Pivoting slightly, recently heard this banger on the radio. I dont even understand the lyrics, but it is still better than anything I have heard on English language radio in a long time.

Cit,


That was a fine post but I don't think any of that was in contention.


The main kerfluffle was caused by f-bird and Johnny T breaking their self-imposed three-month exile to new politardia so they could swoop in and inform everyone that, at least as far as sexual assault allegations go, that anyone who believed due process was kind of good idea, or believed that, at least in some small way, the credibility of the accuser should play a part in determining the veracity of those allegations, was a likely rapist themselves.


Also, as far as athletes themselves suffering from false allegations, it's not the famous rich guys that end up screwed (so to speak). An example would be the Duke lacrosse team.

Thats Trapeton bro. Don't like that guy much, but my boy Ozuna killing it.

Ironically, in a lot of cases (certainly the Duke lacrosse one) the colleges are turning the accused into rich guys, because they are often quick to settle when legally challenged over their "exuberance" in enacting social justice.

You've never met someone who can have an experience, find that experience unenjoyable in some way, then retell that story over and over in their head until they've convinced themselves something happened that hadn't?

Or like, how perception is reality and how two people can have two different personal experiences from the same world experience?

Anuel AA?

Went through his playlist. Like the beat on this one also, although the female model in the video isn't really my type.

The genre is Trapeton, don't like that guy. Bad bunny and ozuna killing it. And if you prefer more reggaeton then of course old man daddy Yankee.

Anuel AA is on some good tracks, like that 6ix9ine one, but agreed that Bad Bunny and Ozuna are the kings right now. This one is kinda old now but I still listen to it a lot:

https://youtu.be/9jI-z9QN6g8

Also Daddy Yankee is big time back.

Hmmm. So, I guess by this logic maybe you actually raped some women but you remember it as consensual because you have convinced yourself differently. FYI, the way a lot of you guys think of rape--in the context that you are most worried about being victimized--being too confused to know when to stop on a ****ing date--is not the only way it happens.

Stay away from any nieces and stuff till you get this perception issue you have worked out.

So bros,

Monte reached out to me in his reasonable way and gently let me know I may be going to hard in the paint on this. While I am not concerned with anyone's perception of me or my motives, I do realize that coming in guns blazing after a few months may be confusing. Don't know if anyone cares why I did more than I care if they do, but I guess if I am going to take a **** in the room I can make this effort before I go.

I have been lurking here for months. In that time I have seen a lot of great **** from the group as always, and a few things that were not. I have never wanted anyone banned, but when I saw DM drop that ****ing comment on Holliday a month back or whatever, I wanted nothing more but than to eviscerate him. I ****ing hate bullies. If you are going play the edge lord like that don't be surprised when people get mad. Yesterday I got my chance to act out on that. Not proud of it, not excusing it. I do not think it was heroic or valuable, it was almost entirely self-indulgent. I also am not losing sleep over it.

As for Evo, he is the first log I followed years ago, way before I started my own. I have rooted for him, read all his long diatribes and missed him when he took long breaks. I definitely could have and should have come at him in a different way. Here's an attempt.

My very first reply pretty much summed up my issue here. Victims in these cases do not come forward far more frequently than they do. While I suppose you could say that if a victim comes forward right away it reduces the likelihood that they are lying, flipping that the other way and saying that if they don't it increases the likelihood that they are lying and should be held against them is a bad conclusion. Most rapes go unreported. Most victims who are assaulted are already dealing with a whole host of affect from it. Some of the things they have to be concerned with is being called a liar, or being told they deserve it, or having the other aspects of their lives judged. A **** ton of the time they are asking themselves if they deserve it, or how they are responsible or have concern for their abuser or are concerned about the fall out of reporting it and taking on responsibility for that. It is a **** show. Many victims who are assaulted are also chosen because they are vulnerable to begin with. So the vast majority of them, who just went through this are now faced with a monumental task.

