishment even if he, in the eyes of God Himself, is 100% guilty. For fuck's sake, Brock fucking Turner attempted to rape a girl and was LITERALLY witnessed attempting to rape her, and he was sentenced to SIX MONTHS in prison, a sentence that he only served three months of before being released. So maybe just maybe, in a society where sexual assault is EXTREMELY weighted against the victim ever receiving justice for the crime committed against them, we as a society should ACTUALLY balance the justice system out a little.

You're not trying to balance out anything, you're just trying to flip it around. If everyone thought like you, fake accusations would become extremely common because they'd almost always result in a conviction.

Like, the entire presumption of innocence concept exists because of this. It's there so that just feeling strongly about a subject does not cause you to punish innocent people in the name of making a statement. I don't even remotely disagree that rape victims get treated poorly in society and am not sure why you seem to think I do, but that doesn't mean I want to just throw justice out the window. I support anything that actually makes it more likely for the legal system to get the right result on sexual assault cases. I don't support anything that just increases convictions without regards for guilt.

And it is specifically because my first, emotional reaction when I read a story involving rape is to believe the victim and hate the person they accuse that I feel it is important to force myself to think on it from a more dispassionate angle. It's not just rape either. With pretty much any story where it would really suck for the victim I initially buy into it, then play Devil's Advocate with myself as I read it to try to correct for that. I'm not living up to my own standards as far as justice is concerned unless I do.

Again, it's easy to talk in hypotheticals. Yes, if everyone thought like me and a ton of false accusations were brought forward, then there would hopefully be a masculist equivalent to how I'm behaving right now to point out how fucked up and imbalanced the justice system is in favor of people committing heinous, life-destroying acts. And that person would be RIGHT to question the imbalance.

The problem with the current hypothetical system is that, as I actually understated (it's 6 out of 1000, not 6 out of 100): 0.6% of rape victims receive justice in the form of their rapist being sentenced to prison time. 1.7% (assuming I'm reading these statistics correctly) of non-rapists are falsely named as rapists, and 0.08% of false accusations lead to charges against the accused. So assuming I'm doing the math right...98.3% of all non-rapists will not ever be incorrectly accused of rape. And at the same time, 99.4% of rapists will never receive any sort of punishment for their crime. Yet it always seems like the people in power (who have been, historically, men) care far more about increasing that first percentage (which, fair enough, it SHOULD be 100%), while not really giving too much of an actual shit about reducing that second percentage. And that just contributes to a culture where women (the predominant victims of assault) feel powerless and thus more likely to allow that 99.4% to INCREASE.
---

Ah, the patented she had sex with other guys and drank booze, she couldnt have been raped routine.
---

Oh don't worry, this random Twitter screencap is bulletproof.
---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoSU5XUUUAAVlOe.jpg:large
---

Also, I just realized that I used the word hypotheticals several times and then kinda got sidetracked by statistics. My point was: it's very easy to say "I believe in benefit of the doubt and innocent until proven guilty" on paper, because it sounds good and allows a person to emotionally detach themselves from the whole process. But when you look at the actual practice, the accused whether false or genuine, are wildly unlikely to receive punishment. Meanwhile, ACTUAL victims, by virtue of having been raped or assaulted in the first, have ALREADY been punished without even having committed a crime. And I'm sorry, but that disparity in numbers just isn't right, and until false accusations start to become an ACTUAL problem instead of a rarity, I can't justify not believing victims that come forward, given how little benefit they stand to gain from doing so, in terms of getting justice.
---

Inviso posted...

Again, it's easy to talk in hypotheticals. Yes, if everyone thought like me and a ton of false accusations were brought forward, then there would hopefully be a masculist equivalent to how I'm behaving right now to point out how fucked up and imbalanced the justice system is in favor of people committing heinous, life-destroying acts. And that person would be RIGHT to question the imbalance.

So why are you trying to convince people of the merits of a standard you don't even think is remotely just?

Inviso posted...

