Slashdot Mirror
Group Wants To Shut Down Tor For a Day On September 1 (softpedia.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An internal group at the Tor Project is calling for a full 24-hour shutdown of the Tor network to protest the way the Tor Project dealt with the Jake Applebaum sexual misconduct accusations, and because of recent rumors it might be letting former government agents in its ranks. Two Tor members, also node operators, have shut down their servers as well, because of the same reason. They explained their motivations here and here.
"The protesters have made 16 demands," according to the article, six related to related to supposed infiltration of Tor by government agents, and 10 regarding the Appelbaum ruling and investigation -- including "asking all Tor employees that participated in this investigation to leave" and "the persons behind the JacobAppelbaum.net and the @JakeMustDie and @VictimsOfJake Twitter accounts to come forward and their identities made public."
"The protesters have made 16 demands," according to the article, six related to related to supposed infiltration of Tor by government agents, and 10 regarding the Appelbaum ruling and investigation -- including "asking all Tor employees that participated in this investigation to leave" and "the persons behind the JacobAppelbaum.net and the @JakeMustDie and @VictimsOfJake Twitter accounts to come forward and their identities made public."
Go find them yourselves.
I do agree with them that Tor is compromised but it's probably too late to do anything about it now.
If a substantial part of the Tor network is shutdown, you can bet that any one of a number of parties are going to keep a careful eye on how things come back up.
If there is a flaw in Tor, they might be able to de-anonymize users and nodes by watching them connect again for the first time.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless /pol/ slur of the week is yet again complaining about sexual assault being investigated.
Thankfully these people are in a minority, but good god do they like to make a noise.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Maybe only tangentially related, but if we rejected Hobbes then maybe Tor wouldn't be needed... as much?
We live under a government created under principles that Hobbes came up with and while others views of man were too optimistic, Hobbes view of Man in nature reflected his poor home life growing up and he had no sense of how families actually work. I have said that I will be family for anyone who will be family for me, and that simply does not fit into Hobbes' philosophy. The Hamiltonians played dirty when pushing for passage of the Constitution. The Federalist papers were filled with bully and con language. The Hamiltonians broke with tradition and made it so that passage was not of unanimous State decision. Hobbes had a radical hatred of violence. I feel that violence is a natural part of the human experience. The reservation of violence to the State interferes with the natural experience of violence by man. It should be tempered, but not removed entirely. Hobbes decision to make the Sovereign and not the Pope the decider of religion was not particularly novel and merely created many smaller Holy Roman Empires, when it came to religion. Religion should be the decision of individuals only. His ideas hampered discourse and the free flow of ideas by Balkanizing the world when it came to individuals. Hobbes was a Dr. Frankenstein, but worse, he had no idea what parts of Man he was even using to construct his so-called Artificial Man. He had little indication that the parts that make up Man were represented in whole in his Artificial Man. And in fact it is not. Hobbes had no sense of personal preference, When he said Man was the same, he meant that Man was the same in the same sense the Cybermen from Doctor Who were all the same. God bless you, God bless America, and God bless the World. And as Jim Sterling says, "Thank God for me."
Why should everyone who uses Tor to protect their anonymity be punished because of Jacob Applebaum and the people who apparently didn't respond to his misconduct appropriately?
Because by setting this controversy in front of the world, they may generate more interest and scrutiny into the matter.
The linked text points out many potential injustices and red flags, such as the hiring of two possible CIA operatives to the TOR project. It's important that all of this gets scrutinized and possibly sorted out, so that we don't end up with an insecure TOR that the CIA can eavesdrop on.
And by inconveniencing people, it might start a paradigm that people can use in future situations. Punishing someone based on accusations; ie - getting away from "innocent until proven guilty", gives enormous power to your enemies. If your opponents want to wreck you, all they have to do is gin up some accusations.
Future situations may be able to look back on this moment and think "let's wait until we have something concrete", rather than knee-jerk react in the cause of Social Justice.
Doing this is a good thing. They should turn off TOR one day a week until it's sorted out.
