Notice: Home alone tonight?
Topic: A woman told me she and other women can spot abusers.
+Anonymous A — 2 months ago #68,163
However, she cited various men accused of MeToo transgressions.
I offered that her logic had gaps. If women could spot abusers, there would be no victims.
Second, an ugly middle aged man isn’t necessarily an abuser by appearance alone. That’s prejudgment and stereotyping.
Finally, she cited men who had been cleared. A process that allows an anonymous star chamber and that conveys automatic credibility to accusers, with no repercussions for lying, is fatally flawed.
+Anonymous B — 2 months ago, 23 minutes later[T] [B] #675,412
She sounds presumptuous as well as prejudiced. To be unassuming is to be impartial and neither presume good or ill will, innocence or guilt, on anyone's part, nor to be swayed by conjecture and gossip, but to discern the truth objectively as it revealed. I don't understand the rash who live by the rule 'guilty until proven innocent'.
+Anonymous C — 2 months ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #675,415
@OP
> However, she cited various men accused of MeToo transgressions.
>
> I offered that her logic had gaps. If women could spot abusers, there would be no victims.
>
> Second, an ugly middle aged man isn’t necessarily an abuser by appearance alone. That’s prejudgment and stereotyping.
>
> Finally, she cited men who had been cleared. A process that allows an anonymous star chamber and that conveys automatic credibility to accusers, with no repercussions for lying, is fatally flawed.
this is why is to some extent some "incels" have a valid point of contention especially ones that say "not all men" because most of the time what they're trying to say is that yes there are men who committed MeToo Transgressions however there are in also women who abuse the movement and its powers to their advantage because they understand the bureaucracy and the companines along the courts will side with the women regardless of the validity of the claim. Sometimes they'll just take an undisclosed settlement because the very act of getting accused is enough to tarnish a reputatioon anyway even if the evidence points to innocent. making the money is just a bonus.
Not saying im all for women getting beat and have total subjagation over them but sometimes I wonder if this the primary reason we dont have women running our governements or driving cars or even why at one point in time women could not vote.
worse part is that they'll most likely read this veru thread, share the information amongst themselves and form another zeigist of whatever agenda they got cooking. love women and all but their equally if not more cunning and vindictive than men.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
·Anonymous B — 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #675,417
What country doesn't allow women to drive cars? And what about the Queen of Italy? She's kinda cool. But the substitute teacher who took me out for art supplies when I was 12 certainly drove a car to do it. And when teachers do metoo things they often get away with it, especially if there's nobody to tell. At least they often did b4 the surveillance state.
+ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 2 months ago, 8 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[T] [B] #675,423
lmao no
+Anonymous E — 2 months ago, 4 days later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #675,522
lul wot?
+Anonymous F — 2 months ago, 8 hours later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #675,542
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> Americans say marijuana is banned to help the alcohol industry, but maybe the real reason weed is banned is to boost the private prison industry.
personally don't care for niether. In every social setting ive been to, people use both as a social lubricant and its annoying.
+Anonymous G — 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #675,545
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
It's both. In 1937 they passed the first laws against it hoping users would self incriminate by buying the stamps and if they didn't they got them on tax evasion. It was also to discourage migration. Then seizure and forfeiture made departments and pigs filthy rich during the Mena Airstrip cocaine days. The "just say no" crowd was bringing it in.
+Anonymous H — 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #675,549
@previous (G)
> It's both. In 1937 they passed the first laws against it hoping users would self incriminate by buying the stamps and if they didn't they got them on tax evasion. It was also to discourage migration. Then seizure and forfeiture made departments and pigs filthy rich during the Mena Airstrip cocaine days. The "just say no" crowd was bringing it in.
is that cause of the crack/cocaine epidemic that occur in the late 80's-90's in places like nyc and miami?
+Anonymous I — 2 months ago, 11 hours later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #675,556
@previous (H)
NY and Miami were already big markets with bigger stores and easier access, but I'm sure it played a part. There were LA gangs and bikers that networked Little Rock, and Mena was so remote that the high traffic of weapons and drugs in and out was noticed only by locals. In rural AR there were stockpiles of munitions in underground bunkers built from WW.II. During the Iran/Contra hearings our govt confirmed that lying is more important to its officials than any oath of office. Now they're stupid liars since they reckon they'll just keep getting away with it, or so it seems.