The problem with the current hypothetical system is that, as I actually understated (it's 6 out of 1000, not 6 out of 100): 0.6% of rape victims receive justice in the form of their rapist being sentenced to prison time. 1.7% (assuming I'm reading these statistics correctly) of non-rapists are falsely named as rapists, and 0.08% of false accusations lead to charges against the accused. So assuming I'm doing the math right...98.3% of all non-rapists will not ever be incorrectly accused of rape. And at the same time, 99.4% of rapists will never receive any sort of punishment for their crime. Yet it always seems like the people in power (who have been, historically, men) care far more about increasing that first percentage (which, fair enough, it SHOULD be 100%), while not really giving too much of an actual shit about reducing that second percentage. And that just contributes to a culture where women (the predominant victims of assault) feel powerless and thus more likely to allow that 99.4% to INCREASE.

I'm not sure what you're really saying here. What should be 100%? I don't get where "98.3% of all non-rapists" is coming from either, are you saying almost 2% of all innocent people will be accused of rape at some point in life?

Anyway the problem is the nature of the crime means that it's very hard to meaningfully increase the amount of actual rapists who get convicted without making it hard for anyone innocent to be acquitted, which I can't support. I don't think it's impossible to address most of the issues with how society responds to sexual assault claims without just accepting you're going to believe anything regardless of it's legitimacy either.

And I think you're being kind of disingenuous too with pointing out how few rapists get convicted. From what I've been looking at, other crimes like assault and robbery go without the perpetrators convicted extremely often as well, even if it's still more often than rape. Here in Canada apparently 12% of sexual assault cases brought to police that are classified as "substantiated" (I can't find a definition for this, sadly) result in conviction, with about half actually going to court at all. For physical assault, about three quarters of substantiated cases go to court and about 23% result in a conviction. So while sexual assault cases definitely result in fewer convictions, it's not by as large a margin as people would probably expect. Given the nature of the crime I would expect the conviction rate to be a decent amount lower even if there wasn't any sort of bias involved in the system. In general, criminal convictions are just rarer than people tend to realize.

And yes, that's going with cases reported to police only, which isn't going to be all by any means, but I think it's a valid comparison because I'd imagine the majority of physical assaults do not go reported either. The definition is broad as hell and if two people throw punches in someone's basement it's unlikely anyone will call the cops for fear of getting themselves in trouble. It's as close a comparison as I think you can get, at least.
---

Yeah, that 98.3% is too low, now that I think about it. I was going off a study in which, out of 2284 reported rapes, only 39 were both classified as false AND had an assailant named in that false claim. So it's really 1.7% of all reported rapes, which would then have to make up a VERY small percentage of non-rapists as a whole.
---

Inviso posted...

Meanwhile, ACTUAL victims, by virtue of having been raped or assaulted in the first, have ALREADY been punished without even having committed a crime. And I'm sorry, but that disparity in numbers just isn't right, and until false accusations start to become an ACTUAL problem instead of a rarity, I can't justify not believing victims that come forward, given how little benefit they stand to gain from doing so, in terms of getting justice.

No, rape victims have not been "punished". They've been raped. That is entirely separate from the legal system. Legally punishing someone does not erase the fact that they've been raped. The existence of rape will never justify throwing an innocent person in jail.

And no one is saying...well, okay: *I* am not saying to never ever believe a rape victim ever. I'm saying to not be so willing to believe an alleged rape victim that you don't pay attention to the facts at all. Be sympathetic to someone you're talking to, of course. Criticize people who just write off all rape accusations for bullshit reasons, by all means. Advocate for awareness, yes. All I'm saying is to not let your passion for the issue prevent you from being honest enough to recognize that your belief is not certainty, and that if you're in a position to actually affect someone's life with your response to them being accused, to be sure that you're judging them based on the evidence and not just condemning them by default regardless of innocence or guilt.
---

You post that like it's not a good idea.
---

I would like to third Ulti's plan to kick out basically everyone currently in congress or the senate.

Fuck almost all of them.
---

Fourth it.
---

#DrainTheSwamp
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Oh don't worry, this random Twitter screencap is bulletproof.

It's as much proof as Ford or Cavanaugh gave the other day. That's my point. None of this can be proven without witnesses.