"the persons behind the JacobAppelbaum.net and the @JakeMustDie and @VictimsOfJake Twitter accounts to come forward and their identities made public."
Since we're talking about Tor, I can't decide whether these demands are ironic or are hypocritical.
#DeleteChrome
Seems to me like the govt has managed to destroy trust within the Tor community.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
By shutting it down? Is it that easy? Good way to build confidence!
Has to be some kind of joke.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Did you even read the article? These guys are trying to punish people who helped crack down on rapists. They're rapist sympathizers, which is quite the opposite of "SJWs".
I read all three articles, and it says nothing of the sort.
You're doing this site a disservice by being so intellectually dishonest.
This is Slashdot. Take your sock-puppetry elsewhere.
I can't be the only one who noticed this. They're supposedly concerned that government agents have actually infiltrated Tor -- and yet they only have six demands that are related to that.
And yet there's ten demands about the Appelbaum investigation.
It seems like government agents infiltrating Tor would be a bigger concern....
Fear, uncertainty and doubt sown.
Principals divided.
While focus and energy is diverted to the search for "truth", the real truth is that fewer people will trust their secrets to Tor as a result.
Mission accomplished.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907 And do remember, this is TOR we're talking about. They've got more people after them than just outrage milkers.
It might help your understanding of the situation to understand that the CIA and NSA now use fake rape and sexual assault/harassment claims as their preferred method of character assassination (much easier, less messy, and just as effective as actual assassination). It happened to the poor bastard IMF head who made the VERY stupid mistake of challenging the supremacy of the U.S. Dollar. It also happened to Julian Assange and others.
No tin-foil hats here. It's just their modern way of doing business. So any time you hear of sex crimes charges against any member of the hacker/security community (or anyone else the NSA or CIA might have a vested interest in silencing or ostracizing), you should be VERY, VERY skeptical of the charges (and take a long hard look at the accusers).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It sounds like these protesters need to figure out what it is they're protesting. And their demanding that an online accounts should have their "identities made public" sounds a little bit incongruous with Tor's own mission.
Shutting down Tor to protest an attack on Tor sounds like they really haven't thought this thing through, regardless of their agenda. It's not like a one-day boycott of Tor is going to cost Tor money or anything, so it's not really putting any pressure on the elements within the project that they want to force out. Plus, as other people have pointed out, it hurts Tor users more than it hurts the people they want to hurt.
Finally, the dumbness of their manifesto calls into question the validity of their claims. We don't have to worry about the government trying to destroy Tor as long as they're doing such a bang-up job all on their own.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why?
I meant it. they're cutting off their hand because someone else bound the other.
Good start insulting everyone who may disagree with you.
Afaik he's not been convicted yet as such things like this protesting the switch of innocent until proven guilty website is fine.
If he is guilty then he can burn as far as I'm concerned. A website with stories do not prove guilt. With the amount of accusations on there it's hard to believe not a single one has enough evidence to bring formal charges.
Your projection is incredible. The only people inventing meaningless slurs are the ones that throw out shit like "neckbeard" or "pissbaby" or "fuckboy", and lynch mobs are not investigations.
Face it, rape accusations have become THE form of character assassination. It's the new "witch". There's no evidence, proving your innocence is impossible, and the mere accusation is a death sentence.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
"six related to related to..."
Agents must be nearby.
I posted this in another post below, but I just wanted to reiterate it here, for those who might not fully understand the situation.
It might help your understanding of the situation to understand that the CIA and NSA now use fake rape and sexual assault/harassment claims as their preferred method of character assassination (much easier, less messy, and just as effective as actual assassination). It happened to the poor bastard IMF head who made the VERY stupid mistake of challenging the supremacy of the U.S. Dollar. It also happened to Julian Assange and others.
No tin-foil hats here. It's just their modern way of doing business. So any time you hear of sex crimes charges against any member of the hacker/security community (or anyone else the NSA or CIA might have a vested interest in silencing or ostracizing), you should be VERY, VERY skeptical of the charges (and take a long hard look at the accusers).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
All sound like reasonable demands, if you analyze them as a person that doesn't know anything about this case.
