Written by Rasputin on 11.06.2016 at 19:43

Cheap cope out. That's what happens when you argue with a child.

At least I can recognize I'm a child. Can't say the same for you.

I cop out because I'd rather be doing more productive or more satisfying things, like making lists on this forum or looking at a good pair of boobs.

Quote:

And the reason for Russia, is because I do business there and I stay quite a lot there

Still don't live there though. And you seem quite obsessed with Russia in literally every way, why don't you move there? It would solve a lot of your bitterness at least.

We're getting way derailed from the topic of feminism so I probably will stop here before Marcel pulls out his ruler and forcefully takes the discussion back on track. I could argue for feminism all I want but I didn't come to this forum to play therapist for a bunch of neckbeards. I've got enough neckbeard friends to do that for. So yeah, this is where I hop off. Nice talking to you, Rasputin, if you are still in your 20's (since you don't list your age anywhere) then I hope you find your way soon enough to not waste the best dating years, and if you are older than I can kind of understand why you would be so jaded. You are so cold-hearted and I just wanted to help you change your ways </3

Written by Overrwatcher on 12.06.2016 at 02:01

Written by Rasputin on 11.06.2016 at 19:43

Cheap cope out. That's what happens when you argue with a child.

At least I can recognize I'm a child. Can't say the same for you.

I cop out because I'd rather be doing more productive or more satisfying things, like making lists on this forum or looking at a good pair of boobs.

Quote:

And the reason for Russia, is because I do business there and I stay quite a lot there

Still don't live there though. And you seem quite obsessed with Russia in literally every way, why don't you move there? It would solve a lot of your bitterness at least.

We're getting way derailed from the topic of feminism so I probably will stop here before Marcel pulls out his ruler and forcefully takes the discussion back on track. I could argue for feminism all I want but I didn't come to this forum to play therapist for a bunch of neckbeards. I've got enough neckbeard friends to do that for. So yeah, this is where I hop off. Nice talking to you, Rasputin, if you are still in your 20's (since you don't list your age anywhere) then I hope you find your way soon enough to not waste the best dating years, and if you are older than I can kind of understand why you would be so jaded. You are so cold-hearted and I just wanted to help you change your ways </3

Nice talking to you Overwatcher

What IS a neckbeard? (besides an actual beard, although I'm not entirely sure what one looks like, anyway)

Oky doky, people, I've dealt with the Russian-wannabe prick and (I think) all of his shitty comments in this thread. Let's move on and forget about him and go about our business.

Written by psykometal on 18.06.2016 at 18:45

Oky doky, people, I've dealt with the Russian-wannabe prick and (I think) all of his shitty comments in this thread. Let's move on and forget about him and go about our business.

Written by M C Vice on 18.06.2016 at 13:13

What IS a neckbeard? (besides an actual beard, although I'm not entirely sure what one looks like, anyway)

A neckbeard is someone who is extremely socially inept, like not just to the point where they are extremely introverted and thought of as weird, but to the point where they are aggressive and make everyone around them uncomfortable. They are extremely nerdy, and extremely passionate about it. A lot of the long, long rants consisting of nothing but sheer hatred are often by neckbeards. They are failures at life in every way: They often are No Education, Employment, or Training (NEET) people who are morbidly obese, have very poorly maintained facial hair, never shower, and can not say anything to a woman without coming off as a horrible creep. They have an obsession with fedoras and think they are "classy intellectuals" when they really aren't either. They don't need to have all of these traits, it's just the stereotype and often known as being "neckbeard in spirit". /r/justneckbeardthings is filled with examples.

Not to be confused with "Nice Guys". All neckbeards are Nice Guys, but not all Nice Guys are neckbeards. A Nice Guy is a man who thinks that because he is being a basic human being (i.e. not being an asshole), women must have sex with him, so he will do small favors for women for long periods of time and then ask them out. If the woman rejects him, saying that she views him as only a friend, then he has entered the "friendzone" in his mind, because he was being too nice. Now she's a fucking slut apparently, even though that logic makes no sense due to what "slut" means. Have this happen enough times and instead of thinking there is something wrong with him, they think there is something wrong with women as a whole, and as a result he becomes a misogynist. /r/niceguys is filled with great examples.

Whenever you are feeling socially inept, always remember these guys exist.

Now consider what I said about neckbeard passion and loudness, and Nice Guys eventually becoming misogynists, and you just summed up a lot of internet men's rights activists. It's a shame, there is legit men's rights topics as shown on /r/menslib, I just can't take the term "MRA" seriously any more.

'Neckbeard' is an internet meme and a misandrist slur for an imaginary demographic. The stereotype is pretty much what Overrwatcher describes, but to suppose that this is an accurate description of any homogenous group of people is pretty naive.

They love the trilby, though, not the fedora. Don't knock on fedoras.

Rasputin is not really a neckbeard (if we are to use the term, which I find ironically inappropriate in a topic about feminism), and certainly not a Nice Guy. He is a dangerous, hateful fascist, either an unwitting pawn and groupie of Russia's organised troll army or even part of it himself (which I find unlikely, given his long history here). Treating him as just another socially inept internet meme underestimates the danger the civilised West is facing from his kind. People have already died.

Written by IronAngel on 20.06.2016 at 14:50

'Neckbeard' is an internet meme and a misandrist slur for an imaginary demographic. The stereotype is pretty much what Overrwatcher describes, but to suppose that this is an accurate description of any homogenous group of people is pretty naive.

They love the trilby, though, not the fedora. Don't knock on fedoras.

Rasputin is not really a neckbeard (if we are to use the term, which I find ironically inappropriate in a topic about feminism), and certainly not a Nice Guy. He is a dangerous, hateful fascist, either an unwitting pawn and groupie of Russia's organised troll army or even part of it himself (which I find unlikely, given his long history here). Treating him as just another socially inept internet meme underestimates the danger the civilised West is facing from his kind. People have already died.

What I always find silly about neckbeards is how they talk about how great the fedoras are, and then end up buying a trilby instead lol.

It definitely is bad to associate Rasputin with neckbeards when he really is something completely different (neckbeards are almost never straight-up neo-nazis), but I don't feel as if it's a misandrist slur. It is a ridiculous stereotype that very few people fall perfectly into, and people have had their entire lives ruined by unfortunately having only harmless characteristics of the stereotype (they could have a neckbeard and be overweight but maintain good hygiene and are upstanding individuals), but it's wrong to associate it specifically as a slur against men. The average guy is not like that. Nobody thinks that every guy is a neckbeard, unlike how misogynists (like Thy Art Is Murder's original vocalist) think all women are sluts. A misandrist view would be more in the line of the stereotype that all men are braindead 300-pound hulks of testosterone who will have sex with you whether you consent or not. Misandry is more in the line of "You're a man? Get away from me" than "You're an unlikable person? Get away from me". Neckbeards are hated because they are obnoxious losers with zero social skills, not because they are men. The female equivalent of a neckbeard is so rare and instead shoved into the "tumblrina" stereotype that the stereotype was applied to men only similar to tumblrina being female-only. And for that, only /r/the_donald neckbeards think that every woman who uses tumblr are one of those. Tumblr is used a ton by regular teenage/college girls who obsess over Supernatural/Doctor Who/Sherlock as well. Hell, that's their biggest demographic, dwarfing said tumblrinas by a factor of hundreds, and anyone with even a little bit of sanity would know that if they know about tumblr.

And neckbeards do exist, not quite with all of the stereotypical physical traits, but definitely with all of the mental ones. I know a few of them, the only reason why they don't make any advances onto me is because they know I'm not into guys. I always try to help them, but unfortunately they are so deep down in a pit of loneliness and despair that they become jaded to all women and are starting to distance themselves from me. After so many rejections despite trying to "improve" themselves, they fall into Nice Guy mentality. While a portion of misogynists are Nice Guys, they are a small portion compared to other misogynist stereotypes, like the overly macho men that want to avoid all femininity, or many other different stereotypes, or none at all. I know a guy who is a serious misogynist but he isn't awkward or overly macho or fitting in any of these stereotypes. He just had poor influences from his parents' divorce and doesn't even realize what he is doing. When I brought it up to him he was super offended in a way of "you're calling me a misogynist?"

I do have an unhealthy view of men, however, so that could cloud my view and I maybe am the crazy dick-hater some people claim I am. After years and years of that one guy being my best friend, and to see him drift away after several failed relationships and every ex telling me the same thing about him, and to see him become more and more manipulative and dangerous as time went on and not realizing how that actually highlights his red flags even more, until everything between us two utterly snapped when he got excessively loud and confrontational about his racist/sexist politics. And my other guy friends trying to back him up and explain "oh you're just misinterpreting him", "stop being so sensitive", "he's avoiding us because of YOU", I started drifting away from them as well. Even my brother is part of that crowd, and the way he talks about his ex-girlfriends (even one he's still "close friends" with) is disgusting. The girls were the only ones that listened to me and went "yep, sounds like so many people I know". If it weren't for my dad reassuring me that I'm not the crazy one here and he noticed it all from a distance, I probably would have fallen into straight-up misandry. I have shitty friends. I still hang out with them, only because I didn't bother making very many other friends over the years and just stuck with them, but I'm gradually meeting new people. It's really difficult starting over.

Sorry for the rant that derailed from your original point, I just kind of started off with my problem of calling "neckbeard" a misandrist term and then went off from there to something very relevant to the topic at hand. What I just mentioned above is the reason why I care so much about both feminism and MRA. Men generally have very poor understanding of women while women have unhealthy views of men. I just want both of those issues to go away. I was the only girl in my large group of guys, and I've seen a lot of cases for the opposite. And it feels like the stereotype is that they have to be gay. Think about the one token gay guy surrounded by a bunch of girls, or my situation being the vice versa. And it has to do a lot with the poor communication between the two sexes.

Well, I don't think the neckbeard stereotype is categorically misandrist and I probably would not bat an eyelid in a different context, but on further thought it seems to me much like the negative female stereotypes (the man-hating feminazi, the stupid slut, the manipulative leech who'll marry you and divorce for your money, etc.) that feminism is rightly criticising. That is why I find it ironic and worth pointing out in this specific topic. I mean, if it was a stereotype that was chiefly applied to women it would be immediately recognised as problematic.

Of course, this is related to my more general opinion that generalisations, or at least praise or criticism based on a generalised description of a person ('He's pathetic because he's a neckbeard' or whatever) are not very useful and on-point. A negative opinion of women or even complete social ineptitude aren't necessarily connected to what makes a neckbeard: a terrible sense of style, socially uncool hobbies, participation in certain social circles online and overall dorkiness are, to me, much more relevant and have nothing to do with misogyny. Take the YouTuber Boogie2988, for instance: classic neckbeard in many key aspects but to my (limited) knowledge, a (genuinely) nice guy.

Personally, I've witnessed very few bad experiences about gender relations (or whatever). I am a straight guy but the vast majority of my friends have always been girls/women. (In fact all of the closest ones, although I do still occasionally hang out with a few old male schoolmates.) Probably I have been lucky with my social circles - I have always been part of the "nice" and "smart" crowds which were bullied in the lower grades but became the cool thing in high school, and in Uni I avoided the annoying students' union crowd - but I have never found gender relations to be very problematic or acute on a personal, grassroots level. To me the issue is largely political and to a lesser extent cultural (i.e. in the media and social media).

Daww, this is adorable. I'm a fucking brain-dead piece of shit from Serbia whose only 21 and I think I know SO much MORE about genders and the differences between them than a 17 year old American girl that I decided to attack her and then claim to be an authority on a state in a country I don't even live in, and all this after I flashed my asshole to Staff in the Islam thread! Later peeps; cuz I asked for your best shots and I got it (Das Boothammer!)!

