What would feminists like to see?
If a man is accused of some kind of sexual assault by a woman he is automatically assume to be guilty, and has to prove his innocence using a preponderance of evidence. He never gets to see his accusers in court. And no trial by jury, instead trial by a cabinet of (feminist) judges.
Wait, what? People have to prove that someone is guilty before they get convicted? Since when?
The SJWs will say he was guilty.
The militantly zealous anti-SJW's will say he was innocent.
The smart people will say he was acquitted by a court of law, and it's possible he was guilty, but there was just not enough evidence for this trial. The reality is that it's extremely hard to get this conclusive evidence for a conviction because of the nature of rape. If the rape was not violent, or even not reported until a few days after the incident, any DNA evidence and other biological indicators will be gone. This does not mean he was guilty. It just means the reality is that evidence has always been hard to procure in rape trials.
This is the reality of it people. If you're either of the first two, grow the fuck up and learn about how the world works. If you're over 20, get over yourself.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Sylvanas Windrunner For Warchief 2016!!#NoFlyNoSub, #NoFlyNoLegion, #NoFlyNoBuy, #BringBackFlight
"This one person did something so therefor the cause they represent is totally about what they did!"
And then you get salty when people call MRM/MRA's a hate group.
- - - Updated - - -
I mean it sounds like this case was pretty clear that there were a lot of mixed signals. But victims of rape don't always automatically cut all contact with their assaulter either. The nature of the text messages would reveal more though.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Except it's not just ONE false accuser, is it? It's every single major rape case that's been in the news in the last 5 or more years. This case, the "victims" of the Duke lacrosse team story, the Rolling Stone UVA "rape on campus" travesty, mattress girl; every single one was either out and out lies and fabrication, or vindictive woman scorned. Name me an equal number of examples where major media sensation was spot on, in the last decade.
Yes, there have been major smear cases where it was a false accusation. False accusations are anywhere from 2-5% of all actual accusations. A tiny fraction of actual rapes are ever actually reported, and even less reach a conviction. A positive conviction for rape is pretty rare, despite popular belief. But false accusations and lack of rape convictions/reporting are problems. Demanding that one is somehow MORE of a problem than the other shows clear bias.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
And the "SJWs" that falsely claim not to be will use this sophistry as a basis to assassinate his character without a fair basis to do so. In essence, though they will not explicitly say that he is definitely guilty, they will still argue that it's somehow unreasonable to regard one as an innocent, in the absence of substantiated guilt. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" They cry, while continuing the witch hunt.
Last edited by Anonymous1038853; 2016-03-25 at 12:50 AM.
A lot of "mixed signals"? I wouldn't call outright lies, fabrication, the accusers meeting prior to and after the accusation to get their stories straight, and then still making up new lies and getting caught out in court "mixed signals". They repeatedly lied under oath, not a single claim they made had a shred of evidence. Indeed, all of the actual evidence was on the accused's side. Just like, I dunno, UVA, Duke Lacrosse, Mattress Girl.
- - - Updated - - -
I'd say the clear bias is all on your side of the argument here, as I've provided recent and relevant examples for mine. You're just appealing to the feelings. If it's actually only 2-5% of claims that are false, isn't it kind of strange EVERY SINGLE major news case has been a provably false accusation?
When will people learn? Every single man is Schrödinger's rapist.
That's the proportion of accusation which are proven false. The actual percentage of false accusations may be ten times that.False accusations are anywhere from 2-5% of all actual accusations.