First off, read the Tor stinks document. This outlines how the NSA and GCHQ intended to attack Tor:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-stinks-nsa-presentation-document
Keep in mind this document was 2007, so all of that was already done a long time ago. In particular note they intended to add many more of their own nodes and shape the traffic to ensure they could force a routing.
All the attacks, ONIONBREATH attack on hidden servers, increasing the Tor nodes they control (NEWTONCRADLE) etc. all will already be done, and many more besides, this document is very old.
Tor Foundation did not discover or even look for those attack nodes, or any of the GCHQ run nodes, when Snowden leaks came out. It was an outside university that went looking for attack nodes and found 100 of them.
Next off, read the JTRIG document. Domestic propaganda, fake victim posts, poll rigging software, HTTPS man in the middle software, astroturf.
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
See the slide "Discredit a target"
"Set up Honey Trap" "Write a blog purporting to be one of their victims" "Email / text their friends/ colleges etc."
Do not use TOR. The software and foundation that wrote it are backdoored.
Nice word twisting.
I'm sure that's exactly what they meant with their analogy /s.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edward-snowden-revelations-gchq-using-online-viruses-and-honey-traps-to-discredit-targets-9117683.html
"Britain’s GCHQ has a covert unit which uses dirty tricks from “honey trap” sexual liaisons to texting anonymous messages to friends and neighbours to discredit targets from hackers to governments, according to the latest leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden."
"The covert GCHQ unit - the Joint Intelligence Threat Research Group (JTRIG) - runs what it terms an “Effects” programme against Britain’s enemies under what it calls the four Ds: “Deny/ Disrupt/ Degrade/ Deceive.” The mission of the unit is: “Using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world.”
"Slides from a 2012 presentation, marked Top Secret, outline JTRIG’s role in discrediting targets using both online techniques, such as using blogs to leak confidential information to companies or journalists, and “real life” methods like the honey trap - a time-honoured intelligence trick of luring an individual into a sexual encounter to gain information and leverage, potentially for blackmail."
Jacob has been a target frequently, he's an effective speaker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vILAlhwUgIU
It's not really a surprise he's a target. It's more, business as usual.
If he is guilty then he can burn as far as I'm concerned. A website with stories do not prove guilt.
But the fact that other named people in the organisation have independently confirmed the stories on said website must put us on notice at least.
It should be uncontroversial that a final determination of guilt as regards criminal liability must be left to a court working to a criminal level of proof. However, having read these fairly disturbing stories, then gone out and spoken to the people involved who confirmed their veracity, other people in the organisation might be forgiven for not wanting to work with or other associate with this alleged deadshit.
Certainly going out of your way to object to his being sidelined within the organisation given his confirmed behaviour seems unduly loyal (and unduly cavalier as regards sexual abuse).
It's not clear that the allegations against Assange are false. (It's not clear that they are true either.) What is clear is that Assange being pursued by Swedish authorities is purely political and that hey does have a legitimate fear of his extradition to the US should he face these allegations in Sweden - because Swedish authorities have an abysmal track record when it comes to handling sexual assault cases. That does not mean, however, that he didn't do it. You can be guilty of sexual assault _and_ be persecuted by the US government at the same time. (Also, obviously it doesn't mean he did do it, that's what a proper investigation would be for. I just don't have faith that in this case there is going to be an impartial one in either direction.)
So please stop claiming that the allegations against Assange are false - you simply don't know that (and probably never will). They are as of yet unproven and you can make your point about Assange being targeted even if they happen to be true. (Because even if true the Swedish authorities would usually not have prosecuted him.)
In re Applebaum I don't think there are any winners here. The website about him was just really ugly (in contrast to many other people here I don't hold the opinion that alleged sexual assault victims have to go to the police or shut up, because I know how problematic it can be to report to the police, and I do think it can be fair in coming forward to the press, but there's a way of doing that and this website isn't it), and people calling for his death via Twitter is beyond the pale. (Anyone uttering death threats has immediately disqualified themselves from any conversation.) On the other hand, a _lot_ of people that knew him thought he was capable of doing this (and not all of them are going to be infiltrators), so even if he turns out to be completely innocent (which is still not clear yet, only some allegations have been proven to be false, in others the jury is still out), he still doesn't come out as the hero of this story.
