Feminists openly state they do not CARE about innocent men destroyed by lies!

[LJ_Reloaded]

https://twitter.com/EmilyLindin/status/933073784822579200

Here's an unpopular opinion: I'm actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.

This was gender revenge politics at their worst, until the alt right arrived.

Sorry, lady, but you don't take the prize today, but you do get an A+ for your effort at being the most deplorable shitburger of the day. Trump will always be a step ahead of you.

Unfortunately few mainstream feminists have a problem with statements like these.

 

[KimGordon67]

You seem to have again confused one woman with 'feminists'. You really need to sort out that whole lack of understanding of how singular and plural works - if you put an 's' on the end, it means more than one. Emily Lindin is just one.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You seem to have again confused one woman with 'feminists'. You really need to sort out that whole lack of understanding of how singular and plural works - if you put an 's' on the end, it means more than one. Emily Lindin is just one.

Instead of crying unhelpful bullshit like "BUT MUH NAFALT" how about you tell these feminists who are like that, not to be like that?

 

[KimGordon67]

Instead of crying unhelpful bullshit like "BUT MUH NAFALT" how about you tell these feminists who are like that, not to be like that?

It seems that she's already been told that.

(Also, I'm kind of with her. There'll inevitably be a bit of collateral damage - that's just the nature of the beast. I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't care about that, but I also don't agree with the whole 'we can't tackle this issue because innocent men will suffer' argument.

I await with utter non-interest to see how you twist that around to make me seem like a man-hating harridan.)

 

[Adder4321]

This is the kind of stuff that made me stop calling myself a feminist in the first place. Actually, it's why I no longer give myself any titles or names, because I will inevitably be associated with the negative aspects of those groups. Instead I let people call me what they think that I should be called based on my actions and opinions.

 

[KimGordon67]

This is the kind of stuff that made me stop calling myself a feminist in the first place. Actually, it's why I no longer give myself any titles or names, because I will inevitably be associated with the negative aspects of those groups. Instead I let people call me what they think that I should be called based on my actions and opinions.

As far as I'm concerned, that's other people's problem. I personally don't give a toss who people choose to 'associate' me with, nor if they can't be bothered understanding what 'feminist' actually means. If someone is so stupid that they can't work out that one woman doesn't speak for all feminists, I really don't care what they think.

 

[Adder4321]

As far as I'm concerned, that's other people's problem. I personally don't give a toss who people choose to 'associate' me with, nor if they can't be bothered understanding what 'feminist' actually means. If someone is so stupid that they can't work out that one woman doesn't speak for all feminists, I really don't care what they think.

Would you also consider that men who rape do not represent all men?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I await with utter non-interest to see how you twist that around to make me seem like a man-hating harridan.)

Well...

(Also, I'm kind of with her. There'll inevitably be a bit of collateral damage - that's just the nature of the beast.

Congratulations, you now sound just like a Republican. And you just proved what a man-hating harridan you are. Because you have never said this about allowing women to be collateral damage, only men.

Perhaps you need to read "To Kill a Mockingbird" to see how that collateral damage works out. Then again you're also the feminist who says the recidivism of some men is why other men deserve longer prison sentences than women - which is what whites say about longer prison sentences for blacks. And we know how fast you shut the fuck up and showed yourself the door when I called you out on that.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Would you also consider that men who rape do not represent all men?

You're arguing with a Deplorable who says male collateral damage is acceptable when it comes to false rape accusations.

ALL Feminists despise the concept that it's better to let some guilty people loose than destroy innocent people.

 

[KimGordon67]

Would you also consider that men who rape do not represent all men?

That's a rhetorical question, eh?

 

[KimGordon67]

You're arguing with a Deplorable who says male collateral damage is acceptable when it comes to false rape accusations.

ALL Feminists despise the concept that it's better to let some guilty people loose than destroy innocent people.

Sigh. No, I didn't say that. What I said was that 'innocent men will suffer' isn't a reason for not dealing with situations of endemic sexual harassment/assault.

