America - The Official Thread

[Famine]

In a perfect world none if this would be an issue. With a better justice system and a less fickle populous we wouldnt have "trial by public opinion." But we don't have that utopia. What we have is a legal/ criminal system that tends to benefit the abuser and a public that tends to ostracize the abused. Somelike like only 30% of acts of sexual violence are reported, a number that drops to 20% for college age women.
Sorry that my opinion offends so many, but in this case, where public opinion is generally stacked against the victim, where only 2% of reported assualts/rapes are false, yeah, I'd rather have the system stacked in the victims favor instead of the perpetrators, and to hell with public opinion.

They're alleged victims and alleged perpetrators. And when there are actual victims, they're still alleged perpetrators.

An accusation is neither a conviction nor evidence of a crime even taking place. That's what the criminal justice system is for - to determine is a crime has occurred, and if so to find out the identity of the individual(s) who committed that crime and punish them appropriately.

Currently though it seems like accusations - particularly against high profile individuals - are de facto convictions. Rather than run the risk of being seen to have supported a sex offender in the period between accusation and actual conviction, companies are firing people on accusation alone. And many of the things they're accused of aren't even crimes, they're just sloppy attempts (and often rather creepy or gross) at getting someone to have sex with them.

And that's having an effect on other people too. Channels are cancelling television series and studios are withdrawing films because of accusations against the stars. That means other actors and an order of magnitude more technical staff are losing their jobs. Based on an accusation that one big-name star once told someone that he wanted to put his penis into them, but they didn't want his penis in them.

 

[Northstar]

In a perfect world none if this would be an issue. With a better justice system and a less fickle populous we wouldnt have "trial by public opinion." But we don't have that utopia. What we have is a legal/ criminal system that tends to benefit the abuser and a public that tends to ostracize the abused. Somelike like only 30% of acts of sexual violence are reported, a number that drops to 20% for college age women.
Sorry that my opinion offends so many, but in this case, where public opinion is generally stacked against the victim, where only 2% of reported assualts/rapes are false, yeah, I'd rather have the system stacked in the victims favor instead of the perpetrators, and to hell with public opinion.

I honestly hope you never have to deal with a false accusation, I have and it sucks, even though it never went far. Even after your name is cleared people look at you differently, hell, I look at me differently. And it was all because of someone misconstruing a kid's clinginess.

Granted I do think we need to do more to protect victims, but throwing away the rights of the accused is not the way to go. We've come to far to relapse back into a mindset that's been dead since we realized witches weren't real.

 

[Rallywagon]

I honestly hope you never have to deal with a false accusation, I have and it sucks, even though it never went far. Even after your name is cleared people look at you differently, hell, I look at me differently. And it was all because of someone misconstruing a kid's clinginess.

Granted I do think we need to do more to protect victims, but throwing away the rights of the accused is not the way to go. We've come to far to relapse back into a mindset that's been dead since we realized witches weren't real.

And i hope you never have to deal with being raped and having it ignored. Despite your ancedote, its far far more common and way more destructive.
Btw, i am not advocating throwing away anyones rights. Due process in the legal system is still a must. I just dont care about issues of public opinion.

 

[DK]

But... why?

Why does Russia care about tearing down the US? How does that help Russia? Surely they're not actually considering trying to take over the US in the future. A Russian invasion would cost them so much, and an occupation would be worse. But if they're not looking to come here, shouldn't they want us to be prosperous? The more prosperous the rest of the world is, the better your own economy. Take a look a China, their development came in part from profitable (both ways) trading with the US. China's development only makes them more valuable as a trading part as they become more and more capable of purchasing higher and higher end services and goods from us.

It's good for nations to be wealthy.

I'd imagine their economy's dependence on fossil fuels might have something to do with it.

 

[Northstar]

its far far more common and way more destructive.

And as I said, things need to be done to remedy that. However, just forming lynch mobs every time someone yells rape is not going to accomplish anything positive. Especially since whenever one these accusations come out that's exactly what happens, people band together to go after the accused while the victim winds up forgotten about.

I found a pretty good commentary piece from 2006 that can probably get what I'm trying to say across better than I can.