I have no loyalty to him never even met the guy.
Why do the people corroborating the accusations deserve our trust either?
I know there's way too many cases that can't be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence but with so many accusations I struggle to believe not one has substantial enough proof to do something about it.
You seem to be triggered, more ranting than coherent argument. I'm guessing you have odd colored hair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6KQATOxxH4
No, I didn't say they were true, if you read my post again then I said I have no idea. (And neither do you.) In contrast to you I just don't automatically think they're false. I also clearly said that there is ample evidence that the prosecution of Assange is purely political - in contrast to you I'm able Tod recognize that this is independent of the truth oft these allegations.
Two scenarios:
1. US authorities decide to get a hold oft Assange
Your ability to read between the lines is simply amazing.
If they meant it in such a way then they are an absolute pleb. Maybe it's my "rape apologist" thinking that read it being used as a way to discredit people in much the same way that the witch hunts were.
Anyway how do you know there were no witches? Maybe we got them all!
Stupid phone, Sorry.
Two scenarios:
1. The US decides they want to get Assange by making up charges against him.
2. Several women file charges against Assange in Sweden. The US sees an opportunity to get Assange this way once they are made aware of this.
I think both are possible and we simply don't know. I do think that scenario 2 is more likely simply because initially the charges were dropped and Assange was allowed to leave Sweden - in a pre-planned operation this would be less likely. (Although there are possible explanations for that as well.)
Of course, even if scenario 2 is true, that still does not mean he's guilty, because the charges could be made up without any government involvement.
My point is simply: we don't know if he is guilty or not, and instead of insisting on his innocence we can still make the point about US persecution.
Why do the people corroborating the accusations deserve our trust either?
Wrong presumption. One starts by presuming the truth of a witness statement and then goes on to challenge the statement either on factual grounds or by impugning the character and reliability of the witness. Just as the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the evidence led to prove that guilt is presumed true until proven false.
The original witness statements were challenged on the grounds that they could be the work of a single malevolent individual creating a fictional web site. I accept this as a fair criticism. However, as regards the confirmation of those stories, the question is not "why do the people corroborating those accusations deserve our trust," the question is what makes their testimony untrustworthy. I have been given no good reason to doubt the corroborators and I am thus required to accept their statements as presumptively true.
I know there's way too many cases that can't be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence but with so many accusations I struggle to believe not one has substantial enough proof to do something about it.
There is no guarantee that these particular accusations won't be prosecuted by the state at some future point in time (indeed given their number and the seriousness of the accusations one should expect they will). However that is a separate question to the one facing the organisation as to whether to let the guy go or not.
The problem you observe generally lies, at least in part, with standards of proof. The criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt, places a high burden in the way of conviction. And given the very serious consequences that result from criminal conviction that is as it should be. In general life (as in private litigation) we work instead to the balance of probability standard of proof. A good example of the different results which eventuate from differing standards of proof is given by the case of O J Simpson, who was found "not guilty" at the criminal standard, but against whom private action was sustained on the balance of probability standard.
They make sure her cover is underage and you're now responsible for recording child pornography with a 18 year old, whether or not they really were.
It isn't hard to frame someone if you have control of the narrative, the public records, and a large enough population base to be able to make people appear or disappear at will (or at least the papertrail that they really do/don't exist.)
Don't know whether this is real one way or the other, but Tor's relays have been suspect for a while if you watch your TBB 'circuit for this site' information shown by clicking on the green onion. The majority of connections are going through the US, UK, etc even if you explicitly forbid those circuits in your torrc config. The documentation states you should be able to blacklist sites to the point of tor not working if you turn on the StrictNodes option and set your geoip based exclusion filters, but in practice that doesn't work.