For any crime at all, it is inevitable that some innocent people will be accused, and sometimes even convicted, of the crime. Are you saying that isn't the case? Or are you arguing that this means we shouldn't accuse/convict anyone of any crime?

 

[KimGordon67]

Well...


Congratulations, you now sound just like a Republican. And you just proved what a man-hating harridan you are. Because you have never said this about allowing women to be collateral damage, only men.

Perhaps you need to read "To Kill a Mockingbird" to see how that collateral damage works out. Then again you're also the feminist who says the recidivism of some men is why other men deserve longer prison sentences than women - which is what whites say about longer prison sentences for blacks. And we know how fast you shut the fuck up and showed yourself the door when I called you out on that.

No, I just got sick of repeating myself, and of having a somewhat complex position over-simplified. Which happens pretty much every time I enter into a debate with you, and every single time you call that 'rage-quitting'. The fact of the matter is that there's a limited number of times anyone is prepared to explain things to someone who refuses to understand what they're saying. 'Boredom with repeating oneself' is not the same as 'rage-quitting' ... and some of us have people we need to go and cook dinner for, or watch a movie with, or get drunk with, or go shopping for, or whatever.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No, I just got sick of repeating myself,

No, you cut and run the very instant that I asked you what the difference is between sentencing men longer than women for the same crime based on recidivism, and sentencing black people longer than white people for the same crime based on recidivism. You don't have an answer for that.

Why is it okay to sentence men longer than women for the same crime and justify this based on recidivism, but not okay to sentence black people longer than white people for the same crime and justify this based on recidivism?

You sound just like a Trumpanzee.

Which happens pretty much every time I enter into a debate with you, and every single time you call that 'rage-quitting'.

No, you quit because you run into an outside context problem-level question and you have no credible answer. You leave because you know you're cornered.

The fact of the matter is that there's a limited number of times anyone is prepared to explain things to someone who refuses to understand what they're saying. 'Boredom with repeating oneself' is not the same as 'rage-quitting' ... and some of us have people we need to go and cook dinner for, or watch a movie with, or get drunk with, or go shopping for, or whatever.

You keep making this claim and you keep being a liar.

You routinely spout bullshit and it keeps routinely getting debunked right into oblivion. Your #1 failing is that you're just as bad as a Trump supporter, and all of your arguments are just as hobbled with disinformation, dog whistling and prejudice.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Sigh. No, I didn't say that. What I said was that 'innocent men will suffer' isn't a reason for not dealing with situations of endemic sexual harassment/assault.

For any crime at all, it is inevitable that some innocent people will be accused, and sometimes even convicted, of the crime. Are you saying that isn't the case? Or are you arguing that this means we shouldn't accuse/convict anyone of any crime?

To show just how illogical your point is, let's take something that women do more than men - child abuse and murder. And rearrange your remark, like so:
What I said was that 'innocent women will suffer' isn't a reason for not dealing with situations of child abuse/murder.*

You would quite justifiably be screaming muh soggy knees if I said that.

Thing is, you are already notorious on here for applying different standards to men than you do women. This is just another example.

*
https://i.imgur.com/aCOTrWp.jpg

PS: it's about time for you to pull your "limited number of times" thingy now

 

[KimGordon67]

No, you cut and run the very instant that I asked you what the difference is between sentencing men longer than women for the same crime based on recidivism, and sentencing black people longer than white people for the same crime based on recidivism. You don't have an answer for that.

Why is it okay to sentence men longer than women for the same crime and justify this based on recidivism, but not okay to sentence black people longer than white people for the same crime and justify this based on recidivism?

You sound just like a Trumpanzee.


No, you quit because you run into an outside context problem-level question and you have no credible answer. You leave because you know you're cornered.


You keep making this claim and you keep being a liar.

You routinely spout bullshit and it keeps routinely getting debunked right into oblivion. Your #1 failing is that you're just as bad as a Trump supporter, and all of your arguments are just as hobbled with disinformation, dog whistling and prejudice.

No, I really do have other things to be doing - I'm not sure where your evidence is for that being a lie, but whatever.