~ Original message edited out by Mod for it's goadful stupidity and intentional offensiveness; now it's more accurate. ~

haha this just turned into an attack on CF? :'( that would be one of the few states in US that I might want to live in at some point.

And yeah, bringing up which state people are coming from. way to have very advanced discussions.

Oh boy here we go again

Written by mz on 26.06.2016 at 03:06

CF

If this is meant to be the state code for California, then *CA would be the correct one.

Written by psykometal on 26.06.2016 at 09:31

Written by mz on 26.06.2016 at 03:06

CF

If this is meant to be the state code for California, then *CA would be the correct one.

in my defense, this is what you get to do when you are having half-drunk post at 2 in the morning, while you also think about Sanfransico and Californium , abbreviated as Cf.

Written by Maco on 26.06.2016 at 07:11

Oh boy here we go again

MS Serious Discussions: popcorn not included

That edit of Slayer's post is brilliant. Just close enough to the original, but turned around on him. That's the way to go.

I have to say, at least Rasputin had a little bit of tact to him. Slayer had no subtlety.

Written by mz on 26.06.2016 at 03:06


haha this just turned into an attack on CF? :'( that would be one of the few states in US that I might want to live in at some point.

California is known as one of the liberal capitals of the US, since politically we have voted Democrat for the past 24 years while being the largest state in the US by a huge margin. Being liberal has been a bad thing on the internet for the past ~2 years due to it no longer favoring "brogressiveness" (progressive only for what benefits a young white man, due to them being the internet majority) and the movement now being thought of as going "too far" due to moving to trans rights. They don't acknowledge gender dysphoria as a legitimate biological disorder and all they associate with trans people are either Caitlyn Jenner or nonbinary stuff, both being looked at extremely unfavorably. Combine that with a confirmation bias that all liberals are extreme SJWs and you've got a neon glowing target for mostly-liberal California. Slayer/Raspy can't really target much about me or my views so they targeted where I live based on stereotype and political leanings.

California is pretty decent, but it greatly depends on where you live. If you aren't going upscale in California, don't bother. The rent and house costs are extremely high, even in shitty neighborhoods, and Homeowner's Association fees often bite you in the ass. A 4 bed 3 bath 2 story house in a poor backwater neighborhood for $600k is about right. The same house in a good part of California, like any university city (Irvine and La Jolla), would be roughly 1 million. Go literally only a state over and prices plummet. But we have great healthcare, extremely low crime rates in said upscale areas, a governor who isn't utterly retarded, a usually moderate climate (not right now 115F/46C temperatures fucking kill me), and cheerful and open minded (if a bit pretentious) people. I sure as hell prefer it over any other state I've been to, that's for sure. Anyway, back on topic...

Written by IronAngel on 21.06.2016 at 12:35

Well, I don't think the neckbeard stereotype is categorically misandrist and I probably would not bat an eyelid in a different context, but on further thought it seems to me much like the negative female stereotypes (the man-hating feminazi, the stupid slut, the manipulative leech who'll marry you and divorce for your money, etc.) that feminism is rightly criticising. That is why I find it ironic and worth pointing out in this specific topic. I mean, if it was a stereotype that was chiefly applied to women it would be immediately recognised as problematic.

Of course, this is related to my more general opinion that generalisations, or at least praise or criticism based on a generalised description of a person ('He's pathetic because he's a neckbeard' or whatever) are not very useful and on-point. A negative opinion of women or even complete social ineptitude aren't necessarily connected to what makes a neckbeard: a terrible sense of style, socially uncool hobbies, participation in certain social circles online and overall dorkiness are, to me, much more relevant and have nothing to do with misogyny. Take the YouTuber Boogie2988, for instance: classic neckbeard in many key aspects but to my (limited) knowledge, a (genuinely) nice guy.

Personally, I've witnessed very few bad experiences about gender relations (or whatever). I am a straight guy but the vast majority of my friends have always been girls/women. (In fact all of the closest ones, although I do still occasionally hang out with a few old male schoolmates.) Probably I have been lucky with my social circles - I have always been part of the "nice" and "smart" crowds which were bullied in the lower grades but became the cool thing in high school, and in Uni I avoided the annoying students' union crowd - but I have never found gender relations to be very problematic or acute on a personal, grassroots level. To me the issue is largely political and to a lesser extent cultural (i.e. in the media and social media).

I get what you are saying about not grouping all men into different stereotypes and I completely agree. Stereotypes are bad in general, especially when it's applied to something you can't control. Being a guy doesn't mean that you are a neckbeard. Being Asian doesn't mean you are good at math. I prefer separating the neckbeard stereotype into its own bubble, since it's not a stereotype of men but instead a stereotype of nerds.

The thing about neckbeards and misogyny is that it's not a requirement. It's just quite a few of them happen to be misogynists due to the reasons I explained above. The things you mentioned are far more prevalent in the though of a neckbeard, as well as obnoxiousness. I find that a lot of internet misogynists are neckbeards, and the Nice Guy stereotype usually doesn't develop into full-on hate. Sure, they don't view women quite as human (rather as sex objects which may exchange their bodies for a little bit of kindness), but it's not an intentional misogyny, and they don't even realize what they're doing. If you call them out on it then they get super defensive, not because they're hiding it, but because they don't see themselves doing anything wrong. So really most neckbeards/Nice Guys aren't a problem in the context of feminism. They may claim they hate feminism, but they only hate radical feminism. A lot of them later say that they don't mind equality, which is, you know, feminism. If anything, they would benefit from feminism, it would help them understand women better.

Boogie was actually the guy I was thinking about in terms of "really sweet and intelligent guy who gets witch-hunted because he looks like a neckbeard". To be fair some of the misguided hate has to do with his "Francis" persona displaying a stereotypical neckbeard, and if that's the only part of him you have been exposed to then it's easy he's just another neckbeard. But even people who know his genuine personality still hate on him simply because of his physical appearance. It's really sad.

Your last paragraph also made me remember something else: Our backgrounds shape our views. We have different backgrounds as far as gender, nationality, and most importantly personal experiences, and as a result we have somewhat different views on the same agreement. I always find that really cool.

Written by Overrwatcher on 20.06.2016 at 12:25



Not to be confused with "Nice Guys". All neckbeards are Nice Guys, but not all Nice Guys are neckbeards. A Nice Guy is a man who thinks that because he is being a basic human being (i.e. not being an asshole), women must have sex with him, so he will do small favors for women for long periods of time and then ask them out. If the woman rejects him, saying that she views him as only a friend, then he has entered the "friendzone" in his mind, because he was being too nice. Now she's a fucking slut apparently, even though that logic makes no sense due to what "slut" means. Have this happen enough times and instead of thinking there is something wrong with him, they think there is something wrong with women as a whole, and as a result he becomes a misogynist. /r/niceguys is filled with great examples.

Darn, this reminds me how I hate that this thing exists, since it makes so easy to be misunderstood when you actually have honest intentions. Funny thing is in the last semester I did some tutoring favours to a girl few years behind me in the same spec, with absolutely no secret motives whatsoever, but over time I did develop a crush on her, and when I learned she was single (she used to have a bf througout the time), I asked her out (about a week or so ago). She turned me down, which is no biggie, and I certainly did not take it in any immature way, but I haven't talked her since then (not an unusual thing, we were never talking daily), and I dearly hope that she does not think I was trying to pull off one of these antics on her...

Considering the fact that I am a student demonstrator, who also does a lot of "charitable" voluntary teaching of math subjects to pretty much anyone who needs it in the spec, this IS how I frequently get to know most new people, and this makes stuff so awkward.

Written by Overrwatcher on 26.06.2016 at 16:43



California is known as one of the liberal capitals of the US, since politically we have voted Democrat for the past 24 years while being the largest state in the US by a huge margin. Being liberal has been a bad thing on the internet for the past ~2 years due to it no longer favoring "brogressiveness" (progressive only for what benefits a young white man, due to them being the internet majority) and the movement now being thought of as going "too far" due to moving to trans rights. They don't acknowledge gender dysphoria as a legitimate biological disorder and all they associate with trans people are either Caitlyn Jenner or nonbinary stuff, both being looked at extremely unfavorably. Combine that with a confirmation bias that all liberals are extreme SJWs and you've got a neon glowing target for mostly-liberal California. Slayer/Raspy can't really target much about me or my views so they targeted where I live based on stereotype and political leanings.

California is pretty decent, but it greatly depends on where you live. If you aren't going upscale in California, don't bother. The rent and house costs are extremely high, even in shitty neighborhoods, and Homeowner's Association fees often bite you in the ass. A 4 bed 3 bath 2 story house in a poor backwater neighborhood for $600k is about right. The same house in a good part of California, like any university city (Irvine and La Jolla), would be roughly 1 million. Go literally only a state over and prices plummet. But we have great healthcare, extremely low crime rates in said upscale areas, a governor who isn't utterly retarded, a usually moderate climate (not right now 115F/46C temperatures fucking kill me), and cheerful and open minded (if a bit pretentious) people. I sure as hell prefer it over any other state I've been to, that's for sure. Anyway, back on topic...

yeah indeed it seems that California is leading US in terms of social reforms, and that's a great thing, given the wealth, population and the influence that the state have.
For the next five years at least I will be in Switzerland. I would had loved to go to US for PhD, but there is this visa issue...Anyway, I think if I want to settle in US at some point, SF will be the first choice,due to the following reasons:
1- I don't like rural areas as living place. Places with high density of people are prefered, very much like many of EU countries.
2- I need a lot of sun to feel alive. This is an extremely important factor for me . Also, I prefer to live in a place that is not so cold. Otherwise great states of New York and Massachusetts get negative points here.
3-I work/study on high tech stuff, and that means that I like areas with high concentration of high tech people and leading universities.
Considering all of the factors, to me it seems that CA and especially SF will be ideal place for me. Silicon Valley is heaven for what I do, but also I'm aware that CA in general and especially SF are very expensive places.
Anyways, back to the topic, yeah I don't have much to say about Feminism :'( not much of reading about that.

Written by Uldreth on 26.06.2016 at 21:06

Written by Overrwatcher on 20.06.2016 at 12:25



Not to be confused with "Nice Guys". All neckbeards are Nice Guys, but not all Nice Guys are neckbeards. A Nice Guy is a man who thinks that because he is being a basic human being (i.e. not being an asshole), women must have sex with him, so he will do small favors for women for long periods of time and then ask them out. If the woman rejects him, saying that she views him as only a friend, then he has entered the "friendzone" in his mind, because he was being too nice. Now she's a fucking slut apparently, even though that logic makes no sense due to what "slut" means. Have this happen enough times and instead of thinking there is something wrong with him, they think there is something wrong with women as a whole, and as a result he becomes a misogynist. /r/niceguys is filled with great examples.

Darn, this reminds me how I hate that this thing exists, since it makes so easy to be misunderstood when you actually have honest intentions. Funny thing is in the last semester I did some tutoring favours to a girl few years behind me in the same spec, with absolutely no secret motives whatsoever, but over time I did develop a crush on her, and when I learned she was single (she used to have a bf througout the time), I asked her out (about a week or so ago). She turned me down, which is no biggie, and I certainly did not take it in any immature way, but I haven't talked her since then (not an unusual thing, we were never talking daily), and I dearly hope that she does not think I was trying to pull off one of these antics on her...

Considering the fact that I am a student demonstrator, who also does a lot of "charitable" voluntary teaching of math subjects to pretty much anyone who needs it in the spec, this IS how I frequently get to know most new people, and this makes stuff so awkward.