If we go to war with each other without proof and don’t treat people as innocent until proven guilty, then we will waste our resources and effort while sexual victimization and false accusations still plague our society. In contrast, we need to work together to come up with solutions that both prevent sexual victimization and the damages caused by false accusations.

http://scottsafetyshop.com/blog/2006/12/17/the-danger-of-false-accusations/

 

[Danoff]

I'll freely admit I don't know much about Russia outside what I see in Bond films and through Sean Connery's performance in The Hunt for Red October, but I do wonder if they're still salty about the Cold War?

Mostly likely not in the physical sense, no. I do not see Russia wanting to invade or occupy the USA. They would rather subdue us. Russia is also not really a trading partner of the USA, our trade with them is very small something like 0.5% of our exports go to Russia and our imports are about equal. It's so miniscule it's not even worth mentioning. They would love to see us knocked down a few notches as a world power just as they would love to supersede us as the world's top power, of course they would have to contend with China eventually...but that doesn't seem like their goal, otherwise the wouldn't be bolstering their trade relationship with China.

Since the 40s Russia has been a natural of opponent of America in political terms as much as geographical terms. America interferes with Russia as much as possible and vice versa. If they can upset American interests in business, politics and trade then they will do... and America will be busy doing it back. In fact I'd bet that the great majority of countries worldwide are doing as much as possible to do the same to their 'enemies', it's just that Russia and America have a lot of manpower, brains and technology to work with.

I'd imagine their economy's dependence on fossil fuels might have something to do with it.

I'm just not getting it. I don't see anything gained.

 

[TexRex]

That's a fault with the justice and reporting systems, both of which can be amended. The answer is not to ruin people's lives based only on an accusation in the hope that statistically they turn out to have been guilty. That's not how justice works; that's how anger works when you want to find anyone possible to punish.

Again, that's a fault with the justice system. If the justice system is failing to investigate and bring actual crimes to trial, then work to fix the justice system. Taking it to the court of public opinion gets a victory for you, maybe, if we assume that you really are a victim and that a crime was committed (which you haven't needed to prove to any degree). Fixing the system gets victories for all those who will be victims.

It's harder, but it's also fairer and a better ultimate result. And there are organisations that exist to help with real miscarriages of justice. I'd far rather see the court of public opinion used to look into the failings of the justice system as a whole than individual cases.

So is the idea that someone would use their position as a medical doctor to molest young girls. Yet both sorts of people exist. And in both cases we want to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, regardless of which is the accuser and which is the accused.

Justice comes from considering the facts of each specific case. Not from applying statistics and accepting that only a few innocents are going to have their lives ruined. Yes, the justice system fails sometimes, but not because it intentionally accepts that it's going to mischaracterise innocents as guilty.

Uh huh...

The system is broken. There's surely a higher level of functionality that can be reached.

Let's look at Randy Margraves. Randy isn't a direct victim, but his three daughters are (or at least have been accepted as victims by an actual court of law).

The individual who has been found guilty by that actual court of law, Larry Nassar, has been through the proverbial wringer, having been sentenced multiple times already for actions similar to those he's accused of by Randy's daughters. Justice is seemingly being found, and yet Randy still had a violent reaction to being in the presence of Nassar.

What about countless direct victims, not mere fathers of victims, who have sought similar justice but failed to get it? Do they find solace in the assertion that the system they've sought justice from is broken? Should they be expected to fix the system? If acts they're victims of have been successfully covered up, how are they supposed to fix the system?

I don't think the way things are being done is appropriate--I can't believe I feel the need to make that assertion yet again--but I get it.

Given the amount of time Nassar went before facing a court of law for acts he's accused of, how much longer do you suppose it would have taken had these alleged acts (for which at least one coverup by individuals that employed him has been exposed, as I understand it) not been brought to the public's attention?

I'm sympathetic to those who have been wrongfully accused, and I think punishments brought down on bona fide perpetrators are harsh in some instances (given the nature of some accusations and the fact that the duration of said punishment, at this point, is uncertain), but I'm more sympathetic to victims of physical abuse--I'm okay if I'm thought to be a horrible person because of that stance.

I think I've made my position on the above very clear, so those wishing to discuss it further in this thread should not expect a response from me. If anything has been left out, or if answering any of the questions I've asked is deemed necessary...well...it seems to me there's a more appropriate venue in which to bring it up.