You get that you're not 'debunking' anything 'into oblivion'. If you back through the fairly tiresome history of us debating things, you'll see that if anyone else bothers to enter the fray, it's usually in support of whatever I'm arguing.

And ha! to your claim that my argument are uninformed. Did you actually read the Nature article that you used to support whatever garbage you were spouting yesterday, or just the Telegraph journalist's bizarre interpretation of it? I've regularly used statistics and peer-reviewed research to support what I say - you use Susan Boyle, Donald Trump, and a whole range of isolated examples - basically, in all your research n=1. You also shoot yourself in the foot by regularly saying 'all feminists' ... or, in this instance, 'feminists' when it's really just one woman. That actually IS disinformation - click-bait hyperbolic thread titles that are inaccurate representations of what is actually going on.

 

[KimGordon67]

To show just how illogical your point is, let's take something that women do more than men - child abuse and murder. And rearrange your remark, like so:
What I said was that 'innocent women will suffer' isn't a reason for not dealing with situations of child abuse/murder.*

You would quite justifiably be screaming muh soggy knees if I said that.

Thing is, you are already notorious on here for applying different standards to men than you do women. This is just another example.

*
https://i.imgur.com/aCOTrWp.jpg

PS: it's about time for you to pull your "limited number of times" thingy now

I totally agree with this. I do think child abuse/murder is something needs to be addressed, and I totally understand that attempting to do so will result in a number of 'false positives'. In fact, I regularly defend the fact that child protection agencies sometimes do get it wrong, because I know that most of the time they get it right, and the cost of raising the threshold to lower the rate of 'false positives' is too high.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No, I really do have other things to be doing - I'm not sure where your evidence is for that being a lie, but whatever.

You get that you're not 'debunking' anything 'into oblivion'. If you back through the fairly tiresome history of us debating things, you'll see that if anyone else bothers to enter the fray, it's usually in support of whatever I'm arguing.

And ha! to your claim that my argument are uninformed. Did you actually read the Nature article that you used to support whatever garbage you were spouting yesterday, or just the Telegraph journalist's bizarre interpretation of it? I've regularly used statistics and peer-reviewed research to support what I say - you use Susan Boyle, Donald Trump, and a whole range of isolated examples - basically, in all your research n=1. You also shoot yourself in the foot by regularly saying 'all feminists' ... or, in this instance, 'feminists' when it's really just one woman. That actually IS disinformation - click-bait hyperbolic thread titles that are inaccurate representations of what is actually going on.

LOL you don't use any statistics. And you intentionally and very dishonestly ignored the very valid point I made that just about all known animal species put the burden of mate competition on the male (aside from the species where the male gets eaten), plus I gave several examples, too. To which you offered no statistics and no factual counters. That fact very much validates the Telegraph journalist's so-called "bizarre" interpretations, and again, it debunked your entire point right into a black hole.

And I also posted for you studies that showed women prefer bad boys. To which, again, you offered no counter.

So I'm going to push this again since you keep running away from it: why is it okay to sentence men longer than women for the same crime and justify this based on recidivism, but not okay to sentence black people longer than white people for the same crime and justify this based on recidivism? Or do you think that racism in sentencing is as justified as sexism in sentencing?

As for my Susan Boyle reference that you're whining about, you wrote:

The women who are not being competed for... what is their place in this view of society, LJ?

My point is that there is no such thing. All women are being competed for - they may not like the men who are competing for them, but that doesn't make these men nonexistent.

Being female automatically means some man out there who has encountered you, is vying for you. It is a defined perk of being female - and, in obviously some cases that you and I will no doubt agree on, also a curse. I don't care how old or ugly you are.

I totally agree with this. I do think child abuse/murder is something needs to be addressed, and I totally understand that attempting to do so will result in a number of 'false positives'. In fact, I regularly defend the fact that child protection agencies sometimes do get it wrong, because I know that most of the time they get it right, and the cost of raising the threshold to lower the rate of 'false positives' is too high.