Don't worry, it doesn't sound like you came off as a Nice Guy. You offered tutoring help to everyone (not just her, key difference), you later ask one of your students out, she turned you down, you took it well and moved on. Sounds like completely normal human interaction.

If it makes you feel any better, I married my teacher!

Written by IronAngel on 27.06.2016 at 16:58

If it makes you feel any better, I married my teacher!

I knew you didn't earn that A+ on your own.

From Sickipedia:

I accidentally said hello to a feminist the other day.

The court trial starts tomorrow.

Moved forums, as this is no longer a discussion about Decapitated, but sexual abuse (which is very much a feminist issue)

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 16.12.2017 at 00:40

Written by Doc G. on 15.12.2017 at 22:53

1. You are among the lucky ones then. My life has been affected by 'a progressive social movement' since my country had one before 1989, which continued partially until the early 2000s. A very progressive social movement, which many in the west envy, one that left a country starving and without basic life necessities. Then again Western progressives do embrace the whole idea of socialism, dismissing its results in the countries where they were applied claiming they weren't really socialist (LOL)

2. I won't lay off the channels that speak the truth. I surely won't embrace those that provide fake news, like CNN or BBC. Don't feel the need to indoctrinate myself with socialist infected news websites. You've noticed bad. They find the truth. The truth about a decadent, progressive socialist world which little by little will ruin our lives, limiting our rights for the sake of socialist ideas, like political correctness.

3. I am against sexual abuse or harassment. Just against washing your laundry in public eyes. I just find it stupid to claim something that happened 30-40 years ago (which is the case with many of the testimonies made by women within this #metoo movement) now, when legally you have no way to prove it if you are right or wrong. Some of the testimonies were outright ridiculous and only a jackass would believe them and not sue to floozy who made them. This is a calculated scheme, made by some long forgotten stars and starlets in Hollywood to be again in the spotlight. Or some other no-name women that think they can gain a moment of attention by practically accusing someone of something that they cannot prove. Because if you can prove you don't do #metoo, you go straight to the police and file a legal report. However even in a marxist-feminist infected country it doesn't work to file a legal report for something that happened 30-40 years ago, or even 5-10 year ago. Most of the guys accused are eligible and entitled to file a lawsuit for false accusations. Because if they can't be proven, they are false by default and only serves to tarnish your image.

Real sexual abuse victims file a legal report when it happens. They don't accept it, keep it for themselves for decades and then suddenly waking up to tell a story.

5. Not tolerating sexual harassment, ok. But why did you tolerate it for decades before deciding to come out with it? 'Well you know, when it happened we thought we could get some favors, as the guy was influential, he had money, he had power, he had connections and so we thought it is ok. He made us well known, he gave us attention, he presented us to his connections, he gave us a career. But now it is no longer valid, as we are no longer in the spotlight, and it is ok to let it out now, although we are not cunts/bitches, we are sexual abuse victims!' - this is something much closer to reality.

Bottom line, accepting sexual abuse and harassment for personal gain no longer makes you the victim of sexual harassment/abuse. Because you sold yourself for personal gain. Does a street harlot sues its clients after they paid her for the job? Doubt it. The same logic applies here.

And no, it won't create a better world for men at all, and for women either. False accusations of rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment do not create a better world. They create a world that Orwell envisioned. Surely, that is not something we should be 'progressing' to. Because it is not progress, its regress. This is very similar with how the secret police functioned in former communist countries, inventing stuff on spot, disregarding any means or proving, just to get you ass in jail because you are/were 'uncomfortable' to the regime. My country had an army of such people and those people are still free, posing today as public personalities, generators of public opinion.

6. It kinda is. Most of the testimonies cannot be proven in a court. Which is where it counts. The court establishes what is legally right and legally wrong. But then again how many of these women would be willing to prove it there. Because they know they can't. But at TV and in a magazine, you don't need to prove anything. Few guys are being affected by this. You can number them on your fingers. Most of those accused, lost their jobs (which is ironic, you lose your job although you did not even get the change to prove your innocence, where did the innocent until proven guilty malarkey has gone? ; ow, forgot, it applies for feminists only, not oppressive white male pigs) while others were accused and that is that.

7. Sexism exists everywhere, I agree, but the degree varies. Hollywood being a nepotist driven realm, sexism is much more rampant there. And it is normal, since very few people get in there without connections or without compromising (like most of the women from the #metoo movement did, they compromised, they sold their body and dignity for fame and cash).

You keep describing the EU as turning into some dystopian piss hole, but the actual statistics* I've found seem to point to the contrary. So do you have any actual evidence or are you just going to continue spewing vague, histrionic anecdotes?

*Note: these statistics show rapes as increasing. The thing to keep in mind is that these are reported crimes. In other words, this is ironically a good sign, as it shows rape victims becoming more comfortable coming forward.

About channels speaking the truth? Bannon, Cernovich, Jones, and the clowns on Fox (namely Hannity) have been caught in outright lies on a damn-near daily basis. Not small mistruths, lying through omission or partisan truth-bending as 90% of news sources do, but full-on fabricated bullshit. Its part of why Fox couldn't get a liscense to broadcast as "news" in Canada.

Not for profit journalism like Pro Publica is your safest route.

Key point to remember: Just because a news source is publishing something that upsets you, doesn't make them wrong.

...and "Real victims"? Ho-ly shit. I hope that was some oddly placed joke. Also, this statement is beautiful:

Quote:
They don't accept it, keep it for themselves for decades...

I'm stunned by the ignorance on display here. I'm curious as to how someone who so clearly lacks even the slightest insight into the nature of abuse justifies trying to debate the topic.

You are making a bunch of huge leaps here. In the case for things such as spousal rape or statutory rape, the abuser generally has something over the victim (firing them, threat of blackballing them in their industry, losing their home, etc). Not to mention they face immense public ridicule when they do come forward. Combine that with the fact they won't be believed makes keeping it secret an act of self preservation. Tons of women are coming forward now because this public cleansing of the creeps has shown women that there is support, and they aren't alone. You're hearing about decades old cases now because back then there wasn't the support or understanding as we're just starting to see.

Quote:
Because if they can't be proven, they are false by default and only serves to tarnish your image.

You are aware of the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty", right?

As for the "women coming forward to get attention" - that theory falls flat when you consider the large quantity of accusations coming from sources that did not release their names to the media.

Besides, up until recently, tossing out these accusations has proven fruitless. Bill Cosby walked free despite over 50 women accusing him (several Jane Does). Trump became president (he was accused of - and more or less admitted to - sexual harassment well before his dumpster fire of a presidency. Roman Polanski originally got a mere 42 days in jail for raping a 13 y/o. The Swiss government declined extradition to the states for a trial. Woody Allen is still kicking around. So is R. Kelly...Charlie Sheen...Casey Affleck. With results like those, I don't see the point in false accusations.

Statistics made by the EC? The most pro-Russian and most pro-socialist institution of the European Union? Well... kinda tells about its validity. The very project of an "United State of Europe" is basically USSR revamped. USSR did the same thing, in EXACTLY the same manner, and look where it ended. As for the EU becoming more and more socialist, you just need to look at who leads the EU, and who lead it in the last 25 years.

Statistics show reported rapes, but how many of those lead to a guilty sentence? Hmmm. That is something that needs to be researched on its own.

BBC, CNN, WashPoo, HuffPoo and all the other liberal, socialist channels instigated this year once of the most embarrassing fake news story about the 60000 'nazis' in Poland marching during the Independence Day. They insulted an entire nation, a slanderous attempt of international proportions which was quickly accepted by liberal snowflakes. People today still believe that it is true. And this is just one among the many fake news that the liberal-socialists from these channels have been spitting for a while.

"I'm stunned by the ignorance on display here. I'm curious as to how someone who so clearly lacks even the slightest insight into the nature of abuse justifies trying to debate the topic."

Again, if it happened, you go to the police and file a report WHEN IT HAPPENS. Not 30-40 years after. Legally, nobody will take your report seriously. So why should we take a #metoo testimony seriously about someone touching a woman's butt when most of the millennials weren't even born? LoL

"In the case for things such as spousal rape or statutory rape, the abuser generally has something over the victim"

Generally speaking, rape accusations land you plenty of $ if the verdict is guilty. That is why there are a lot of false rape allegations. Because easy $. And the more socialist a society is, the more feminist the judges and prosecutors are, the easier it is to condemn someone innocent of rape and have him do time and pay the floozy.

"Combine that with the fact they won't be believed makes keeping it secret an act of self preservation."

Combine that with the fact that women today, at least in Western societies are believed more than men when it comes to rape. Men are the ones taking the blunt of the accusation, in many cases almost losing completely his right for building a solid defense and the guilty until proven otherwise status. When a man is being accused of rape, in Western societies he almost always loses his job. Even if proven not guilty, he ends up jobless, with a tarnished reputation, most likely with his entire life ruined. Most of these men end up suicidal. But nobody cares about men these days.

No, we are hearing about decades old cases now because when they happened the women that were sexually harassed accepted it (or encouraged it) for cash and fame. Period. Only an idealistic moron would take this for serious. This is slander, and this needs to go to court. It happened 30-40 years ago? Ok, prove it! You can't? Then face the consequences.

"You are aware of the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty", right?"

No difference at all. Not being able to prove your statements means that they are false by default. From a legal point of view, and a moral point of view. The law is clear, the judicial system is clear as well. The one who makes the accusation has the burden of proof.

"As for the "women coming forward to get attention" - that theory falls flat when you consider the large quantity of accusations coming from sources that did not release their names to the media."

It only proves how many cunts and bitches are in Western society. Women that sold their souls and dignity for fame and money, that did not give a shit about their own integrity and that now flaunt their innocence and blame those who made them who they are (for a cost, of course) for sexual abuse/harassment. Again, does a street harlot sue her customers after being paid to do the deed? No.

Wow, you named a few guys that you can count them on your finger. 2%? More like 0.2%. The 99.8% rest? False accusations. Trump was accused of, but none were able to prove that it actually happened. Big difference. Innocent until proven guilty, voila! Most are false allegations, and that is why they walk free. Women that are starved for attention when they became irrelevant.

If you wish to have a laugh, read about the 8 women that are accusing Dustin Hoffman of sexual harassment. One of them (another one of those that reports a sexual harassment the autumn of 1900) claims that the actor had her massage his feet when he was naked, and she did it because, in her own words 'she did not know that she could refuse'. And she claims she was his daughter's friend. If this does not prove that #metoo is a bad joke that most normal people will not take seriously, then nothing does. I mean, you have to be REALLY DUMB, and INCREDIBLY GULLIBLE to think that there is a SHRED of truth in this NONSENSICAL reason. But then again, this is what #metoo is, nonsense, dumb good for a laugh at how moronic this world is becoming.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 16.12.2017 at 22:50

Statistics made by the EC? The most pro-Russian and most pro-socialist institution of the European Union? Well... kinda tells about its validity. The very project of an "United State of Europe" is basically USSR revamped. USSR did the same thing, in EXACTLY the same manner, and look where it ended. As for the EU becoming more and more socialist, you just need to look at who leads the EU, and who lead it in the last 25 years.

See, I supplied an actual statistic form, your response was once again, baseless, dramatic gibberish.

So if you dont like EC, how about UNODC? They also show violent crime in Europe on a gradual decline (overall - obviously theres slight aberrations in certain years), or in some countries, violent crime statistics are shown as unchanged overall. Or are they also part of your big communist conspiracy?

Seriously, I've given you two separate sources of evidence and you respond with histrionic, anecdotal conspiracy bullshit. Nothing to actually refute that data in any meaningful way. Time might be to admit you're out of your depth.

Quote:
Statistics show reported rapes, but how many of those lead to a guilty sentence? Hmmm. That is something that needs to be researched on its own.