This all stemmed from the not firing of Rob Porter who, as I said and seems to have been accepted, held (or was to hold) a position particularly susceptible to mere allegations because the desire to keep such allegations from being investigated could lead one to releasing sensitive information as payment to another threatening to bring alleged activity to light. "If you have no secrets, they can't be used against you."

 

[mustafur]

I would Argue false accusations result in abuse.

Imagine the mental state of someone who has been falsely accused but can't get a job and function in normal society thanks to a situation out of their control.

False accusations need to be punished as abuse, especially when alot of the damage can already be done before the court of law is involved.

Accountability still must exist no matter what the situation.

 

[Imari]

I don't think the way things are being done is appropriate--I can't believe I feel the need to make that assertion yet again--but I get it.

You keep saying that, but I don't think you do. If you got it then you'd be advocating for true justice rather than throwing the accused to the mob and hoping that statistics makes it work more often than not.

I'm sympathetic to those who have been wrongfully accused, and I think punishments brought down on bona fide perpetrators are harsh in some instances (given the nature of some accusations and the fact that the duration of said punishment, at this point, is uncertain), but I'm more sympathetic to victims of physical abuse--I'm okay if I'm thought to be a horrible person because of that stance.

I don't think you're a horrible person. I just find it baffling that people can be so gung-ho for "justice" for victims that they're willing to excuse a few broken eggs along the way.

That's not justice, that's mob rule.

It's awfully easy to use high profile cases like Nassar to stir people's emotions, but it gets a lot less clear if you consider a case where the facts are legitimately unknown before the trial and it's simply her word against his. In such a case I'd definitely not want a bias for one side over the other.

Sorry that my opinion offends so many, but in this case, where public opinion is generally stacked against the victim, where only 2% of reported assualts/rapes are false, yeah, I'd rather have the system stacked in the victims favor instead of the perpetrators, and to hell with public opinion.

So yeah, guilty until proven innocent. Interesting.

There's a reason that Lady Justice is stereotypically depicted as blind, holding scales and a sword. The idea is that justice should be impartial, not pre-biased to either side. The fair scales are for weighing the evidence, and the sword for ultimate authority.

I think it's curious that so many people think that the best solution is to essentially deviate even further from true justice.

And i hope you never have to deal with being raped and having it ignored. Despite your ancedote, its far far more common and way more destructive.

Look up the incidence of prison rape. Not only is it ignored, it's the basis of a whole string of "don't drop the soap in the shower" jokes. Convicted criminals apparently don't have rights either.

Men have a lower incidence of being raped, but they're even less likely than a woman to be believed when they are. And honestly, much of the same stuff applies to physical assault for both genders. Unless you get put in the hospital, you're likely to be fobbed off.

Btw, i am not advocating throwing away anyones rights.

Yeah, you are. You're saying that you're OK with people receiving life altering consequences as a result of something that they potentially never did, simply because statistically the majority of accusations are true. There's justice failures like Nassar where other individuals acted to enable him, and they too should be brought to justice. There's justice failures simply because the justice system is run by humans and they're fallible. And there's justice failures because of flaws in the system.

All of those are different to saying that you'll accept a certain rate of false punishment because you want to protect potential victims based on statistics. Statistics has no place in administering justice.

 

[TexRex]

"Guns don't kill people, Mueller Probes kill people."

 

[boiltheocean]

What a stand up guy, using dead children to divert attention away from his own crimes.

 

[Northstar]

What a stand up guy, using dead children to divert attention away from his own crimes.

Everyone else is using dead kids to push their agendas, he probably figured he might as well join in.

 

[ryzno]

What a stand up guy, using dead children to divert attention away from his own crimes.

Crimes? You mean Hillary right?

 

[TexRex]

Everyone else is using dead kids to push their agendas, he probably figured he might as well join in.

Yeah, no, this is typical behavior for him--the only thing that's changed is the shrapnel he's chosen for his idiot grenades.

Beyond that, he surely doesn't want everyone else* getting the impression that he's not better than them, and, as much as it pains me to say it, he isn't everyone else; he's the President of the United States. Everyone else is not.

Crimes? You mean Hillary right?

What crimes would those be? What proof do you have that she committed them?

*Edit: Changed from "anyone."