So you don't mind throwing some innocent women under the bus for this? Well aren't you dreadfully consistent for once.

I for one don't care what gender you are, this kind of doctrine is downright evil. It helps absolutely no one to throw innocent people in jail.

Maybe if you were the victim of such a thing you would get the hint, eh? That's something you and Lindin haven't figured out.

 

[WaltTheAlt]

https://twitter.com/EmilyLindin/status/933073784822579200

This was gender revenge politics at their worst, until the alt right arrived.

Sorry, lady, but you don't take the prize today, but you do get an A+ for your effort at being the most deplorable shitburger of the day. Trump will always be a step ahead of you.

Unfortunately few mainstream feminists have a problem with statements like these.

Her statement reminds me of Walter Duranty parroting Stalin's words in defense of the communist dream and the murder by starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1932-1933. "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs".

How nice to be so cavalier...

It's one thing to 'know' you're right, but when that conviction enables you to commit or allow atrocities in its service, you have become a monster.

 

[KimGordon67]

LOL you don't use any statistics. And you intentionally and very dishonestly ignored the very valid point I made that just about all known animal species put the burden of mate competition on the male (aside from the species where the male gets eaten), plus I gave several examples, too. To which you offered no statistics and no factual counters. That fact very much validates the Telegraph journalist's so-called "bizarre" interpretations, and again, it debunked your entire point right into a black hole.

And I also posted for you studies that showed women prefer bad boys. To which, again, you offered no counter.

So I'm going to push this again since you keep running away from it: why is it okay to sentence men longer than women for the same crime and justify this based on recidivism, but not okay to sentence black people longer than white people for the same crime and justify this based on recidivism? Or do you think that racism in sentencing is as justified as sexism in sentencing?

As for my Susan Boyle reference that you're whining about, you wrote:

My point is that there is no such thing. All women are being competed for - they may not like the men who are competing for them, but that doesn't make these men nonexistent.

Being female automatically means some man out there who has encountered you, is vying for you. It is a defined perk of being female - and, in obviously some cases that you and I will no doubt agree on, also a curse. I don't care how old or ugly you are.


So you don't mind throwing some innocent women under the bus for this? Well aren't you dreadfully consistent for once.

I for one don't care what gender you are, this kind of doctrine is downright evil. It helps absolutely no one to throw innocent people in jail.

Maybe if you were the victim of such a thing you would get the hint, eh? That's something you and Lindin haven't figured out.

Actually, the thing you've attributed to me wasn't me at all. But of course, don't let actual facts get in the way of whatever point you're trying to make.

I addressed the sentencing thing months ago. To repeat all those points would require re-doing whatever research I did on violent crime and recidivism rates and re-constructing the argument I made then. If you want to know what I think about it, go back and read whatever I said then. We've had that debate.

All the examples you gave were animals. Human gender relations are fundamentally different. There's no point in pursuing a debate with someone who can't acknowledge that basic fact. We've had that debate.

There isn't a law on the books that doesn't risk (and probably actually eventuate in) innocent people getting charged. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws, because there's a risk that innocent people might get charged? There's numerous instances of people being jailed for murders they didn't commit - are you suggesting that murder should be legal? Because honestly, that's the basic logic of your argument.

 

[Adder4321]

The protection of the innocent should always take priority over the destruction of the guilty. I'm not saying that destroying the guilty isn't a good thing, but as soon as you care more about that than protecting innocent people, you've given up on justice. All that you fight for then is revenge. And revenge might feel good but in the end you'll end up just as bad as the people you're fighting against.

 

[KimGordon67]

The protection of the innocent should always take priority over the destruction of the guilty. I'm not saying that destroying the guilty isn't a good thing, but as soon as you care more about that than protecting innocent people, you've given up on justice. All that you fight for then is revenge. And revenge might feel good but in the end you'll end up just as bad as the people you're fighting against.

So you're also arguing for a complete absence of the criminal justice system because some people might be wrongfully convicted (which is inevitable, because humans)?