How does partying and hooking up make you less likely to be a victim of sexual assault? Is this tweet supposed to be a blemish on her character? How does this weaken her credibility?
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

https://imgur.com/6Z80HiO

ok yes sounds good
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

https://imgur.com/6Z80HiO

ok yes sounds good

this feels like a self-own

Paratroopa1 posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

https://imgur.com/6Z80HiO

ok yes sounds good

this feels like a self-own

Basically any post someone makes about a conservative meme is a self own.

Those people are incapable of humor.
---

So Inviso, there is actuallly some really interesting jurisprudence about sexual assault in the Anglo-American legal tradition

(I combine both for this because we share a common law tradition going back to the 16th century and is where this issue originates)

See under the more paternalistic legal system of pre-1965s Civil Rights Act and ore forensic science, if sexual assault charges were brought before a judge, it was basically an automatic guilty verdict so long as the woman's story was plausible. Presumption of innocence is like....ok thats all well and good but for these crimes most of the time there are only two witnesses to the crime and judges always sided with women to protect them.

Now there are two major caveats to that - that would virtually never include marital rape, very rarely include date rape. This would almost always be violent rape, incest and molestation. The role of law enforcement, given that thr charge nearly always resulted in conviction was to very selectively press those charges - only when they were certain about what happened themselves.

With the Civil Rights Act however women's status as protected under law is a bit more questionable and the role of less violent rape in the legal system has never really been firmly established. There is also now a tendency to not prosecute these cases if forensic evidence cant be collected which severely limits who can even attempt to get justice.

This has all evolved together to make for a really messy area of criminal law to the benefit of rapists everywhere.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1046230634103025664?s=21

NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!

This is binding as a direct official statement of the President right?

i'm not sure if anyone responded to this during that dumb semantics argument, but from what i remember of the report, it wasn't that he was limiting it to certain people, it was that he was banning them from persuing certain subjects.

it wasn't "you can't talk to mark judge" it was "you can't talk to mark judge about when he worked at safeway or look into it through other means"
---

TheRock1525 posted...

It really doesn't take much to manipulate vlado. I'm pretty sure if you told him that globalists were stealing anal beads he'd start hiding some in his rectum.

okay this post made reading this dumpster fire worth it

thanks
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

I can actually confirm extha being "fuck moore, he actually seems like a creep" but not really corrik or ulti

ok. i vividly remember extha going "I WANT MOORE TO WIN BECAUSE I HATE THE LIBS SO MUCH." didn't know he came back from that stance. my apologies then. (though it's still pretty disgusting that he did support moore at one point - especially for a reason as idiotic as "i hate the libs.")
---

pyresword posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

We'll never know for sure (part of why raising allegations which can never be disproven because of a complete lack of details/evidence is so insidious), but nothing we've seen indicates that he was guilty. I also thought Christine Ford came across as genuinely traumatized, she just didn't have anything to back up her claims (and had been refuted by all of the people she mentioned as having been there). Ultimately I feel bad for both of them. I can't imagine nearly reaching the pinnacle of your profession only for this sort of thing to happen, just as I can't imagine coming forward with a confidential sexual assault allegation and having it leaked into the press, causing you to receive death threats etc. In short, we should give both of them the benefit of the doubt.

Best line I've seen about this anywhere, not that either side of this trash is mature enough to know what "benefit of the doubt" or "innocent until proven guilty" means.

I actually somewhat agree with this post for the record.

Hard disapprove of labeling these allegations as insidious, but I do also think that the court of public opinion should not be so quick to condemn the accused in situations like this.

it's not a terrible quote but the "her claims had been refuted by all of the people she mentioned as having been there" part is wrong - that's just a bullshit claim kavanaugh made. "i don't remember it happening" != "it absolutely didn't happen."

and as others pointed out, this quote kind of ignores how kavanaugh lied about a gazillion things during his testimony. not saying it's 100% certain that he's guilty now, but i wouldn't say he still deserves the "benefit of the doubt" after that shitshow.

the above makes it completely inexcusable to still be in the pro-kavanaugh camp, btw. allegations aside, NOBODY should want an habitual liar to be on the supreme court.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

allegations aside, NOBODY should want an habitual liar to be on the supreme court.