There is no real alternative to Tor for anonymous clearnet browsing, and the only serious and global hidden services alternative is I2P, which may be headed a similiar direction to Tor given the recent influx of 'PCness' in order to curry users and developers as I2P 'goes legit'.
You make a compelling accusation, but then I imagined that you might be a pedophile, therefore I cannot believe anything you say, because I don't listen to pedophiles. So we'll just start telling all your coworkers that while we have no idea whether it's true or not, we heard you might be a pedophile, so you know, we all need to treat you like an outcast without actually accusing you of anything or giving you any chance to clear your name, ever.
We're also just ignoring the fact that the accusers have avoided going to court where their claims might be tested and that one of the "victims" came out saying their story about here was completely bogus. But what does that matter? We just have to tell nasty rumors about you to everyone because if enough people know the rumor it, it has to be true!
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless /pol/ slur of the week is yet again complaining about sexual assault being investigated.
If anything, they're complaining that the police didn't investigate--because they were never called--yet headlines were written as if there'd been a trial with a guilty verdict.
Are you really surprised that the "crowd" complains when they see potentially life-ruining sexual assault allegations handed over to a private company hired by Tor to do a secret investigation, instead of the justice system?
Since you clearly were unable to grasp the logical implications of his statements, let me lay them out for you.
First, I don't see anyone claiming that actual rape doesn't happen, except sarcastically while committing logical fallacies (let's call that "raping logic" shall we?). Yes, it is terrible when it does happen and it's a serious crime. BUT because it is so terrible, judicial systems often fail to hold evidence against accused rapists to the same standard as evidence of other crimes; often the only evidence they have is the verbal testimony of the victim, with no witnesses or material evidence AND THIS IS ENOUGH TO CONVICT.
Let me repeat that again so it sinks in. In no other felony case is the testimony of one witness, often emotionally involved with the accused and possibly with ulterior motives, with no other material evidence, sufficient for a felony conviction, but for rape it is.
Because of this coincidence of the modern judiciary, rape is the ideal crime to disrupt the lives of political dissidents. They can't prove their innocence. All a government needs is one female to accuse a male dissident of rape, and that dissident's life becomes extremely complicated.
Maybe Applebaum is a serial whatever. Maybe he's being accused because he genuinely did something wrong, but the possibility exists that he is simply being muddied up by people who have an axe to grind, and until he's actually convicted of something he is in fact innocent.
On a side note, much as I don't like the man, the same logic applies to the Donald Trump molestation headline, where supposedly he did something with a 13-year-old. Until he actually goes to jail for it (or pays enough hush money, since that's what people in 'his class' do) I have to act like he's innocent of that crime and assume it's just some Hillary bid to sling mud, which given the timing I think likely.
The accusations against Jacob are filled with half truths and lies.
He may be a womaniser but calling him a rapist is insane.
I don't know if they're government agents, but people like Isis are definitely trying to take over the Tor project and push out everybody who won't submit to them
Is it possible that these protests are government sanctioned? It just seems suspicious to be mixing protests about Applebaum's treatment along with the infiltration of agents. All this seems to achieve is the fracturing of the Tor community, intended or otherwise.
...'Several women file charges against Assange in Sweden'.... no, not several, two filed charges after first conspiring. You try to make it sound like they acted independently, yet there was clear conspiracy elements.
It reminds me of the head of the IMF, who the US didn't like: Straus Kahn. The first rape charge failed, the maid who claimed she'd been raped had, the day before, called her brother about her big-money plot, so the FBI couldn't ignore the evidence of pre-conspiracy. i.e. it was a honey-pot. She clearly wouldn't have been able to ensure a big payout for a rape charge unless someone was going to pay her. So there was a paymaster for this honeypot.
So they doubled-down, and filed more charges in France on "procurement of prostitutes". Which is interesting, he claims the New York maid was selling BJs, her call to her brother seems to confirm it, so he is guilty of procuring a prostitute! So they throw a few more charges from prostitutes claiming to be hired by Strauss Kahn in France (where its a crime), and he's confessed to that in the US, so he would have found it impossible to defend against that claim. Obviously prostitutes were paid to make that claim, they don't work for free and it would end their careers if they squeal on their clients. Again a paymaster at work.