I think Lindin IS caring about innocent people - namely, the women who are sexually harassed and assaulted going about their everyday lives. Whose number is far far greater than the very few men who might be wrongfully accused. Are you basically saying that the rights of those few men is more important than the rights of that multitude of women?

 

[Adder4321]

So you're also arguing for a complete absence of the criminal justice system because some people might be wrongfully convicted (which is inevitable, because humans)?

I think Lindin IS caring about innocent people - namely, the women who are sexually harassed and assaulted going about their everyday lives. Whose number is far far greater than the very few men who might be wrongfully accused. Are you basically saying that the rights of those few men is more important than the rights of that multitude of women?

Of course not, I just want to make sure that all of the people punished are actually guilty. Like it or not, false accusations do happen and they have to be taken in to consideration. You can't just throw all men accused of sexual on the basis that 95% of them deserved it, the rights of those innocent men are just as valid as the rights of the women who were sexually assaulted. They should both be given justice.

I remember reading somewhere here a while back a certain post that said something about "Supporting one group does not discriminate against the rights of another?"

 

[KimGordon67]

Of course not, I just want to make sure that all of the people punished are actually guilty. Like it or not, false accusations do happen and they have to be taken in to consideration. You can't just throw all men accused of sexual on the basis that 95% of them deserved it, the rights of those innocent men are just as valid as the rights of the women who were sexually assaulted. They should both be given justice.

I remember reading somewhere here a while back a certain post that said something about "Supporting one group does not discriminate against the rights of another?"

I don't think anyone, including Lindin, is suggesting that anyone should 'throw all men accused of sexual assault [into jail?]' - obviously due process should be followed.
Again, what I'm arguing is that the notion that 'some innocent men will be accused' - and indeed a few innocent men might be wrongfully convicted - shouldn't be used as a reason to back down on litigating cases of sexual harassment and assault.
No legal system in the world that involves human beings is going to be 100% foolproof. That's always been the case. I don't know why everyone is creating such a hue and cry about that fact in this particular instance.

 

[Adder4321]

I don't think anyone, including Lindin, is suggesting that anyone should 'throw all men accused of sexual assault [into jail?]' - obviously due process should be followed.
Again, what I'm arguing is that the notion that 'some innocent men will be accused' - and indeed a few innocent men might be wrongfully convicted - shouldn't be used as a reason to back down on litigating cases of sexual harassment and assault.
No legal system in the world that involves human beings is going to be 100% foolproof. That's always been the case. I don't know why everyone is creating such a hue and cry about that fact in this particular instance.

You are right, people will inevitably be convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. And you're also right in saying that it shouldn't stop litigating cases, either. But not caring about innocent people's lives being ruined is an absolutely terrible thing. Lindin is claiming that she feels absolutely no compassion for men who's lives have been ruined by false accusations, and thus does not care about them. Do you agree with this?

I guess in the end it just boils down to another shitty part of the world that we live in, and another reason to look forward to leaving it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't think anyone, including Lindin, is suggesting that anyone should 'throw all men accused of sexual assault [into jail?]' - obviously due process should be followed.
Again, what I'm arguing is that the notion that 'some innocent men will be accused' - and indeed a few innocent men might be wrongfully convicted - shouldn't be used as a reason to back down on litigating cases of sexual harassment and assault.
No legal system in the world that involves human beings is going to be 100% foolproof. That's always been the case. I don't know why everyone is creating such a hue and cry about that fact in this particular instance.

The hue and cry results largely because sexual assault is possibly the only accusation in which the accused must prove innocence. If a woman accuses a man of raping her, he will go to prison, regardless of the lack of physical evidence. If he defends himself by claiming the sex was consensual, he is almost certain to be convicted. Mike Tyson was a good example of this.

Even on these forums, this holds true. Roy Moore was accused of sexual assault.
According to many of the posters, this proves his guilt, even though he denies it and the alleged act is said to have happened long ago. Likewise The Donald. Some women have been paid to accuse him of sexual misconduct, including rape, and those same posters here take this as proof of guilt.