Especially not someone who is about as calm as a bad bowel movement
---

pxlated posted...

it wasn't "you can't talk to mark judge" it was "you can't talk to mark judge about when he worked at safeway or look into it through other means"

Sure. The key words in that tweet would be "at their discretion", then.

Reg posted...

pxlated posted...

it wasn't "you can't talk to mark judge" it was "you can't talk to mark judge about when he worked at safeway or look into it through other means"

Sure. The key words in that tweet would be "at their discretion", then.

Right, but those are attached to "i want them to interview whoever they want" not "ask whatever questions they want"

They are free to use their discretion when choosing who to talk to. But this tweet doesnt contradict the claims that he is restricting what theyre allowed to ask about.

Not saying that the report he did so is true, but this tweet doesn't disprove that.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

allegations aside, NOBODY should want an habitual liar to be on the supreme court.

Especially not someone who is about as calm as a bad bowel movement

Even if you dont want to classify his statements as lies (most of the things people are claiming are lies have no actual proof they are lies, no matter how obvious they may seem to be), he is absolutely misrepresenting the facts about all the witnesses denying the event happened. That alone is bad for a judge in any court, much less the highest court. Willful misrepresentation of facts.
---

The literal ABA putting out a negative statement should be enough - lawyers and judges are unpopular as is, without the public spectacle of this grown up Brock.

In an ideal world, Kavanaugh (whose name isn't hard to spell, why is ulti so bad at it) would be removed from the bench and disbarred. At the very least he's broken a number of professional ethics pillars.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

The literal ABA putting out a negative statement should be enough - lawyers and judges are unpopular as is, without the public spectacle of this grown up Brock.

In an ideal world, Kavanaugh (whose name isn't hard to spell, why is ulti so bad at it) would be removed from the bench and disbarred. At the very least he's broken a number of professional ethics pillars.

What were the specifics of the aba's statement? Iirc it was just about needing further investigation into the claims and not "this guy clearly should not be a justice on the supreme court" right?

If that's the case I'm honestly pretty disappointed and it wouldn't give me very high regard for the association
---

pxlated posted...

he is absolutely misrepresenting the facts about all the witnesses denying the event happened

The fact that he can't tell the difference between "I don't recall for sure one way or the other" and "I remember it didn't happen" is yet another piece of evidence that even if he's innocent, he still shouldn't be anywhere near the Supreme Court
---

Panthera posted...

pxlated posted...

he is absolutely misrepresenting the facts about all the witnesses denying the event happened

The fact that he can't tell the difference between "I don't recall for sure one way or the other" and "I remember it didn't happen" is yet another piece of evidence that even if he's innocent, he still shouldn't be anywhere near the Supreme Court

Right. The best case scenario for him is not understanding that difference. Which is still enough to be disqualifying.

But nah this is all just partisan circus bs
---

pxlated posted...

(most of the things people are claiming are lies have no actual proof they are lies, no matter how obvious they may seem to be),

yeah, most of the "lies" aren't actually provable lies, just obviously ridiculous bullshit ("i use my calendars as diaries," "devil's triangle is a drinking game," etc.). only joke users like sephy would defend crap like that.

also, if "i never got blackout drunk" isn't a lie when he's stated the opposite before, at the very least he's contradicting himself. inconsistency is another trait you don't want a supreme court justice to have.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Kavanaugh (whose name isn't hard to spell, why is ulti so bad at it)

it's also amy barrett, not "ashley barrett"
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Kavanaugh (whose name isn't hard to spell, why is ulti so bad at it)

it's also amy barrett, not "ashley barrett"

..... ryoko?
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

The same bar association that gave him a gold standard?

Before they knew about all the sketchy shit he may have done, yes
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

..... ryoko?

holy crap.

ulti must be thinking about her a lot!
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

allegations aside, NOBODY should want an habitual liar to be on the supreme court.

Especially not someone who is about as calm as a bad bowel movement

If Obama was still prez and republicans were trying this crap, you would never support it.

OK, let's say hypothetically if Obama was president, he picked a supreme court nominee, the supreme court nominee was accused of attempted rape, was shown to have perjured himself in front of the senate previously, was shown to have several small lies during his current testimony, got extremely angry when questioned, and literally avoided answering questions like "would you like an FBI investigation to clear your name?"