Meanwhile, all these calculations you are making, Evo, you are not applying in reverse. Why? Like how about running some calcs on what kind of dude is MORE likely to have been a rapist? You even mentioned how unfair it would be if this case paints juicers as more likely to rape, but ffs man, you are giving a loooooong list of women more likely to be criminal liars based on all kinds of ****. Like, an ex-stripper is more likely to be lying, but do ex-strippers get raped more frequently? Are the kinds of guys who serial date ex-strippers more likely to be rapists? Are the kinds of dudes who pay women to pretend they like them more likely to be rapists? Are celebrities more likely to think that every woman wants them? Have a busted view of entitlement? Are athletes who are partly driven by the alure of tons of women? Does this sku their percentage? Where's your spreadsheet there, bro? How many factors do each of us have to put us in the likely to rape category? This is all ****ing dumb, dude.

Now the victim, in this case, is never going to read your musings. But other victims, or people who love them, will. Many, many more women have been assaulted than you think, probably. Many of them don't tell anyone ever or only tell a few people. To these women, when you say things like, "if they don't report it right away they are more likely to be lying" you are saying it probably didn't happen to them IYO, and they were cowardly for not reporting it right away. When you say, "It must have been an awkward call to her husband explaining why she was in a room with him alone" you are saying that it was kiiiinda her fault. That it is unreasonable to expect a man to just be a ****ing human. But, yo, you talking **** to DM's friend for taking care of that drunk girl? Like what did he expect, taking a woman home? He should have known that she may not be able to control herself and would accuse him. It's ****ing stupid on its face.

Every single one of us knows more women that have been assaulted, harassed, raped or molested than we are aware of. It is trivial for us to ignore it, or only empathize with the situation we can imagine for ourselves here--the angst of being expected to be assertive but the powerlessness of that being unwanted in some cases. Nobody said that is easy. On the other hand, we can go into a room with a dude who is bigger than us, or two dudes, and not worry about being ****ing raped. We can go into the office with our boss after hours, or his hotel room at a conference, and not have to worry about it. We can walk to our car in the parking lot. I mean have you ever had a large quantity of cash on you at night? That paranoia you felt? That is what women need to feel all the time. AND, if you get did get mugged for that cash, or someone swiped it from your room at a party, or hell even some girl you were dating disappears with it, the first thing that happens isn't a bunch of people doubting you are telling the truth and examining your ****ing past.

The finer point on this is to try some ****ing empathy. Like empathy for the people you DO NOT RELATE to, not just the people who you can imagine being in a situation. If some of you guys took the time to consider that **** a little more you probably would find women a lot less wicked.

So yeah, I turned the **** around and said that dudes who immediately start calculating all the reasons it could be a false allegation are more likely to be rapists themselves. That was meant to make you feel a certain way. Some dudes here are still stuck on how dumb it is for me to think that. You are missing the point. The point is as bad as that makes you feel, you were not raped and then told that because you act a certain way you are probably a liar. You get it yet?

And as far as this fabled ruined life holocaust of broken men, come on y'all. It happens. Rare as ****. FFS, what are the stories in the news lately? Epstein got away with it for years along with tons of powerful men (Clinton DM!!!1!!!), so did Weinstein, Spacey. The big hand wringing concern case for poor, victimized men is Kavanaugh. First of all, it was not determined that it was a false allegation, even many of those who voted to confirm him said they thought his accuser was credible, and yet the guy is on the supreme court now and still coaching girls volleyball. He is better than fine. His accuser is not. Trump is president, ffs. R.Kelly went years with no repercussions. Brock Turner got 6 months. The example I just gave upthread. Doesn't seem to be as big a threat as some are saying.

In the face of all of that, imagine how difficult it would be to come forward when on top of it you have the average bros ready to wonder if you have some ulterior motives and banging out lists of what they could possibly be as the first reaction?

Now, again, I would invite Renton to share some examples of the aspect of the problem he is most concerned with--dudes who are sitting on a bed with a girl and are confused how to be assertive enough to close the deal and their life is ruined because of that grey area? I mean I guess we have Aziz Ansari, the guy who just released his Netflix special. He had to lay low for a while. He had to mea culpa to open that special to a standing O. He is gonna be juuust fine. Who else? Because check some stats on what women are dealing with. In fairness, maybe the bros here who are doubting as a first reaction are doing so because they are so averse to the behavior it is hard for them to imagine it happens as frequently as it does. So get educated on it. It is ****ing rampant. You 100% know a victim. When you add to the obstacles of reporting these crimes, you are not just hurting that victim, you are leaving victimizers free to repeat it and create more victims.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

Please note that absent from this TLDR is any proposal that there are never false allegations, that men should be denied due process, that skepticism is always unwarranted, that there are not female *******s or that it is fine if men go to prison if they have been falsely accused as collateral damage.

