111–120 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A famous quote on this is that from a woman's perspective rape isn't illegal it's regulated. "Regulated" in the sense that the average prison term for [edit: federal cases of , see reply for closest approximation I could find for non-federal average sentence] sexual abuse is 17 years? their average sentence was 211 months - https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...
The US Sentencing Commission: (1) only gets referrals related to federal sentencing (which are a small and not-representative minority of “sexual abuse” cases (if you look at your own document, the majority of the cases are charges specific to one form or another of child sex trafficking—almost half for production of child pornography alone, while only 10% are rape, the specific thibg being referred to in the post yo…
And I couldn't find data on the average non-federal sexual abuse prison sentence in the US, but for the UK it's 8 years: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/26/rape-sentenc...
So on what basis, other than "men bad", does the claim that rape is merely "regulated", and that the legal system wasn't (Shouldn't that be "isn't"? Or will we argue about what the legal system was like a century ago, and imply but not state that it hasn't changed?) meant to address it, rest?
In the UK, the police have even withheld evidence from defense lawyers to ensure convictions for rape. Does that affect the claim how the law is basically pro-rape, or is it completely immune to evidence, so long as a single rape can still occur? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/06/05/basic-tenet-j...
A simple matter of faith, no matter how badly society treats accused rapists: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46235634
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that they are obviously championing a social justice cause.
Weird way to phrase it. Most people, even the ones who rail against social justice, would not categorize "actually doing something about sexual abuse" as a social justice cause -- a phrasing which is obviously intended to politicize it and disable your need to care about it, anyway. Is your preferred alternative "don't do something about sexual abuse"? Good luck with that. Lichess is doing something because (a) they…
> Lichess is in the convenient position of having a lot of negotiating power over other organizations because of its ascendancy, which means that since it apparently has a sense of ethics it can assert those ethics on the more-despicable organizations that don't.
I want to address this more generally. I'm not taking issue with any of the claims, I don't know what is true or isn't. The thing I wonder after reading this is how many organizations struggle to deal with these types of situations. Employers, schools, universities, clubs all seem to now have to have a process to address these things. And yet they seem to fumble it regularly, in every direction. The results are all o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s neither what I said nor meant.
It's difficult to interpret your comment as having any other meaning.
Im not saying Lichess is SJW because they want women to feel and be safe in chess. Im saying they are a bit SJW because they infused ideaology with their totally idealogical site. Communism, atheism, feminism,etc. Of the developers own admission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird way to phrase it. Most people, even the ones who rail against social justice, would not categorize "actually doing something about sexual abuse" as a social justice cause -- a phrasing which is obviously intended to politicize it and disable your need to care about it, anyway. Is your preferred alternative "don't do something about sexual abuse"? Good luck with that. Lichess is doing something because (a) they…
But thats what social justice is. Im not sure why you have a negative connotation with it when you describe it as a positive. > Lichess is in the convenient position of having a lot of negotiating power over other organizations because of its ascendancy, which means that since it apparently has a sense of ethics it can assert those ethics on the more-despicable organizations that don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such is the problem with free speech: it enables free association. Alternative language for what you're saying: Should we force people to allow everyone access to them/their company/their spaces? If not, how do we determine what groups are and aren't protected? Tangential: Why would banning criminals be fine for you, and what crimes warrant exclusion? Should tax cheats be excluded from chess orgs? What about someone…
There are several arguments on this post to that effect: that, yes, organizations should have no right to exclude anyone for their behavior, and should be forced to accept anyone who demands membership. Banning criminals is a popular rhetorical construction used by those who do not have felony records, in order to scaremonger others into supporting an argument that promotes existing biases and status quos; in this ca…
It's a tough philosophical space balancing between free speech/association and criminal discrimination and I think it shouldn't be surprising that an ecosystem that produced a "free speech absolutist" like Musk who bans dissenting opinions would also create a group of people who think that everyone has to tolerate them no matter how abhorrent their behavior or ideas as long as it doesn't cross a line into "criminal".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Sentencing Commission: (1) only gets referrals related to federal sentencing (which are a small and not-representative minority of “sexual abuse” cases (if you look at your own document, the majority of the cases are charges specific to one form or another of child sex trafficking—almost half for production of child pornography alone, while only 10% are rape, the specific thibg being referred to in the post yo…
Then robbery and assault and battery are also only "regulated", because they have similar conviction rates: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system And I couldn't find data on the average non-federal sexual abuse prison sentence in the US, but for the UK it's 8 years: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/26/rape-sentenc... So on what basis, other than "men bad", does the claim that rape is me…
If you have an intellectually-honest response to the post three levels upthread of your most recent one, the place to make it was as your first response to that post, not in response to and without acknowledging anything in my post calling out the manner in which your initial response to that post abused statistics that did not address the point raised there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several arguments on this post to that effect: that, yes, organizations should have no right to exclude anyone for their behavior, and should be forced to accept anyone who demands membership. Banning criminals is a popular rhetorical construction used by those who do not have felony records, in order to scaremonger others into supporting an argument that promotes existing biases and status quos; in this ca…
Oh I know, I once got into a massive Twitter blowout with Brendan Eich because he believes that all computing conferences should invite "the best" speakers (how do you determine that? well I assume "invented JS" would be a qualifier...) regardless of their personal or legal issues. It's a tough philosophical space balancing between free speech/association and criminal discrimination and I think it shouldn't be surpri…
> as long as it doesn’t cross a line into “excluding them”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then robbery and assault and battery are also only "regulated", because they have similar conviction rates: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system And I couldn't find data on the average non-federal sexual abuse prison sentence in the US, but for the UK it's 8 years: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/may/26/rape-sentenc... So on what basis, other than "men bad", does the claim that rape is me…
> Then robbery and assault and battery are also only “regulated” If you have an intellectually-honest response to the post three levels upthread of your most recent one, the place to make it was as your first response to that post, not in response to and without acknowledging anything in my post calling out the manner in which your initial response to that post abused statistics that did not address the point raised…
I amended my original post to state it only refers to federal convictions, as you correctly pointed out, found the closest thing I could to non-federal statistics, to address your claim that federal ones are non-representative, cited statistics from the largest US anti-sexual assault organization to show that rape is handled comparably to other serious crime, and then added more examples to show rape is treated harshly by both society and the law, to the point that innocents sometimes are convicted of crimes they didn't commit.
In short, I addressed every point you and the original post raised, and addressed them using sourced statistics and reliable news organizations, despite the "rape culture" allegations being unsourced and unfalsifiably vague.
It would be more than clear to anyone reading this that it is not I who should worry about intellectual honesty.