|
an unjust probe to one lovely idiot is an injustice to all lovely idiots, apologize!
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Unjust probations are the biggest news currently in the US. Read all about it in this thread. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No. That post was made nearly a month ago, when there was no actual reason to surmise it was a hoax other than vague gut feelings. That he happened to guess right doesn’t change that the speculation was baseless at the time. This is the absolute pinnacle of arrogance. You probated him for pointing out ways the story didn't make sense. There's nothing baseless about that and he didn't "surmise" anything. Everything he said has turned out to be correct and you're still sitting here trying to claim not only was he wrong but he was so wrong that he could have only arrived at that opinion through bigotry or bad faith posting after what he said has already been shown to be true. Maybe learn a lesson about probating people for having opinions you disagree with. Get over yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
That doesn't really follow. People were making the same argument about the MAGA bomber: "it's too on-the-nose, seems like a hoax to make Trump voters look bad". They turned out to have been wrong, so everyone moved on. But even if they had been right, that didn't mean their reasoning was good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
it’s a drat shame that no one is able to post usnews in the usnews thread while we hash this out, good posters are unable to catch up on the news of the day in this thread that’s been designed for just that. just thinking an apology might go a long way towards ending the twitter highlights post embargo we’re currently in
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1098951501110804480
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
Honey Trap Queen posted:Demanding the black mod apologizes for a probation in a forum she doesn't moderate is a choice. Lightning Knight put in the probation and that's the only actual problem. There was nothing wrong with people being pissed at that original post as KM and others were. I can absolutely see why they would be. And there could have been a discussion about that at the time. Instead, there was a probation which killed debate and made things super awkward as more information came out and people tried to fumble around whether or not skepticism was allowed. That's bad for a subforum that's supposed to be about debate. I even think the idea that we're protecting victims is a bit self serving. Probations didn't get handed out for doubting Franken's accusers because we really, really didn't want those to be true. Nor did anyone get in trouble for being conflicted about Keith Ellison's accuser. Smollett's thing was a story we all really, really wanted to believe (and I still hope ends up not as depressing as it seems), but I think we got too caught up in that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That doesn't really follow. People were making the same argument about the MAGA bomber: "it's too on-the-nose, seems like a hoax to make Trump voters look bad". I'm not sure specifically what incident you're talking about so it's hard to engage your arguement directly. But "someone made this argument onc.e when it didn't apply" is not usually considered proof that the arguement never applies. This isn't how things work anyways, "this is cartoonishly stereotypical" can be a valid observation without in of itself being sufficient evidence to call something a hoax. He pointed out a number of things about the situation that didn't add up that weren't individually damning, and as far as I remember never claimed they proved it was a hoax. Totality of evidence is a thing. edit: I'll note, for example, that the same observation was made about the "Blacks rule" graffiti that turned out to be a hoax. Edit 2: stereotypical isn't the right word.... Caricature maybe? Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is the absolute pinnacle of arrogance. Imagine going through life like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:But "someone made this argument once when it didn't apply" is not usually considered proof that the arguement never applies. This isn't how things work anyways, "this is cartoonishly stereotypical" can be a valid observation without in of itself being sufficient evidence to call something a hoax. He pointed out a number of things about the situation that didn't add up that weren't individually damning, and as far as I remember never claimed they proved it was a hoax. Totality of evidence is a thing. It was a hunch, and the 'totality of the evidence' offered for it was weak. Additional evidence coming to light later supporting that hunch doesn't retroactively make the original evidence stronger, in fact you're not even trying to show the original case was good, you're citing new evidence unknown at the time and saying "well it turned out to be a hoax in the end so the original argument had to have been stronger than we thought". After any hate crime or rape allegation or whatever, you can always find people bringing up problems they have with the story the day of, 99% of the time those people are wrong and the holes are resolved by additional evidence. Eventually there will really be a hoax, and you can pick that cherry and say "see this guy who questioned her story was right all along and you didn't listen" but that doesn't actually mean that he made a good case at the time or that he's owed an apology by someone who dismissed him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
ah, there’s the problem. it should have been posted in the “armchair detectivery thread for conclusions definitely firmly based on fact and reason” instead of the “usnews” thread. mods we rescind our demands for an apology, probes for off topic content is a cornerstone of forums civilization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was a hunch, and the 'totality of the evidence' offered for it was weak. Additional evidence coming to light later supporting that hunch doesn't retroactively make the original evidence stronger, in fact you're not even trying to show the original case was good, you're citing new evidence unknown at the time and saying "well it turned out to be a hoax in the end so the original argument had to have been stronger than we thought". Yeah and 99% of the the time the problems they bring up are contrived bullshit. I can't think of a single time in my life I've doubted a hate crime or sexual assault claim but this one seemed off. And even that said I never made any conclusions, it was mostly a sinking feeling cause I was hoping I was wrong. It's almost like observations should be judged on their merit instead of treating this like a team sport. And that's really the key, you perceive everyone as just trying to score points for their team because that's all you do. He never declared it a hoax or made conclusions he just accurately pointed out oddities about the situation. Not everyone is in a discussion to pick a side and win. Edit: again "someone made a superficially similar argument in an unrelated situation and was wrong" is not an argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
take probe chat to QQCS and stop pooping up this thread, thanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
N/m
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, yes, I do stand by it. You happened to get lucky and be right, but I think the odds of that on balance were not high in the sense that the vast majority of the time, they’re not hoaxes. In the context of when that post was made, yes I think it was poo poo. Yikes, why is this guy a mod?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