 

[ryzno]

Yeah, no, this is typical behavior for him--the only thing that's changed is the shrapnel he's chosen for his idiot grenades.

Beyond that, he surely doesn't want anyone getting the impression that he's not better than them, and, as much as it pains me to say it, he isn't everyone else; he's the President of the United States. Everyone else is not.

What crimes would those be? What proof do you have that she committed them?

I'll wait for his proof of Trumps crimes first...

 

[TexRex]

I'll wait for his proof of Trumps crimes first...

Well that's just...

...just...

...just...

...exactly the sort of response I would expect.

 

[Northstar]

Yeah, no, this is typical behavior for him

I know. It doesn't change the fact that it's insanely hypocritical to go after Trump for using the shooting for political gain when a good chunk of the population is doing the same damned thing (and yes, I'm included in that category as are you and everyone else in this and the shooting thread).

Beyond that, he surely doesn't want anyone getting the impression that he's not better than them, and, as much as it pains me to say it, he isn't everyone else; he's the President of the United States. Everyone else is not.

Every president tries to give off the vibe that they aren't better than anyone else. If anything Trump is doing an atrocious job at doing it.

https://democracychronicles.org/common-man-president/

 

[TexRex]

I know. It doesn't change the fact that it's insanely hypocritical to go after Trump for using the shooting for political gain when a good chunk of the population is doing the same damned thing (and yes, I'm included in that category as are you and everyone else in this and the shooting thread).

I do appreciate your candor here, and I'm certainly not claiming to be above the behavior. However, I'm not the President...thankfully; I don't have the patience or temperament for it.

Every president tries to give off the vibe that they aren't better than anyone else. If anything Trump is doing an atrocious job at doing it.

https://democracychronicles.org/common-man-president/

I'm well aware of this, and from my perspective, I think it's unnecessary. It may be beneficial for them, though--allowing them to operate successfully in the role without feeling so much of the burden they bear.

 

[Danoff]

Uber eat lead.

 

[DDastardly00]

Uber eat lead.

My family just used Uber Eats for the first time a couple of weekends ago. It's not something I would normally use but I was taking care of a very sick child at the time and didn't want to transport her anywhere. Sounds like they need to screen their drivers better.

 

[Joey D]

I didn't even know something like Uber Eats existed. I'm not sure if it's a fantastic concept or a terrible one though.

 

[DDastardly00]

I didn't even know something like Uber Eats existed. I'm not sure if it's a fantastic concept or a terrible one though.

These services started cropping up in the late 90's, I remember my roommate using one of them, he didn't have a car at the time and it was a pain having to catch the bus just to get a sandwich and a pint of Ben and Jerry's. I don't remember what any of the first ones were called but they were internet based. Grubhub came along in 2004. These services are mainly rooted around urban areas where a lot of people don't have personal transportation and use mass transit to get around. It makes more sense when you think about it from that perspective.

 

[Rage Racer]

So... Just 13 people from Russia have shook the world's most powerful democracy?..

These 13 Mueller indictments show at least some level of Russian involvement in our election, however miniscule it may be. It's equally interesting that they supported both Bernie and Trump during the campaigns all while contributing large cash donations to Hillary's campaign as they were leaking anti-Hillary info to US media outlets, They played her like a fiddle. But let's not stop there, Russian Hackers were also linked to a disinformation campaign leading up to the Brexit vote. Then they were also linked to fiddling with the French election last year. This is not surprising, this is what Russia does.










Does any of this sound familiar when compared to recent events? Keep in mind that Russia has no political goals in reference to our election, or France's election last year, and they do not care about one side or the other, or even who wins. All they want to achieve is to sow discord, unrest, and cause instability however they can. Divide and conquer, it's as simple as that.

But... why?

Why does Russia care about tearing down the US? How does that help Russia? Surely they're not actually considering trying to take over the US in the future. A Russian invasion would cost them so much, and an occupation would be worse. But if they're not looking to come here, shouldn't they want us to be prosperous? The more prosperous the rest of the world is, the better your own economy. Take a look a China, their development came in part from profitable (both ways) trading with the US. China's development only makes them more valuable as a trading part as they become more and more capable of purchasing higher and higher end services and goods from us.

It's good for nations to be wealthy.