An irrelevant point, as judicial standards vary from country to country, especially pertaining to sexual violence.

Quote:
BBC, CNN, WashPoo, HuffPoo and all the other liberal, socialist channels instigated this year once of the most embarrassing fake news story about the 60000 'nazis' in Poland marching during the Independence Day. They insulted an entire nation, a slanderous attempt of international proportions which was quickly accepted by liberal snowflakes. People today still believe that it is true. And this is just one among the many fake news that the liberal-socialists from these channels have been spitting for a while.

Wow. Straw man argument much? I have not once brought up those news sources. Not to mention its hypocritical as shit. You get pissed off at these news sources for portraying an entire nation as Nazis, yet you are willing to paint all liberals as suckers who buy into every news story (or in the case of the Polish far-right rally - take every news story at face value.)

While we're on that topic - I don't think every liberal thinks Poland is a nation of nazis, nor did I get that impression from the articles I read about it. Once again, you've created a caricature of a "liberal snowflake" to attack, a profile that doesn't actually exist to the degree you think it does.

Quote:
Again, if it happened, you go to the police and file a report WHEN IT HAPPENS. Not 30-40 years after. Legally, nobody will take your report seriously. So why should we take a #metoo testimony seriously about someone touching a woman's butt when most of the millennials weren't even born? LoL

Maybe because it establishes a pattern? Shows solidarity with other victims? The statute of limitations does prevent litigation, but it can help other victims. So in the case of Trump - who am I going to believe? Over a dozen women, or a man who demonstrably lies almost constantly? Also - between those Access Hollywood tapes and the resurfaced Howard Stern show recordings, he basically confesses.

Also, you seem to be conflating petty sexual harassment with habitual abuse. I repeat, if you had even the slightest insight into the nature of abuse, you may begin to understand why coming forward isnt as easy as reporting a burglary.

Quote:

Because easy $.

Jesus. Spoken like someone who has never been involved - even peripherally - in a court case. Lawyers are ludicrously expensive, trials are looooong and stressful (for both sides), not to mention the huge waves sent through your family and social life. Its illogical. I'm not saying it never, ever happens, but it certainly doesnt to the degree you think it does. Going through a trial is far from "easy money". Once again, I think you are pulling speculation from your ass.

Quote:

Combine that with the fact that women today, at least in Western societies are believed more than men when it comes to rape. Men are the ones taking the blunt of the accusation, in many cases almost losing completely his right for building a solid defense and the guilty until proven otherwise status. When a man is being accused of rape, in Western societies he almost always loses his job. Even if proven not guilty, he ends up jobless, with a tarnished reputation, most likely with his entire life ruined. Most of these men end up suicidal. But nobody cares about men these days.

Aaaaand once again, survey shows you are talking out of your ass.. About 4% of reported rapes lead to conviction. Those statistics are taken from the department of justice.

...But let me guess, the DOJ is also part of your soviet conspiracy?

Quote:
No, we are hearing about decades old cases now because when they happened the women that were sexually harassed accepted it (or encouraged it) for cash and fame. Period. Only an idealistic moron would take this for serious. This is slander, and this needs to go to court. It happened 30-40 years ago? Ok, prove it! You can't? Then face the consequences.

No, they accepted it because that was the price to succeed in a field they had poured their lives into. Now the creeps who set that price are being called out.

And yes, in many cases the accuser does face a counter-lawsuit.

Quote:

"You are aware of the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty", right?"

No difference at all. Not being able to prove your statements means that they are false by default. From a legal point of view, and a moral point of view. The law is clear, the judicial system is clear as well. The one who makes the accusation has the burden of proof.

Actually there is a difference. Innocence is that you are beyond all speculation as to having committed a crime. Not guilty is that what you are accused of cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is incredibly difficult to prove. When a defendant is declared "not guilty", it doesn't automatically make the accuser a liar, but just a way of stating that there isn't enough compelling evidence to convict.

However, sexual abuse is always difficult to prove - generally happens with no witnesses, and frequently without compelling evidence otherwise. Most women know this. Its another card in the deck thats stacked against them, another point against your rampant false accusations claim.

Quote:

It only proves how many cunts and bitches are in Western society. Women that sold their souls and dignity for fame and money, that did not give a shit about their own integrity and that now flaunt their innocence and blame those who made them who they are (for a cost, of course) for sexual abuse/harassment.

Fuck me, now it just sounds like you hate women. You've completely bi-passed anything resembling logic and just moved into mouth-frothing rage mode. Surely you must realize that "the reason women come forward anonymously is because they are a bunch of bitches and cunts" is astoundingly stupid.

I don't think its a case of selling their integrity willingly, but, as you seem unable to grasp - they had poured their lives into their craft, and it would have been all for nothing had they not let themselves be subjected to abuse. Maybe women aren't the conniving villains your making them out to be. Maybe, just maybe, they are trying to change a rigged system so women in the future don't have to subject themselves to the same thing.

Quote:
Again, does a street harlot sue her customers after being paid to do the deed? No.

There is a fundamental difference between acting in movies and being a prostitute. "Having to service some fat slob to get ahead" shouldn't be a reasonable expectation of the industry, thats what theyre trying to change.

Quote:
Wow, you named a few guys that you can count them on your finger. 2%? More like 0.2%. The 99.8% rest? False accusations.

Do you honestly expect me to sit here and list off sexual assault allegations and argue them individually? Jesus, not even I have the patience for that. I was merely listing off the biggest names that came to mind. I did use the word "emblematic", perhaps you should give the word a quick google query.

Assuming the remainder are all false once again, flies in the face of logic and statistics.

Quote:

Trump was accused of, but none were able to prove that it actually happened.

You mean aside from the established pattern of sexual harassment and assault? You don't think that lends credence to their stories?

Quote:
If you wish to have a laugh, read about the 8 women that are accusing Dustin Hoffman of sexual harassment. One of them (another one of those that reports a sexual harassment the autumn of 1900) claims that the actor had her massage his feet when he was naked, and she did it because, in her own words 'she did not know that she could refuse'. And she claims she was his daughter's friend. If this does not prove that #metoo is a bad joke that most normal people will not take seriously, then nothing does. I mean, you have to be REALLY DUMB, and INCREDIBLY GULLIBLE to think that there is a SHRED of truth in this NONSENSICAL reason.

You don't see how someone in a position of power over another person can intimidate that person into doing things they aren't comfortable doing? Social hierarchy exists everywhere, I don't quite understand how you fail to grasp how that can be applied in predatory, sexual ways.

So here I've brought to the table sound logic backed by actual statistics, and you've come back with rantings about some cockamamie socialist take-over conspiracy theory, and a clearly deep-seated resentment of women (almost every reference to women in your post has been calling them "bitches" "cunts" or "floozys"). Might be time to sit down, bud.

"See, I supplied an actual statistic form, your response was once again, baseless, dramatic gibberish."

Statistics coming from the most pro-Russian and pro-socialist institution in the EU do not really count, not in the eyes of those who are seeking the truth. Would the EC portray a negative image of the construction that it built and lead? Never.

"They also show violent crime in Europe on a gradual decline (overall - obviously there's slight aberrations in certain years), or in some countries, violent crime statistics are shown as unchanged overall."

Overall crime has been declining for decades already, and not only in Europe, but worldwide overall, but that doesn't have any connection with the fact that EU is becoming more and more socialist. The decline is also in terms of human rights and free speech, particularly with those who do not agree with how the EU acts. Nobody bothers researching how Ireland was blackmailed 3 times into conducting referendums to approve the Lisbon Treaty, after two of them failed badly and barely won in the third one after pretty much the entire opposition was censored Stalin-style. Or how the Croatian referendum was conducted before joining the EU. The less said about how Romania joined the EU, the better (when virtually no opposition was allowed to exist, and if you had the audacity to go public with a valid anti-EU stance, you risked being publicly shamed and lynched).

A lot of people that laughed when I told them we would join a new form of USSR years later came to me, telling me how right I was and asking me how did I know back in 2007. EU blinded our people with the promise of becoming a prosperous country, when in fact we became poorer, draining us of our best minds and most skilled qualified workers and now it even tries to take even the modicum of sovereignty that my country still possesses. Poland today is being lynched by Western media precisely because it wants to retain its national conscience and its sovereignty. Same goes with Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia and all the other countries that do not want another USSR. We did not overthrow Moscow to bow down to Bruxelles.

"An irrelevant point, as judicial standards vary from country to country, especially pertaining to sexual violence."

A very relevant one, after all the statistics point out 'reports' only. Not how many of those reports ended up to court, or if the verdict was guilty. I can also report you as well, that will appear in this statistic. But the fact that you are not guilty and that I made a false report should not count, right? When you end up in a situation where you are falsely reported, that is when it starts counting. The key always stands in details, and statistics do not always reveal the truth about the society we live in. Stalin had a nice saying about statistics as well.

"Wow. Straw man argument much? I have not once brought up those news sources. Not to mention its hypocritical as shit. You get pissed off at these news sources for portraying an entire nation as Nazis, yet you are willing to paint all liberals as suckers who buy into every news story (or in the case of the Polish far-right rally - take every news story at face value.)"

You might not, but you indirectly pointed out to them, as these are the liberal-marxist news sources that most socialists quote to support their arguments (actually, there are more, much more than us, conservatists have) . If I made a strawman when I mentioned these news sources, you also made one when you mentioned Breitbart, FoxNews and all the others. I get pissed off not because they portrayed an entire nation as nazis, but the audacity to lie in such a blatant manner, insulting an entire nation for political and ideological reasons and not having the dignity to actually apologize publicly after the bad deed was done. Also, that rally was ANYTHING BUT far-right. Sure, some far-right-wingers were there, but the far right in Poland is LESS NUMEROUS and LESS RELEVANT POLITICALLY than the far right in Germany, France, UK, Sweden or Italy for example. And anybody who considers Kaczynski and PiS as far right is nothing more than a brainwashed marxist who consider anybody who leans towards right more than Hussein Obama as a fascist.

Nobody bothers mentioning that in the past years, particularly before PiS won the elections, how Tusk's party invited far-left Antifa supporters from Germany to clash with the peaceful protesters during the independence day. Owh, I forgot again, PiS are the fascists, Tusk and his socialists are the good guys. Blimey.

"While we're on that topic - I don't think every liberal thinks Poland is a nation of nazis, nor did I get that impression from the articles I read about it. Once again, you've created a caricature of a "liberal snowflake" to attack, a profile that doesn't actually exist to the degree you think it does."

I don't think either, but that is how the liberal media has been portraying Poland, particularly since Donald Tusk and his commies are no longer in power. And unfortunately this is the prevailing opinion in regards to Poland TODAY, which is totally erroneous and devoid of any basic knowledge and information in regards to Polish history, politics and views.

"Maybe because it establishes a pattern? Shows solidarity with other victims? The statute of limitations does prevent litigation, but it can help other victims. So in the case of Trump - who am I going to believe? Over a dozen women, or a man who demonstrably lies almost constantly? Also - between those Access Hollywood tapes and the resurfaced Howard Stern show recordings, he basically confesses."

You are a victim when it happens and when you report it. Not when you delay it for decades, just to come out of the shadows now. Solidarity? Everybody would have had solidarity with you if you reported the deed when it happened and told the story now. But not when you mentioned when it supposedly happened, 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago and you expect people to sympathize with you. Gullible liberals will, normal, every-day, conservative people, with a bit of brain matter will not. Accusations have to be supported by evidence, and when you come out in public making accusations, you need to be able to prove them. If those men decide to sue these women that accuse them for something that happened many years ago, these women will be the first in line to apologize publicly, because what #metoo does in most cases in slander. Plain and simple.