bradzilla posted:Yikes, why is this guy a mod? Please explain what's wrong with that particular statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:take probe chat to QQCS and stop pooping up this thread, thanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
e: nvm
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
The Turpins have plead guilty to a host of crimes, and will be sentenced to Life in Prison (but with the possibility of parole). https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/house-horrors-case-turpin-parents-accused-beating-starving-children-plead-n974651 This is one of those cases that seems like it might be tabloid fodder, more than a serious news story ready for debate and discussion, but I think it is significant in that it is about serious issues like how the criminal justice system is treating domestic violence and (possibly sexual abuse). I can't really think of anything too insightful to say on the Turpin case, does anyone have any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
I figure it'll take a back seat to the R Kelly charges in tonight's news.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I figure it'll take a back seat to the R Kelly charges in tonight's news. I can only hope that people can look at three cases as disparate as R Kelly, Robert Kraft, and the Turpins, and consider the underlying problems, instead of the sensationalistic aspects. (Whether the Turpin case involved sexual abuse hasn't been made clear by the charging documents, there was one count of "lewd conduct", but I am guessing that there was unfortunately a lot more going on. Perhaps the plea deal was about not having to have the children testify about that at trial).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I can only hope that people can look at three cases as disparate as R Kelly, Robert Kraft, and the Turpins, and consider the underlying problems, instead of the sensationalistic aspects. Plea deals are all about doing as little work as possible. Maybe it’s a lip service reasoning but in reality the whole point was the prosecutor getting a conviction while using as few resources as possible. Just loving LOL if you think they give a poo poo about the victims when it comes to strategic decisions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:The Turpins have plead guilty to a host of crimes, and will be sentenced to Life in Prison (but with the possibility of parole). Good. So what happens to the kids? I mean, several of them are actually adults but they've been kept in such horrible conditions for so long that it's a bit questionable if they're capable of functioning in society, let alone taking care of their younger siblings, without a lot of therapy/assistance. I hope that they get the help they need. That was such a terrible story when it broke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Plea deals are all about doing as little work as possible. Maybe it’s a lip service reasoning but in reality the whole point was the prosecutor getting a conviction while using as few resources as possible. Just loving LOL if you think they give a poo poo about the victims when it comes to strategic decisions. Cynics all think they invented cynicism the way stoners all think they invented weed. Okay, if you insist, I can rephrase it. The prosecutor knew that allegations of sexual assault would probably depend on witness testimony from witnesses who were children, or were children, when the sexual abuse occurred, and who have greatly reduced ability to interact normally with the world, let alone testify under oath, in a courtroom, against their parents. Strategically, it would make much more sense to get an immediate conviction for things that obviously covered by irrefutable physical evidence: pictures of a house covered with feces, medical reports on malnourish and injury, rather than to risk having to charge the two Turpins with crimes that depend on witness testimony that could be refuted. That the strategic concern might have coincided with some type of humane sentiment about putting children on the witness stand, but obviously, yes, there was a strategic decision about the easiest way to get a conviction. They got a life sentence in a plea deal, there was no reason to prove other crimes had occurred.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Roll Fizzlebeef posted:Unjust probations are the biggest news currently in the US. Read all about it in this thread. Back the mod no matter whad E: okay didn’t see we’re done with probechat. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jackiekcalmes/status/1099068110169128961
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Or, you know, we default to giving alleged victims the benefit of the doubt until investigations or information give reason to do otherwise? And coming back when they do to boast to all the people who did that you were right to think that a hate attack seemed unlikely or fishy for random reasons like "it was cold" seems not to serve a lot of purpose and maybe should cause you to take a step back and ask what you're getting out of it? how about we assume people are innocent until they are proven guilty
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:how about we assume people are innocent until they are proven guilty Well Smollet hasn't been proven guilty of filing a false report in a court of law so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I can only hope that people can look at three cases as disparate as R Kelly, Robert Kraft, and the Turpins, and consider the underlying problems, instead of the sensationalistic aspects. The report I heard on KCRW said that it was specifically to prevent the kids from having to be on the stand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
You guys seen this lovely bill the democrats are pushing: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/02/easter-eggs-trojan-horses-democrats-flagship-bill-h-r-1-people-act-2019.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:You guys seen this lovely bill the democrats are pushing: Pretty much none of the provisions this guy is highlighting have the problems he says they do. His reading borders on the absurd a lot of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
Changing the thresholds for third parties seems like bullshit though, who ordered that, and how is that For The People
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
They don't want competition for progressive votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Pretty much none of the provisions this guy is highlighting have the problems he says they do. His reading borders on the absurd a lot of the time. To be honest given your post history I'm much more inclined to believe that guy than you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
That site is sketchy as hell though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Here's Matt Taibbi raising similar concerns with the bill: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/hr1-democrats-house-of-representatives-794254/
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:That site is sketchy as hell though. Why
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:To be honest given your post history I'm much more inclined to believe that guy than you. What's wrong with it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Everything about it's existence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Like how can you look at that and not read left wing versions of that site with the geocity police siren.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 01:57
|
|