Good try but does fredd even know that place exists? Has he ever even made a politics post on 2p2?

JT,

I just wanted to address this part:

This is where the whole problem lies, imo. Your statement is just not logical. If accusers get a credibility bump from reporting immediately, then not having that bump (when reporting later) is by definition a relative reduction in credibility.

Or conversely, if you say that an accusation is just as believable if it is six months later or six hours later, then that means early reporting does not get a credibility bump. But you seem to think there is.

There is no escaping the contradiction. I think the reality is that later reporting probably reduces credibility by a minuscule amount. It's extremely small, but non-zero. And I don't think that everybody that points out deserves scorn (certainly many do because of other things they say). If it reduces the chance of veracity from something like 99% to 98.5% (I'm just making up numbers, I have no idea what the real ones are), then in a technical sense it has reduced their credibility, but it's not something that matters much.

Invariably this gets pointed out and that's when people start to go full-on Fly where they basically say, "Well I know you're saying it's almost no difference, but we all know your real hidden agenda is [insert MRA trope here]. Why else would you bring it up?" While that may be correct sometimes or even most times, it's definitely not right all the time.

And that's where everything breaks down. You have mostly a bunch of genuine rape apologists who have an agenda. You have some genuinely non-rape-apologists who sound like they're saying a lot of the same stuff. And then you have people who just treat all those guys the same (some because they really can't tell the difference and others because they don't really care).

It's the same every time.

Johnny, did you know 95 per cent of women do not report sexual assaults to the police: and that police dismiss 1 in 5 sexual assault claims as baseless:

Can confirm that I don't know what "new politardia" means. I did occasionally post in the politics forum as a quick search reveals a whopping 208 posts ITF. There's no way anyone could ever misconstrue me as a reg.

My "self-imposed .. exile" from 2p2, as it was put, revolves more around the fact that there's little value here for me anymore. I used to play poker so I posted in uNL and found a good community of people I still talk to over a decade later. I then stumbled on H&F while trying to improve pieces of my life and really enjoyed the analysis and conversation that happened here. Nowadays I don't play poker and I can't lift, so visiting the forum is honestly a depressing reminder of the past.

Fbird -

Why can't you lift? And lifting is only a tiny part of health and fitness.

The olds come for us all, apparently; I'm sure the Snapgram H&F analogue will be filled with barely strong kind of injured old office workers in ten years.

fredd,

I think loco's trying to get you into jogging. I'd probably give BJJ a shot were there one near enough to me to make it practical.

I too am curious about the can't lift part. Probably the most natural squatter we ever had. I'm hoping that it's only a temporary setback.

I don't know why you took the bold out of my quote. That was there for a reason.

It is not logical when the vast, vast majority of women do not report at all, never mind immediately, with countless known factors that weigh incredibly heavily to influence that, that it be used as some sort of circumstantial evidence of false allegation because it gives the opportunity to commit a crime.

If there is a video of the rape, it is obv far less likely that it is made up. If there is no video does it then mean it is more likely that it is a lie and the woman should be doubted? Since most of the time, there is no video, and most of the time women do not report it immediately, the absence of those two things are not that relevant in determining the truthfulness the same way that the presence of those things are.

And as far as a rape apologist vs a JAQing off fella, for one I guess since they are saying the same things it is natural to assume they have the same motives out the gate. Sorta like how a woman who does not report it right away because she is scared is judged the same as a woman who is busy plotting out the details of her criminal false allegation.

But that is not that important to me, really. Let's accept that Evo is not motivated to be a rape apologist. Whether he is or isn't, the effect of his immediate capping of the odds that a woman is a liar and expounding and pontificating on what kinds of women are not to be trusted if they claim that they are raped is the same, regardless of why.

I mean I guess I am just not quite as concerned about the unfairness of implying a dude is a rape apologist for acting like a rape apologist over the concerns of a woman being called a liar for acting like the vast majority of assault victims. But point taken.

tl;dr deformed aortic valve lead to an enlarged aorta. An enlarged aorta + heavy lifting can lead to aortic dissection and well RIP if that happens. More info here https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=2373

FWIW loco, I do get a little under 40 miles per week on my bike just commuting so Im doing some health and fitness. Though it isn't nearly as fulfilling.