"Jesus. Spoken like someone who has never been involved - even peripherally - in a court case. Lawyers are ludicrously expensive, trials are looooong and stressful (for both sides), not to mention the huge waves sent through your family and social life. Its illogical. I'm not saying it never, ever happens, but it certainly doesnt to the degree you think it does. Going through a trial is far from "easy money". Once again, I think you are pulling speculation from your ass."

LoL, I was born in a family of lawyers, so believe me, I know what I am talking. I know chaps that were condemned of false rape accusations in a matter of weeks, having to pay a lot of money both to lawyers and to the 'victim'. And this happens in Romania, a country that has not been pussified yet by dimwit liberals and marxist-cultural retards. A lot of these people won a modicum of justice when they reported their unfair trials to the European Court of Human Rights. A lot of them did not get to, as they committed suicide. I also know lots of chaps that were accused falsely of rape, that won in courts, but they lost their jobs, their family life was ruined and they had to start from 0. Some of them never actually recovered from the entire emotional damage caused. How would you feel when you are being considered a rapist, even before the trial ended and labeled as such even after it ended in your favor? For those men, it was worse than hell. Not too long ago I was an university student, and I saw how feminazism was infecting the campus. Lots of male students falsely accused of rape and being suspended or expelled before they even had the chance to properly defend themselves. Us, men, if we get accused of rape it is kinda over for us, from a professional and social point of view. Particularly if we do not have connections or money to bribe our way through all of this. But a woman that makes these kind of false allegations almost every time is not punished. Despite the fact that the damage they cause is severe, to the point that they push the victim to suicide.

"Aaaaand once again, survey shows you are talking out of your ass.. About 4% of reported rapes lead to conviction. Those statistics are taken from the department of justice. "

Which means that the rest are kinda... you know... false? Aha, so we kinda have a false rape culture going on around here.

"No, they accepted it because that was the price to succeed in a field they had poured their lives into. Now the creeps who set that price are being called out."

So what gives you the right to play the innocent victim when you actually perpetrated the whole deed, selling yourself for fame and money like a street harlot? I for one would not blame the guy for a lack of morals, after all, as a human being you can always refuse the deed and lead a honest, but not so famous/rich life. You can always say no, and avoid being corrupted. But money and fame are the devil in disguise. And for fame and money they also did this #metoo thing. After all, it attracts attention. You get your 5 minutes of fame, a TV program invites you to lie in the studio for the gullible liberals to eat their daily shit, then you go back and continue what you have been doing (or not doing). In the mean time, the guy doesn't get the chance to defend himself properly, he gets fired from his job and has issue finding employment, for better or worse he has to go to court to clear up his name, but even with a not guilty sentence, the public got the image of him as a sexual molester. Something that will likely never go away. That is why a lot of men accuse of rape falsely end up suicidal. Because society is superficial, and judges you based on hear-say. Rarely based on a judicial sentence, which does not get the spotlight in a TV show.

I met a lot of idealistic people like you that brush out the false accusations of rape like being irrelevant. But a lot of them experienced it and they came back to me telling me eventually that I was right. The best medicine is when you experience it on your skin, firsthand. When you do, #metoo for you will be the most disgusting, filthy experience.

"Actually there is a difference. Innocence is that you are beyond all speculation as to having committed a crime. Not guilty is that what you are accused of cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is incredibly difficult to prove. When a defendant is declared "not guilty", it doesn't automatically make the accuser a liar, but just a way of stating that there isn't enough compelling evidence to convict."

Actually, in essence, there is none. Not guilty means that you are innocent. Innocence is very easy to prove actually, particularly in a court. The side that can prove its arguments is the one who wins. In a case such as this, where the accuser blames the defendant of doing something that he/she cannot prove, he is the liar.

"However, sexual abuse is always difficult to prove - generally happens with no witnesses, and frequently without compelling evidence otherwise. Most women know this. Its another card in the deck thats stacked against them, another point against your rampant false accusations claim."

Actually it isn't that hard, if reported when it happens, as it leaves marks. And plenty of them. But 10, 20, 30, 40 years later, even surgery scars heal and are barely visible. No point against false accusations of rape. If it is true, you report it when it happens. Not post #metoo comments on facebook in regards to something that you cannot prove it happens. Can you prove that it happened but you actually accepted it? Because if it is accepted, that is no longer sexual abuse/harassment. Where there is consent, there is no abuse.

"Fuck me, now it just sounds like you hate women. You've completely bi-passed anything resembling logic and just moved into mouth-frothing rage mode. Surely you must realize that "the reason women come forward anonymously is because they are a bunch of bitches and cunts" is astoundingly stupid."

I don't hate women, why the hell are you generalizing everything I say? I just hate women that behave like harlots and act all innocent. This is the reality, there are a lot of promiscuous women roaming around today, and even feminist studies and media admit that most women are attracted to money and power more than anything.

""I don't think its a case of selling their integrity willingly, but, as you seem unable to grasp - they had poured their lives into their craft, and it would have been all for nothing had they not let themselves be subjected to abuse. Maybe women aren't the conniving villains your making them out to be. Maybe, just maybe, they are trying to change a rigged system so women in the future don't have to subject themselves to the same thing."

That is still willingly selling your integrity. A lot of people are accusing music bands here of selling-out (for commercial success obviously, meaning more $) but why it doesn't apply to women who sell their bodies, dignity and integrity for career and money? Nothing wrong with doing that. These are choices after all. But don't play the victim of sexual abuse and harassment when you legitimized it for career and financial goals. The moment you gave your consent, you became part of the whole scheme, not an innocent victim. And don't give me that bullshit that they had to compromise. We all do, because life is filled with situations where we have to compromise. But in those situations you reveal what kind of person you are. Someone that treasures himself/herself and places moral values and honesty above all, or someone that treats himself/herself as a commodity, trading himself/herself for temporary goals, such as money and fame. I have all the respect for the former, and all the hate and disgust for the latter. Particularly for the people involved in the latter category that years later behave like some saints.

"There is a fundamental difference between acting in movies and being a prostitute. "Having to service some fat slob to get ahead" shouldn't be a reasonable expectation of the industry, thats what theyre trying to change."

Other than the fact that a street harlot is at the gutter of every society, there is no difference. A woman that sells her body and integrity to be famous, rich and part of a VIP circle is no different than a harlot that does it as a way of living. This applies to men as well, men can also sell their body, dignity and integrity for fame/money. You always have an alternative, to say NO. That is if you value yourself more than anything else. But when you value money and fame more than yourself, you become a Hollywood harlot. Again, no difference in essence, difference in circumstances only. I actually have more sympathy for an ordinary street harlot than the women part of the #metoo movement. At least those women are honest about their craft and do not pose as victims, although they do have REAL experience with abuse, rather than a nepotistic floozy who used her craft for obtaining fame/money.

"Do you honestly expect me to sit here and list off sexual assault allegations and argue them individually? Jesus, not even I have the patience for that. I was merely listing off the biggest names that came to mind. I did use the word "emblematic", perhaps you should give the word a quick google query."

#metoo brought very few individuals to court for allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. In most cases, the allegations have been made and nothing happened (because they cannot be taken seriously when an extended time frame has passed), in other cases some men lost their jobs (in a typical display of totalitarian terror, not being given the chance to defend themselves and to prove their innocence, which is a totally undemocratic way of doing things, but lets leave this aside, it is not important in your opinion) and in those 0.2% to 2% you can find some guys that are facing a trial (but that have not yet been convicted, which is a BIG difference).

"Assuming the remainder are all false once again, flies in the face of logic and statistics."

Yes, flawed statistics. Statistics that only include reports, not how those reports are concluded are flawed and should not be taken seriously. The society today encourages in any shape and form to come forward in regards to sexual abuse/harassment. Too bad it does not encourage to come forward in a responsible manner as well. The way #metoo encourages women to come forward is irresponsible to the core.

"You don't see how someone in a position of power over another person can intimidate that person into doing things they aren't comfortable doing? Social hierarchy exists everywhere, I don't quite understand how you fail to grasp how that can be applied in predatory, sexual ways."

Owh, again this gullible liberal drivel. There is always the option to refuse. Sure, that may actually reduce your chances to become famous/rich, but convincing US, that you 'did not know that you can refuse' is such a feeble attempt to reason your attempt to whore yourself in front of a famous person that pretty much anyone with brain matter would laugh at or completely ignore/deplore.

"So here I've brought to the table sound logic backed by actual statistics, and you've come back with rantings about some cockamamie socialist take-over conspiracy theory, and a clearly deep-seated resentment of women (almost every reference to women in your post has been calling them "bitches" "cunts" or "floozys"). Might be time to sit down, bud."

You brought nothing more than drivel, part of the liberal bubble that has been infesting modern society for decades already. And it is the main reason why modern society is becoming more and more depraved, more and more totalitarian, rather than democratic, more and more hellish and more and more impossible for sane men to live in. Might be time for you to actually start looking at the world we live in, cause you have been blinded by the liberal-marxist dogma. I do not resent women, I do not know where you got this as I have blamed women in the context of the #metoo movement. Then again it is very common for liberals to generalize everything when they are faced with valid arguments that goes against their sci-fi bubble.

Throw the hat please, and back off.

Written by ManiacBlasphemer on 17.12.2017 at 18:17

"See, I supplied an actual statistic form, your response was once again, baseless, dramatic gibberish."

Statistics coming from the most pro-Russian and pro-socialist institution in the EU do not really count, no in the eyes of those who are seeking the truth. Would the EC portray a negative image of the construction that it built and lead? Never.

"They also show violent crime in Europe on a gradual decline (overall - obviously there's slight aberrations in certain years), or in some countries, violent crime statistics are shown as unchanged overall."

Overall crime has been declining for decades already, and not only in Europe, but worldwide overall, but that doesn't have any connection with the fact that EU is becoming more and more socialist. The decline is also in terms of human rights and free speech, particularly with those who do not agree with how the EU acts.

Nobody bothers researching how Ireland was blackmailed 3 times into conducting referendums to approve the Lisbon Treaty, after two of them failed badly and barely won in the third one after pretty much the entire opposition was censored Stalin-style. Or how the Croatian referendum was conducted before joining the EU.

You are aware responding to every piece of evidence with "russian socialist takeover" really just makes you look foolish (that is, unless you can supply any credible statistics or reports that contradict that?)

See, where your argument is flawed is that you seem to be implying this global socialist takeover is ruining western society. I have given you specific, substantiated examples as to how that doesn't appear to be the case, you respond with vague references to political treaties you say are Stalinist in nature. Interpretations of censorship that could be highly subjective...I'm unfamiliar with these in any way more than your ol' Wikipedia perusal, but that also doesn't mean I'm going to take your ramblings at face value when you offer nothing to substantiate them.

Quote:

"An irrelevant point, as judicial standards vary from country to country, especially pertaining to sexual violence."

A very relevant one, after all the statistics point out 'reports' only. Not how many of those reports ended up to court, or if the verdict was guilty. I can also report you as well, that will appear in this statistic. But the fact that you are not guilty and that I made a false report should not count, right? When you end up in a situation where you are falsely reported, that is when it starts counting. The key always stands in details, and statistics do not always reveal the truth about the society we live in. Stalin had a nice saying about statistics as well.

Still irrelevant. Take for example some countries where women are stoned to death for infidelity after being raped. Would you trust their judicial statistics on sex crimes? No, you wouldn't. I haven't heard of this happening in western society, but it more just serves as an example how sex crimes are viewed by the justice system can vary drastically from place to place.