I'll freely admit I don't know much about Russia outside what I see in Bond films and through Sean Connery's performance in The Hunt for Red October, but I do wonder if they're still salty about the Cold War?

Ah-hahahahaha

Reading all of this make me remember an old Jewish joke.

"- Isaac, why do you read those anti-semithic Soviet newspapers? They write so bad things about us!"
"- Look, when I read Israeli newspapers, all I see is that we have corruption, mess and disorder over here. When I read Soviet newspapers, I read that we have taken over the half of the world and now are taking over the other half".

I feel just like this. That's why I enjoy reading American (and other Western) media writing about Russia, to take a break from the 🤬 I regularly see on the Russian news. There are barely any elections in the world where we haven't involved, according to it.

 

[Danoff]

So... Just 13 people from Russia have shook the world's most powerful democracy?..

Shook? I dunno how shaken we are about this.

Ah-hahahahaha

Reading all of this make me remember an old Jewish joke.

"- Isaac, why do you read those anti-semithic Soviet newspapers? They write so bad things about us!"
"- Look, when I read Israeli newspapers, all I see is that we have corruption, mess and disorder over here. When I read Soviet newspapers, I read that we have taken over the half of the world and now are taking over the other half".

I feel just like this. That's why I enjoy reading American (and other Western) media writing about Russia, to take a break from the 🤬 I regularly see on the Russian news. There are barely any elections in the world where we haven't involved, according to it.

I'm just trying to understand motivations.

 

[CodeRedR51]

"Thanks Obama"

- Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/...ssian-meddling.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

[Joey D]

I really wish Trump would've tweeted that. It'd been the ultimate "Thanks Obama" meme.

 

[Rallywagon]

You keep saying that, but I don't think you do. If you got it then you'd be advocating for true justice rather than throwing the accused to the mob and hoping that statistics makes it work more often than not.



I don't think you're a horrible person. I just find it baffling that people can be so gung-ho for "justice" for victims that they're willing to excuse a few broken eggs along the way.

That's not justice, that's mob rule.

It's awfully easy to use high profile cases like Nassar to stir people's emotions, but it gets a lot less clear if you consider a case where the facts are legitimately unknown before the trial and it's simply her word against his. In such a case I'd definitely not want a bias for one side over the other.



So yeah, guilty until proven innocent. Interesting.

There's a reason that Lady Justice is stereotypically depicted as blind, holding scales and a sword. The idea is that justice should be impartial, not pre-biased to either side. The fair scales are for weighing the evidence, and the sword for ultimate authority.

I think it's curious that so many people think that the best solution is to essentially deviate even further from true justice.



Look up the incidence of prison rape. Not only is it ignored, it's the basis of a whole string of "don't drop the soap in the shower" jokes. Convicted criminals apparently don't have rights either.

Men have a lower incidence of being raped, but they're even less likely than a woman to be believed when they are. And honestly, much of the same stuff applies to physical assault for both genders. Unless you get put in the hospital, you're likely to be fobbed off.



Yeah, you are. You're saying that you're OK with people receiving life altering consequences as a result of something that they potentially never did, simply because statistically the majority of accusations are true. There's justice failures like Nassar where other individuals acted to enable him, and they too should be brought to justice. There's justice failures simply because the justice system is run by humans and they're fallible. And there's justice failures because of flaws in the system.

All of those are different to saying that you'll accept a certain rate of false punishment because you want to protect potential victims based on statistics. Statistics has no place in administering justice.

Ive heard very compelling arguments and am willing to concede.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Ive heard very compelling arguments and am willing to concede.

Why is there a link to a UFC announcer in your response? Can you summarize the 3 hours of discussion into a paragraph?

 

[TexRex]

Why is there a link to a UFC announcer in your response? Can you summarize the 3 hours of discussion into a paragraph?

You mean the response isn't very specific?

Read the Constitution. Quite simple to understand really.

 

[Rallywagon]

Why is there a link to a UFC announcer in your response? Can you summarize the 3 hours of discussion into a paragraph?

Joe Rogan is a lot more than just a UFC announcer. But more specifically its the guests on his podcast that matters. The entire podcast is relevent to my decision on the topic we were discussing but i think what you are looking for is right around an hour twenty into the podcast.