I did look into BJJ since it seems to be the exercise trend of the last year or so. I've been a little busy as I just finished up a job search and will finally have more time to dedicate to my health.

I didn't take it out. I just used copy paste instead of the quote function. So, I guess the problem is that I didn't put it in. I'll go with quote button this time.


That's all fine. But if you want to go with that, then you have to admit that reporting earlier doesn't give extra credibility. And that's a fine position to hold.


Obviously allegation w/ video is less likely to be made up than allegation without video. Are we really doing this?

Of course lack of video, doesn't mean a woman should be doubted.

Both allegations are highly credible. One is slightly more so. How hard is this?

Agree.

Sure. And in both sets cases I think one should at least try to make a distinction.

It's not always the same. Really depends on how it's done.

Saying that if X is true, then someone is slightly more or slightly less likely to be lying is not the same as calling them a liar. I can see how someone dumber than you might make that mistake, but you're better than that.

Having said that, you can easily make the argument that treating rape apologists and the neckbearders the same still serves a greater good. So in that case you really need to treat them the same even if you know it may not be fair in a particular case. I get that. That's why all these conversations are pretty much the same.

f-bird,


I apologize for lumping you in with the zealots.

Melk,

The assertion is that when determining the probability that a woman is making up that she was raped, it bodes AGAINST her if she didn't come forward immediately. But we know that the vast majority of women who are raped do not come forward immediately. The number of women who come forward immediately is practically a rounding error in the data.

You know what the estimates of false accusations are compared to actual rapes? 0.5%. A high estimate of reported rapes that are false is 5%, and that is not corrected for women who were actually raped but recant just because they want to drop the charges and get the **** out of the situation. You know, a situation where everyone is doubting they are telling the truth, speculating on their sexual history, and defending the guy who did it to them.

So basically, almost no women report rape, even fewer report it immediately, and even fewer are false accusations. In all of that, we are to pretend that it is useful and informative to take the absence of what is pretty much a statistically insignificant occurrence as evidence of something that is even more statistically insignificant?

Not reporting immediately is not useful information in assessing if a woman is lying. Period. It includes almost all rape victims.

Sorry JT, i'm not ignoring you, I just have enough aids in my life right now that I'd rather not pile some more on by participating in this discussion. I don't think anything that I said was controversial enough to warrant retorting, anyhow.

JT,

I think we're going in circles a bit, but what the heck.

I kept the all caps this time. But neither that nor bolding really changes the underlying logic. If you are going to claim that coming forward immediately means more a little more credibility, then not coming forward immediately means a little less.

I don't know what you mean by holding it AGAINST the accuser. I'm just making a factual statement. Even without immediate reporting, accusations are highly credible.

What do you think holding AGAINST means? If I think that reporting of any rape is highly credible, but reporting immediately lends a bit of credibility while accusations that are not immediate don't get that extra bit of credibility, then how is that holding it AGAINST the accuser. I still think the accuser is very credible. Merely stating that fact is not holding it AGAINST the accuser.

Now a lot of people who do state that fact, will also hold it AGAINST the accuser. (e.g. disbelieve them, dismiss the accusation, encourage them to drop it, etc.) And if they do that, then they do deserve your contempt.


I'd agree with just about all of this. But here's what I don't get, if bolded is true why would you support the notion that reporting earlier lends credibility.

These two statements are irreconcilable:


The only way out would be for you to say that reporting immediately is also not useful information. And like I said, that's a fine position to have.

Sorry to hear that, fredd.

Interestingly, there was a dude who had what sounded like a similar problem who posted in beginner's questions about a similar issue. If you're so inclined, you might pop over and see if you can tell him anything of use.

Melk,

Those are not irreconcilable.

It is statistically significant if a woman reports it immediately. It is not, therefore, conversely significant if she doesn't. I mean I would love to give you an example to illustrate this, but it's hard to come up with one more illustrative than the one we are discussing. They are two different ****ing data sets. One includes only women who report it immediately, which is a very small group with a much narrower set of circumstances. The other is a very large group with a very broad set of circumstances. They have very little relationship to each other and therefore, the same piece of information is valuable and informative in one group and not in another.