And yes, statistics do matter. While they don't necessarily point out specific details, they do indicate overall trends. At least, they indicate more than barely coherent ramblings about socialists.

Quote:

You might not, but you indirectly pointed out to them, as these are the liberal-marxist news sources that most socialists quote to support their arguments.

"Indirectly pointed"? Really? Now you're just projecting.

Quote:
If I made a strawman when I mentioned these news sources, you also made one when you mentioned Breitbart, FoxNews and all the others.

Well, I guess I did once. Still better than basing the majority of my argument on strawman logic. Nonetheless, my apologies. Where are you getting your info from, then?

Quote:
I get pissed off not because they portrayed an entire nation as nazis, but the audacity to lie in such a blatant manner, insulting an entire nation for political and ideological reason and not having the dignity to actually apologize publicly after the bad deed was done. Also, that rally was ANYTHING BUT far-right. Sure, some far-right-wingers were there, but the far right in Poland is LESS NUMEROUS and LESS RELEVANT POLITICALLY that the far right in Germany, France, UK, Sweden or Italy for example. And anybody who considers Kaczynski and PiS as far right is nothing more than a brainwashed marxist who anybody who leans towards right more than Hussein Obama is a fascist.

Please look up the definition of "straw man argument", you're repeatedly creating the textbook definition. In fact, you've combined it with the second-most failed-logic strategy: deflection. No one brought up Obama, pal. I brought up some evidence that the world is not becoming the shit hole you think it is. You brought in some weird cocktail of projection and persecution complex.

Most of the articles I read seemed to be implying it was Polands independence day party which was basically used as a stage for far-right protesters.

Quote:

Nobody bothers mentioning that in the past years, particularly before PiS won the elections, how Tusk's party invited far-left Antifa supporters from Germany to clash with the peaceful protesters during the independence day. Owh, I forgot again, PiS are the fascists, Tusk and his socialists are the good guys. Blimey.

I have yet to see any evidence Tusk invited antifa to Germany.

Also, you might be viewed as a fascist if, in your attempt to cleanse a country of all traces of communism, you censor public broadcasting.

Quote:
I don't think either, but that is how the liberal made has been portraying Poland, particularly since Donald Tusk and his commies are no longer in power. And unfortunately the is the prevailing opinion in regards to Poland TODAY, which is totally erroneous and devoid of any basic knowledge and information in regards to Polish history and views.

More hypocrisy. If you would like people to stop confusing conservatism with fascism, perhaps stop conflating liberalism with communism?

Once again, I haven't seen anyone imply Poland is a nation of Nazis. Even people who despise the PiS - as most intelligent people can recognize the fact that a government does not always aptly represent overall societal mindset.

Quote:
You are a victim when it happens and when you report it.

Now we're just getting into semantics, in which, once again, you are wrong.

Quote:
Not when you delay it for decades, just to come out of the shadows now.

Time doesn't undo the fact there was a misdeed committed.

Quote:

Solidarity? Everybody would have had solidarity with you if you reported the deed when it happened and told the story now.

Once again, all substantial indicators show that this is bullshit. Once again, can you offer anything to refute what I have already supplied?

Quote:
Gullible liberals will, normal, every-day, conservative people, with a bit of brain matter will not.

No, people with brain matter ignore anecdotal bullshit, apply logic and realize there is little to no reason to lie, so they take a closer look.

Quote:

Accusations have to be supported by evidence, and when you come out in public making accusations, you need to be able to prove them. If those men decide to sue these women that accuse them for something that happened many years ago, these women will be the first in line to apologize publicly, because what #metoo does in most cases in slander. Plain and simple.

Well the perpetrators can go ahead and try, I highly doubt there will be forthcoming apologies.

The #metoo campaign isn't intended to - nor does the evidence show - merely slander. The facts show how ill-equipped we are dealing with sexual violence and harassment, and that the system isn't favorable to women.

Quote:

LoL, I was born in a family of lawyers, so believe me, I know what I am talking. I know chaps that were condemned of false rape accusations in a matter of weeks, having to pay a lot of money both to lawyers and to the 'victim'.

"I once knew a guy..." is the laziest of all your flawed logic. At least your deflection and strawman arguments took some creativity.

Quote:

Which means that the rest are kinda... you know... false? Aha, so we kinda have a false rape culture going on around here.

For a guy who comes from a family of lawyers, it seems a bit obtuse that you discount all cases not leading to conviction as a false report...or that you couldn't make the distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty". Either you're bullshitting, or your family members are some pretty lousy lawyers.

So lets go over this one more time.
Cons of filing a false rape report:
-Unlikely the accused will face prosecution
-Public ridicule (being called a bitch, cunt or floozy)
-Arduous trial
-upheaval in your family and social life

Pros:
- Might get money and attention?

Yeah, sure, theres an epidemic of false accusations.

By the way - the accused committing suicide is not an indication of innocence.

Quote:

So what gives you the right to play the innocent victim when you actually perpetrated the whole deed, selling yourself for fame and money like a street harlot?

Acting is an artform. You are selling your talents, creating something for public consumption. The fact that you view it as a form of prostitution shows you are part of the problem. Prostitution is plainly laid out - money in exchange for sex. Acting in movies is being paid for your talents as part of a larger creative endeavor. Having to fuck somebody on the side should not be a necessary part, unfortunately, due to powerful people in Hollywood, it has become just that. This whole movement is built to change that. So you can experience success in your field based on your merits rather than having to put up with some sickos bullshit.

Quote:

I for one would not blame the guy for a lack of morals, after all, as a human being you can always refuse the deed and lead a honest, but not so famous/rich life.

Easier said than done. You do realize most actors begin at a young age, and pour themselves into the pursuit of their craft? I know its hard to look past all the disingenuous, glitzy, red carpet bullshit, but behind it there is (not exclusively, but most of the time) a human who built their entire life around their career, and you're saying if they are unwilling to subject themselves to predatory behavior they should just drop it all? Thats text book misogyny right there.

Quote:

I met a lot of idealistic people like you that brush out the false accusations of rape like being irrelevant. But a lot of them experienced it and they came back to me telling me eventually that I was right. The best medicine is when you experience it on your skin, firsthand. When you do, #metoo for you will be the most disgusting, filthy experience.

Well, I take a look at each case individually before I make my judgement, and in most cases I've found the reason for lying are really just speculative and illogical when faced with the simpler answer.

Also - you are aware that a lot of these women in the media aren't pressing charges or seeking restitution? I doubt any of them expect stardom after decades of anonymity, so yet again, your logic falls flat on its face.

Secondly, lets pretend a false accusation is leveled against me - I wouldn't use that as measuring stick for every case. Just because 1 woman may be a liar doesn't make all women out there fighting their own battles liars.

Quote:

Actually, in essence, there is none. Not guilty means that you are innocent. Innocence is very easy to prove actually, particularly in a court. The side that can prove its arguments is the one who wins. In a case such as this, where the accuser blames the defendant of doing something that he/she cannot prove, he is the liar.

In essence, there is. As not guilty could mean the difference between having grounds for a counter-lawsuit or not.

Quote:
Actually it isn't that hard, if reported when it happens, as it leaves marks. And plenty of them.

You are aware of things like statutory rape? Rapes where the victim is coerced through threats on their well being (i.e. career)? Or spousal abuse where the victim hides it because they fear they'll have nowhere to go, or they'll be placing their children in jeopardy?

The fact that you say, as a rule, that it leaves marks is another indication you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

Quote:
But 10, 20, 30, 40 years later, even surgery scars heal and are barely visible. No point against false accusations of rape. If it is true, you report it when it happens. Not post #metoo comments on facebook in regards to something that you cannot prove it happens. Can you prove that it happened but you actually accepted it? Because if it accepted, that is no longer sexual abuse/harassment. Where there is consent, there is no abuse.

Is it really consent if its a choice between accepting it or having your life derailed? No. It isn't. Hence why there are laws against statutory rape and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Quote:

I don't hate women, why the hell are you generalizing everything I say?

Because you tend to take the most absurd roundabout logic to side against them. Hell, you seem even incapable of taking a neutral stance, such as saying "They have little reason to lie, but also have little evidence, therefore I will reserve judgement." I know many people who have taken this stance. Its a perfectly fine one to take. Whats not fine is assuming that just because a woman cannot prove her victimhood in the eyes of the law, she is arbitrarily a bitch or a cunt. This sends an incredibly dangerous message to women who need to come forward.

Quote:

I just hate women that behave like harlots and act all innocent. This is the reality, there are a lot of promiscuous women roaming around today, and even feminist studies and media admit that most women are attracted to money and power more than anything.

That link doesn't really support any argument. First of all, its not public domain, I'm not paying to read it. Without being able to view sources and data collection methods its impossible to verify the validity of it. Could only read the abstract.

Quote:

That is still willingly selling your integrity. A lot of people are accusing music bands here of selling-out (for commercial success obviously, meaning more $) but why it doesn't apply to women who sell their bodies, dignity and integrity for career and money? Nothing wrong with doing that. These are choices after all. But don't play the victim of sexual abuse and harassment when you legitimized it for career and financial goals.

False equivalence.
Theres a world of difference between sacrificing creativity in pursuit of popularity and degrading yourself for the gatekeepers. They choose to change their creative output in order to gain money. If it turned out that some record exec was going to make or break their career based on whether or not the band members gave him a blowjob, Id say yeah, thats predatory sexual abuse.

Quote:

Other than the fact that a street harlot is at the gutter of every society, there is no difference. A woman that sells her body and integrity to be famous, rich and part of a VIP circle is no different than a harlot that does it as a way of living.

You are operating on the presumption that the "VIP circle" is their primary goal. Yeah, sure, its a perk, but it could also be a case of them wanting to have their creative pursuits reach a wider audience. Shes trying to sell her talents, her integrity and body shouldn't be on the table, thats kind of the point. In an odd, roundabout way you are empathetic with the movement: They are trying to dismantle the very aspect of the industry you look down your nose upon.

Quote:
#metoo brought very few individuals to court for allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. In most cases, the allegations have been made and nothing happened
(because they cannot be taken seriously when an extended time frame has passed),

Or these women aren't all greedy attention whores as you seem to assume, and they're merely trying to offer strength to women currently facing this issue.

Quote:

in other cases some men lost their job (in a typical display of totalitarian terror, not being given the chance to defend themselves and to prove their innocence, which is a totally undemocratic way of doing things, but lets leave this aside, it is not important in your opinion) and in those 0.2% to 2% you can find some guys that are facing a trial (but that have not yet been convicted, which is a BIG difference).

Oh look, more studies debunking your "false rape accusation" panic.

In that article (which comprehensively cites many studies) you'll notice their common profile of false accusers doesn't exactly match up with a lot of more prominent #metoo figures.

Quote:

Yes, flawed statistics. Statistics that only include reports, not how those reports are concluded are flawed and should not be taken seriously.

Well, combined with the above study on false accusations, its pretty reasonable to take those statistics seriously.

Quote:

Owh, again this gullible liberal drivel. There is always the option to refuse. Sure, that may actually reduce your chances to become famous/rich, but convincing US, that you 'did not know that you can refuse' is such a feeble attempt to reason your attempt to whore yourself in front of a famous person that pretty much anyone with brain matter would laugh at or completely ignore/deplore.

She was 16. A child in the eyes of the law. I look back to when I was 16 and I can sympathize - 16 year olds make ill informed decisions without proper forethought. Its the adults job to recognize a goddamn child and understand they are probably not the right person to wave your dick in front of. Thats what makes it predatory behavior - failure to acknowledge that maybe this person isn't in a position to make informed decisions regarding sex, especially with someone old enough to be their dad.

Quote:

You brought nothing more than drivel, part of a the liberal bubble that has been infesting modern society for decades already.