No: I would want Obama to withdraw him and pick a better nominee. Shouldn't be hard to find a better nominee, TBH.

For an example that this is EXACTLY how I behave, I wanted Al Franken to step down, even though he wasn't half as bad as Kavanaugh is. The accusations against Franken were like he would cop a feel, put a hand on a breast or squeeze an ass, not like...get someone in a room and cover their mouth so that they can't scream. He also did not yell during a hearing that he was being wronged. He also suggested an investigation himself. He did not have a history of lying under oath, and was not caught multiple times lying during the investigation. I still wanted him to step down.

I don't know about other people on the left, but I am 100% consistent here in not wanting sexual assaulters in government.

The idea that Trump somehow can't find a Conservative to nominate who hasn't attempted rape is frankly insulting. He already found one just fine with Gorsuch. There's millions of other conservatives in this country, I'm sure he can find someone who hasn't attempted rape.
---

it's always funny to see ulti use the "YOU ONLY CARE BECAUSE HE HAS AN R BESIDE HIS NAME" argument, because this logic 100% applies to himself. if kavanaugh had had a D beside his name, ulti would have said he was a disgusting rapist who had no business being on the supreme court from the start (he has absolutely no problem saying bill clinton is a rapist, even though - like the kavanaugh case - there is no evidence). he continues to have the self-reflection skills of a vampire.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it's always funny to see ulti use the "YOU ONLY CARE BECAUSE HE HAS AN R BESIDE HIS NAME" argument, because this logic 100% applies to himself. if kavanaugh had had a D beside his name, ulti would have said he was a disgusting rapist who had no business being on the supreme court from the start (he has absolutely no problem saying bill clinton is a rapist, even though - like the kavanaugh case - there is no evidence). he continues to have the self-reflection skills of a vampire.

i mean, he's admitted that he can't pay attention to people he finds repulsive. so expecting him to have any kind of self awareness is futile
---

metroid composite posted...

For an example that this is EXACTLY how I behave, I wanted Al Franken to step down, even though he wasn't half as bad as Kavanaugh is. The accusations against Franken were like he would cop a feel, put a hand on a breast or squeeze an ass, not like...get someone in a room and cover their mouth so that they can't scream. He also did not yell during a hearing that he was being wronged. He also suggested an investigation himself. He did not have a history of lying under oath, and was not caught multiple times lying during the investigation. I still wanted him to step down.

An important distinction between Al Franken and Brett Kavanaugh is that Al Franken was not a lifetime appointment. Brett Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will serve on the Supreme Court until he decides to retire or he dies. At age 53, he could serve on the Supreme Court for 30+ years. In the history of the Supreme Court, only one justice has ever been impeached--Samuel Chase--and he was not convicted.

There are many issues which I believe disqualify Kavanaugh from the position. The only thing that will get him confirmed is the Hyper-Partisanship currently in the Senate (and also permeates American culture today). I'm sure Republicans are hoping that Manchin will vote along with them so that they can pretend this was a bipartisan decision (despite it not being).

And of course, it all goes back to Merrick Garland. Republicans refused to give him so much as a hearing. Since playing that card, they've been concerned that it will be turned back on them. It was the risk they took by not giving a hearing to Garland in the first place. They hope to avoid the consequences of their actions. Especially while they still control the Senate. Of course, in the long run, it may very well cost them the Senate. Their Hyper-Partisan attitude toward the Democratic party will make it difficult for them to make any allies that aren't from within their own party. Bipartisanship is all but dead at this point. Murdered by Mitch McConnell and his allies. The entire Republican party is responsible for it. Just look at McCain, who said he would refuse to confirm any of Hillary Clinton's nominees if she wins the presidency. Republicans are now worried Democrats will return their play. And if they do, I think it'd honestly serve them right.
---

so this video popped up in my youtube feed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhSiHMtqQjE" data-time="

and it's funny because 3 weeks ago, kavanaugh was saying (and, rightly so) "a sitting judge should refrain from commenting on current political matters"

and then he leads his next hearing with "IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY TO GET REVENGE FOR THE CLINTONS!!!"
---