Here we go again...and what sort of data, studies or research have you provided to refute my "drivel"? A single article on how women are attracted to power and money, a bunch of conspiracy rambles, generic, dime-a-dozen anti-liberal ad-hominems and a collection of common fallacies most 2nd graders could poke holes in (deflection, strawman, anecdotes, etc).

Quote:

And it is the main reason why modern society is becoming more and more depraved, more and more totalitarian, rather than democratic, more and more hellish and more and more impossible for sane men to live in.

I'm an optimist. I think the world we're living in is getting better for the most part. Violent crime is decreasing, technology is leading to great medical advances. New innovation is leading to new technology that is both environmentally friendly and good for the economy. While equality doesn't exist yet, we're actually making conscious strides toward it. Lots of things to be happy about. There is still a lot wrong with the world, but its mostly the internet that makes it seem worse: We're now so much more aware of issues outside of our communities. The internet made us hold a mirror to ourselves, and I think we all agreed theres some shit to deal with, and its gradually being dealt with (albeit in a 2 steps forward, 1 back kind of way).

Quote:

Might be time for you to actually start looking at the world we live in, cause you have been blinded by the liberal-marxist dogma. I do not resent women, I do not know where you got this as I have blamed women in the context of the #metoo movement. Then again it is very common for liberals to generalize everything when they are faced with valid arguments that goes against their sci-fi bubble.

Its not so much "blinded by liberal-marxist dogma" but more about using actual research as opposed to panic-induced anecdotal bullshit to guide my thoughts.

Quote:

Throw the hat please, and back off.

Nah. This is too easy.

"You are aware responding to every piece of evidence with "russian socialist takeover" really just makes you look foolish (that is, unless you can supply any credible statistics or reports that contradict that?)"

It is enough to just hear Juncker's speech in regards to Russia. If you need more evidence than that, then you need medical help.

"See, where your argument is flawed is that you seem to be implying this global socialist takeover is ruining western society. I have given you specific, substantiated examples as to how that doesn't appear to be the case, you respond with vague references to political treaties you say are Stalinist in nature. Interpretations of censorship that could be highly subjective...I'm unfamiliar with these in any way more than your ol' Wikipedia perusal, but that also doesn't mean I'm going to take your ramblings at face value when you offer nothing to substantiate them."

Nothing is flawed in my argument. There is a global socialist takeover. Today, we have an even more amplified conflict between socialism and conservatism than we had even during the Cold War. And the EU is infested with socialist politicians, a lot of them being pro-Russian and anti-American. Nothing vague, nothing that can be interpreted, just pure reality in its most glorious splendor.

"Still irrelevant. Take for example some countries where women are stoned to death for infidelity after being raped. Would you trust their judicial statistics on sex crimes? No, you wouldn't. I haven't heard of this happening in western society, but it more just serves as an example how sex crimes are viewed by the justice system can vary drastically from place to place."

Still very relevant. And wow, you are comparing Pakistan with France. From which country you would expect more? And you are going from one extreme to another, trying to prove something but failing badly. Just because in some countries women are treated bad due to cultural and religious influence (i.e. islam, something that marxists today love and continue to import in Western Europe) that does not excuse your beloved statistic that only mentions 'reports' and not the outcome of those reports. That statistic is a half-assed job, precisely because it tells us only what is at the surface. Out of that report we should have got % of them that got to a court, % with people ending up being sentenced and % of cases with the defendant being proven not guilty. That's how you do a statistic.

As I said, even I can file a report to the police and that can find its way in this statistic. What's important is what happens AFTER I file this report.

"And yes, statistics do matter. While they don't necessarily point out specific details, they do indicate overall trends. At least, they indicate more than barely coherent ramblings about socialists."

They do, but when they point out a reality, not half of it. Or a distorted reality that fits the feminist narrative of conducting more extreme policies that limits severely men's rights. Gullible liberals, when they read this statistic think 'wow, so many reports, women are evidently mistreated' and they go ahead supporting policies that could, in the future, limit their freedom drastically. They do not judge with getting emotionally involved, thinking 'ok, there are many reports, but what happened with these reports? how did those that got reported ended up'? So you can see now, you need to judge statistics with a clear mind. The one that you provided reveals just half of the real situation. The other half is not mentioned for some reason. For a very obvious reason.

"Please look up the definition of "straw man argument", you're repeatedly creating the textbook definition. In fact, you've combined it with the second-most failed-logic strategy: deflection. No one brought up Obama, pal. I brought up some evidence that the world is not becoming the shit hole you think it is. You brought in some weird cocktail of projection and persecution complex."

Yes, please check it as well. You accused me of the same thing you did when you mentioned Breitbart, FoxNews, etc. Or are you trying to deny that you mentioned them? I could quote you if you wish. You brought nothing. You can't call that statistic evidence.

"Most of the articles I read seemed to be implying it was Polands independence day party which was basically used as a stage for far-right protesters."

Depends which article you read and WHO wrote it. Yes, indeed, among there were some party supporters, but most of the people present were not politically involved. Poland literally fought both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The first occupied it and killed millions of poles, the second occupied it and ruled it ruthlessly for 45 years. It is enough to check pictures with people protesting, seeing the nazi and commie signs being cut. Yet most western media deemed them fascist. Owh, and they distorted even their chat of 'We want God' as an anti-muslim chat, even though this chant was invoked against communists. The manipulation goes even deeper, but the bad deed has been done already.

Also, the polish media helps. For example, they wrote about the few groups of trouble makers that chanted 'Down with Jews' or 'White Power' who were quickly isolated by the bulk of protesters and how they got arrested and are now awaiting prosecution. Nothing of this sort in the Western media. What is not mentioned also (and probably for good reason), is that the trouble makers were part of some anarchist, panslavist, anti-catholic groups rallied under the name Czarny Block, which means Black Block, an umbrella term that rallies the Western anarchist-communists and those that made a mess this summer in Hamburg at the G20 summit. So here are the 'fascists'. Communists wearing fascist clothes and spouting fascist messages, trying to derail a peaceful protest that had good intentions from the very beginning.

"Also, you might be viewed as a fascist if, in your attempt to cleanse a country of all traces of communism, you censor public broadcasting."

Not quite sure. For example, in Romania political parties have always hired and fired directors from the public television and radio since the revolution, yet nobody from EU said anything of this. Are we fascists too? Also, Kaczynski has a legitimate claim in diminishing foreign interference in the national press, considering how many fake news are being propagated through the socialist press in Poland. Some standards need to be imposed. The reason why the EU is so upset of what is happening in Poland is because its favorite puppet and its lackeys, Tusk is starting to lose grip over there and because they did not manage to pussify Poland as they managed to pussify other countries in EU (i.e. make it another socialist stronghold).

"More hypocrisy. If you would like people to stop confusing conservatism with fascism, perhaps stop conflating liberalism with communism?"

Is it my fault that most proclaimed liberals are closet communists? If you want to be considered liberal, then don't come up with socialist policies and laws. Same thing happens in my country with the liberals, getting all upset that they are called 'the never liberal party'. Walk it like you talk it and then nobody will make fun of you.

"Now we're just getting into semantics, in which, once again, you are wrong."

Nope, I am right. You are no longer a victim from the moment you accept the abuse.

"Time doesn't undo the fact there was a misdeed committed."

It kinda does, from a legal point of view. And from a moral point of view. Also, to be considered a misdeed, you need to prove that it happened first.

"Once again, all substantial indicators show that this is bullshit. Once again, can you offer anything to refute what I have already supplied?"

Already offered. You claim solidarity with people that accuse others without proving their statements... I would claim solidarity only after the proof is provided. Dunno, at least this is how it goes in courts. Or am I wrong ?

"No, people with brain matter ignore anecdotal bullshit, apply logic and realize there is little to no reason to lie, so they take a closer look."

Then you better do something with that logic of yours and apply it. I already applied it and #metoo is bullshit and slanderous in essence.

"Well the perpetrators can go ahead and try, I highly doubt there will be forthcoming apologies.

The #metoo campaign isn't intended to - nor does the evidence show - merely slander. The facts show how ill-equipped we are dealing with sexual violence and harassment, and that the system isn't favorable to women."

Then there will be reparation. A court can force you to express public apologies in some cases.

""I once knew a guy..." is the laziest of all your flawed logic. At least your deflection and strawman arguments took some creativity."

Better yet, a view of today's reality.

"For a guy who comes from a family of lawyers, it seems a bit obtuse that you discount all cases not leading to conviction as a false report...or that you couldn't make the distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty". Either you're bullshitting, or your family members are some pretty lousy lawyers.

So lets go over this one more time.
Cons of filing a false rape report:
-Unlikely the accused will face prosecution
-Public ridicule (being called a bitch, cunt or floozy)
-Arduous trial
-upheaval in your family and social life

Pros:
- Might get money and attention?

Yeah, sure, theres an epidemic of false accusations.

By the way - the accused committing suicide is not an indication of innocence."

None of those are cons. Sexual molesters do face prosecution, of course, if the sexual act can be proven (i.e. if it happened and if it is reported), not in this case when it is very likely it did not happen, or if it happened the person accepted it for fame/money. In the case of the later, we speak on consent, and we no longer need to go to court. If you consented when it happened, you simply don't have the right to reconsider 40 years after it happened.

Pros:
- Might get money and attention
- Defendant loses job and his place in society
- Defendant is stripped of his right for a proper defense and of the 'innocent until proven guilty' status
- Upheaval in your family and social life (for the defendant)
- In many cases it may lead to suicide

"Acting is an artform. You are selling your talents, creating something for public consumption. The fact that you view it as a form of prostitution shows you are part of the problem. Prostitution is plainly laid out - money in exchange for sex. Acting in movies is being paid for your talents as part of a larger creative endeavor. Having to fuck somebody on the side should not be a necessary part, unfortunately, due to powerful people in Hollywood, it has become just that. This whole movement is built to change that. So you can experience success in your field based on your merits rather than having to put up with some sickos bullshit."

So acting like a bitch/cunt/floozy in the mindset of a liberal is an art form? First time I hear this. Of course, selling your talent of being a cunt, a bitch, a floozy, I have nothing against this. But what was all that talk about sexual abuse and harassment when a person is willingly accepting them, as it is an art form? LOL This is getting ridiculous. How about we make false rape allegations an art form as well? Ok, Hollywood is cancer, I agree, but when you get corrupted, who is at fault? The one who gets corrupted, or the one who corrupts you? We are who we choose to be. If you behaved like a harlot once, and years after you regret it, you can't just turn around finding excuses or denying it and behaving like it was never your intention, but others made you do it. You have to take responsibility for who you are and the choices you made. Not behave like an innocent victim when you accepted sexual abuse to gain money and fame.

"Easier said than done. You do realize most actors begin at a young age, and pour themselves into the pursuit of their craft? I know its hard to look past all the disingenuous, glitzy, red carpet bullshit, but behind it there is (not exclusively, but most of the time) a human who built their entire life around their career, and you're saying if they are unwilling to subject themselves to predatory behavior they should just drop it all? Thats text book misogyny right there."

Most 'actors' are actually nepotists. I.e. they are usually born in a family of actors and/or are friends with some. So in their case, they keep it in the circle and they accept it, as part of the craft. The issue is with the outsiders. It is actually a very easy thing to do. In the end you just need to think what is more valuable, you, or them. The moment you consider that the career is more important and you are willing to make this compromise (which is perfectly fine!) you are no longer a victim. You gave your consent.

"Also - you are aware that a lot of these women in the media aren't pressing charges or seeking restitution? I doubt any of them expect stardom after decades of anonymity, so yet again, your logic falls flat on its face."

Even if they could, they can't. Because if you accuse someone and press for legal charges, in a court you need to prove the accusations. How the hell can you prove something that happened so many years ago? This #metoo thingy made them stars for a few minutes when the press wrote and published their lies. For many of them, it is enough. Plus, it can be a stepping stone. Knowing how feminist the media is today, they will for sure be called to make more of this nonsense. I don't think this charade is all over.

"Secondly, lets pretend a false accusation is leveled against me - I wouldn't use that as measuring stick for every case. Just because 1 woman may be a liar doesn't make all women out there fighting their own battles liars."

Or all of them are liars, if they can't prove their accusations. In the absence of proof, the accusations are lies. Period. And the reason they don't press charges is precisely because they are lies to begin with. As I mentioned, it happened? Ok, report it.

"In essence, there is. As not guilty could mean the difference between having grounds for a counter-lawsuit or not."

Nope, not guilty means innocent. It means that the accuser lied when making the accusations in regards to sexual abuse.

"You are aware of things like statutory rape? Rapes where the victim is coerced through threats on their well being (i.e. career)? Or spousal abuse where the victim hides it because they fear they'll have nowhere to go, or they'll be placing their children in jeopardy?

The fact that you say, as a rule, that it leaves marks is another indication you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about."

In both cases, NO is an answer and the police is at handy. You can report this before it can even happen.

"Is it really consent if its a choice between accepting it or having your life derailed? No. It isn't. Hence why there are laws against statutory rape and sexual harassment in the workplace."

Yes, it is consent. Having your life derailed by not reaching fame/richness? Come on....

"Because you tend to take the most absurd roundabout logic to side against them. Hell, you seem even incapable of taking a neutral stance, such as saying "They have little reason to lie, but also have little evidence, therefore I will reserve judgement." I know many people who have taken this stance. Its a perfectly fine one to take. Whats not fine is assuming that just because a woman cannot prove her victimhood in the eyes of the law, she is arbitrarily a bitch or a cunt. This sends an incredibly dangerous message to women who need to come forward. "

Because evidence comes first. If you are not able to provide evidence in a legal setting, not on social media, in magazines or at TV, then for me equals null. Plus, I am more reserved when I hear rape cases in the press, rather than being settled in the court. Something is always wrong when the press amplifies something like #metoo without seeing legal action. Means that the accusations are unprovable, and most likely they are lies. Need to come forward with what? Lies, yes, it needs to be dangerous in this case.

"That link doesn't really support any argument. First of all, its not public domain, I'm not paying to read it. Without being able to view sources and data collection methods its impossible to verify the validity of it. Could only read the abstract."

It's a study made by a feminist organization confirming the obvious (much to their dismay), that women flock to men with power and money. Something like this did not need a study, as it is plain obvious since organized society exists.

"Theres a world of difference between sacrificing creativity in pursuit of popularity and degrading yourself for the gatekeepers. They choose to change their creative output in order to gain money. If it turned out that some record exec was going to make or break their career based on whether or not the band members gave him a blowjob, Id say yeah, thats predatory sexual abuse."

The same thing, in a different setting under different circumstances. Whoring yourself for popularity, fame and money is the same, whether it is done by musicians or by Hollywood harlots. Selling your musical creativity for cash is the same as selling your body for cash. In both cases, consent is there.

"You are operating on the presumption that the "VIP circle" is their primary goal. Yeah, sure, its a perk, but it could also be a case of them wanting to have their creative pursuits reach a wider audience. Shes trying to sell her talents, her integrity and body shouldn't be on the table, thats kind of the point. In an odd, roundabout way you are empathetic with the movement: They are trying to dismantle the very aspect of the industry you look down your nose upon."

And your point is? Being part of Hollywood is being part of a VIP circle, 'cause not even hillbilly, redneck, truck driver, yokel or hick can get in there. You need to either be born in there, to be born outside but to have connections, or to compromise with yourself (i.e. sell yourself in any way or fashion like a harlot) to enter there. That doesn't excuse them selling themselves either. Consent is there, thus we no longer speak of a victim anymore. Dismantling it, how? By becoming part of it?

"Or these women aren't all greedy attention whores as you seem to assume, and they're merely trying to offer strength to women currently facing this issue."

Or to those making a sport of falsely accusing people of something imaginary that they have no way of proving. They did not help anyone, only their careers and egos.

"In that article (which comprehensively cites many studies) you'll notice their common profile of false accusers doesn't exactly match up with a lot of more prominent #metoo figures."

It would help the credibility of the article if not feminists would cite numbers, cause they can hardly be credible. They tend to downsize a phenomenon that could go against what they support.

"Well, combined with the above study on false accusations, its pretty reasonable to take those statistics seriously."

Seriously, the study mentions figures made by feminists... maybe you can take them seriously, I can't, cause I'm looking at the source. Here is a much better source, not coming from feminists, but by researchers from 20 universities. It encompasses both domestic and sexual related violence. What is interesting about this study is that the academic view is less prominent, and contains police reports regarding false allegations. And they are nowhere near 5-10%, but around 50% (this study gathered data from past 2 decades).

"She was 16. A child in the eyes of the law. I look back to when I was 16 and I can sympathize - 16 year olds make ill informed decisions without proper forethought. Its the adults job to recognize a goddamn child and understand they are probably not the right person to wave your dick in front of. Thats what makes it predatory behavior - failure to acknowledge that maybe this person isn't in a position to make informed decisions regarding sex, especially with someone old enough to be their dad."

At 16 people used to get married and have kids not so long ago. You are also legally responsible at 16 and in some countries girls can still marry at 16 (in Romania it is legal). And 16 year old kids are not that dumb to say that 'I did not know I can refuse'. In fact they are even more straightforward with what they want to do and what they don't want to do than an adult. However you put it, the logic behind the answer is flawed and hard to believe. What if she is 16? Can't a teenager be a skank as well? Well I'll be damned.

"Here we go again...and what sort of data, studies or research have you done to refute my "drivel"? A single article on how women are attracted to power and money, a bunch of conspiracy rambles, generic, dime-a-dozen anti-liberal ad-hominems and a collection of common fallacies most 2nd graders could poke holes in (deflection, strawman, anecdotes, etc)."

Plenty actually. You brought a statistic that addressed rape reports, ignoring the fact that 85% are abandoned as soon as they are filed and only 15% of them reach courts (of which around 7-8% end up in convictions). Bother reading the study I posted. The data is all there.

"I'm an optimist. I think the world we're living in a world getting better for the most part. Violent crime is decreasing, technology is leading to great medical advances. New innovation is leading to new technology that is both environmentally friendly and good for the economy. While equality doesn't exist yet, we're actually making conscious strides toward it. Lots of things to be happy about. There is still a lot wrong with the world, but its mostly the internet that makes it seem worse: We're now so much more aware of issues outside of our communities. The internet made us hold a mirror to ourselves, and I think we all agreed theres some shit to deal with, and its gradually being dealt with (albeit in a 2 steps forward, 1 back kind of way)."

I am optimistic too. A glimmer of hope exists. I was very pessimistic until Trump was elected. When I saw that Eastern Europe if also becoming more and more conservative (what I truly hope is for Intermarium to form) and that we are starting to protest against Bruxelles dictatorship, it does give me hope for the future. But the battle isn't over yet. Another glimmer of hope is that some studies (such as this one) show that younger generations are more conservative and right-wing in their views than their parents, which is a very good thing as well.

So yes, there is still hope that we can avoid the imminent marxist hell that has engulfed the civilized and developed world for quite a few decades. Hope that we will obtain victory before we reach the totalitarian regime that Orwell envisioned. You mentioned internet being a form of freedom, which I agree. All the more reason to fight against socialists today as they are the primary enemies of this mean of communication, who constantly seek to censor it and put it under control. In fact it is thanks to it that conservatism and the right-wing movement is growing and liberal-marxists know this.

Western Europe is already lost to the point of no return. I just doubt that a real conservative establishment will emerge there in the next 2-3 decades to save those countries and considering that Islam might hold a higher proportion in those countries in the next years, I predict a very bleak future for this part of the world. That is why Intermarium needs to take shape and to separate itself from Western Europe. We do not want to be tainted by marxist-liberals and their love for Islam.

Good god this is getting really convoluted. Lets try and simplify things here.
Really, there's as much evidence for a global socialist takeover as there is a global alt-right nazi takeover. If you believe either, congrats, you're a sucker. The truth is far more mundane with shades of gray. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for news outlets trying to sell their news as entertainment.

But I'll leave that as
A) Conspiracy nuts generally don't like mundane truth, as it doesn't give cause for alarmist bullshit to justify their prejudices. The truth, and therefore the argument, doesn't actually matter.
B) It's completely beside the point, so I really couldn't give a shit.
C) Neither conservatism or liberalism are going anywhere. If you believe one or the other is eventually going to assume complete dominance permanently, nice bubble you live in.

So sure, theres a global socialist takeover. You win that one. Can we stop typing out out useless walls of text regarding that now?

Back to the topic at hand:
Yeah, the study you showed is about how male victims also exist. No one has denied that. I fail to see how male victims of spousal abuse automatically means the false report rate amongst women is higher. At a glance I couldn't find any specific data showing a 50% false accusation rate. There was data on men being disproportionately arrested for domestic violence, but couldn't find that specific issue you raise. So humor me and direct me to the page on false accusations, please?

But I'll humor you for a minute - let's go with 50% (ignoring the fact that we're comparing apples and oranges now, as your article is specifically about partner abuse/domestic violence, my 2 being specifically about rape).

Of the average 1000 rapes committed, 7 lead to conviction. So applying your logic (that any not leading to conviction automatically makes them liars) shouldn't the number be closer to 500 then? That leaves 500 that are truthful. I don't know about you, but thats hardly enough to start labeling them all as lying cunts and bitches. But once again, I'm not seeing any evidence that one study discounts the other.

Your logic also assumes that the justice system is always fair and without fault - based on your double-standards regarding the judicial system, this is where I begin to suspect your resentment of women. When a man is falsely convicted of rape, thats a judicial error caused by feminist sympathetic courts, but when a man is acquitted, the woman is a lying cunt? Surely you see the double standard there?

Quote:
Nope, I am right. You are no longer a victim from the moment you accept the abuse.

Lol. Nice job on reading past the first paragraph.

"In Canada "consent means�the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in sexual activity" without abuse or exploitation of "trust, power or authority", coercion or threats."

Quote:

And wow, you are comparing Pakistan with France. From which country you would expect more? And you are going from one extreme to another, trying to prove something but failing badly.

...guess I do have to slow things down, then.
As I said, I was merely using 2 extremes as a way of illustrating how judicial standards vary from country to country, making conviction rates a poor indicator of actual crimes committed. Not to mention the whole "No conviction = no crime" logic doesn't make sense when you apply it to other crimes. For example, my house was broken into a few years ago. They never caught the guy - sort of. They caught someone who was breaking into houses throughout my area. However, due to certain circumstances, no formal charges could be brought against him. That doesn't mean my house wasn't burgled, nor does it make me a liar in the eyes of the law.

Like I said, your logic relies on the justice system being above reproach, which you yourself even throw doubt upon:

Quote:
I know chaps that were condemned of false rape accusations in a matter of weeks, having to pay a lot of money both to lawyers and to the 'victim'. And this happens in Romania, a country that has not been pussified yet by dimwit liberals and marxist-cultural retards.

So in a pussified marxist society I imagine you presume this happens more?

As for the rest - your argument rests solely on speculation about people you don't know personally.

Given the combined facts, its incredibly destructive, hateful, irresponsible and ignorant to assume that the majority of these women are all lying cunts.