That second woman in the Assange case, the one who stole him from the first woman, the turned around and convinced the first one to file a charge. She looks like the honeypot here. I think the money trail would lead to her. The first ones just a patsy in this.
Who exactly is a confirmed sex abuser? Was there any legal action that resulted in public prosecution against Applebaum?
Shut down TOR? Wait, what does any of this have to do with illegal drugs, murder for hire, trolling forums and IRC, or child pornography?
Stop the Bullshit.
We need tor. Tor needs developers. Tor needs developers, which work together.
The best case for any agency is when the developers distrust each other and work against each other.
Whatever Appelbaum did or did not do, it's not in our interest, that this stops the work for tor.
Read this: https://cryptome.org/2012/07/g...
Really read this. This list contains some of the things you're seeing here. How to disturb groups and prevent them from working efficicently, how to get them to fight each other instead of fighting their enemy.
Keep your personal conflicts personal and continue to work against the threats we're facing.
Also, all power plants that can be suspected to supply power to computers running TOR, should be shut down.
Just until we can find out what the hell is going on, and not a day longer.
Also, all public transportation that can suspected to be used by people using computers running TOR, should be shut down.
Just until we can find out what the hell is going on, and not a day longer.
Also, all breathing air that can suspected to be used by people using computers running TOR, should be pumped out.
Just until we can find out what the hell is going on, and not a day longer.
Huge plus 1. Your reality checking of the common charges (sex, drugs, child porn, terrism, money crimes, etc) requiring very close look at the accusers themselves is dead spot on.
Go figure half the accusers here are anonymous.
There's a reason for that, and it's not to express the occurrance of any legitimate crimes.
It's so the people doing the smear can't be looked at with the same microscope.
Watch your back people, because these government and corporations and NWO will not play fair.
I don't have mod points right now, so thank you for taking the time to write a sensible comment on a very fraught topic. :)
I followed the story and read the accounts of the accusers back when the news broke. The modus operandi (sending acolytes to pressure someone) is exactly what Applebaum did.
The major point of the accusers wasn't that Applebaum raped someone. The major thing was that he was being such a giant asshole to some (many) individuals, bullying and pressuring them, that it crossed into abuse. And he mostly did that in front of witnesses. So people knew. All the website did was assemble a list and also show that those that were abused suffered a lot as a result.
It mainly served to wake up the people that witnessed a lot of the abuse (those working with him in Berlin) and force them into action.
If you knew anything about abuse, then you know very well that there is a huge grey area inside relationships (both as friends, partners and families) that do not fit neatly into the criminal law, but that could still greatly hurt the victims of such abuse.
So please stop claiming that the allegations against Assange are false - you simply don't know that (and probably never will).
Assange had claimed that. The "victim" claimed that as well. The first prosecutor declined to prosecute. Seems everyone involved agreed that the allegations were false.
But after the US spoke to Sweden, a new prosecutor was selected, who did decide to go ahead with the prosecution. And the new prosecutor has not followed standard procedure for interviewing someone in a foreign country, or much of any standard process.
Learn to love Alaska
Ok, here's one.... ... crickets.
Jake is openly queer/bi and sexually / relationship active, no big deal.
So where are all the men accusing him? How about even just one?
Why is it just these women?
Because if men were tasked with claiming they were raped, no one would believe them, nor would they be dumb enough to try.
But you put a bunch of strait / gay / strangely activist feminazi women to task, and they get cred.
Jake is innocent @ioerror, Tor Project is corrupt #torgate, and #torstrike is payback and termination of both Torproject and the fakeass SJW operatives by the real cryptopunk community. Don't fuck with them.
Appelbaum sounds like an epic asshole, the 'victims' like naive retards and if this wasn't orchestrated by the feds.. Melrose Place drama.
What is your solution? Don't allow people to make rape allegations? I don't think that is either fair or possible.
In situations like this the only way forward is to investigate. Applelbaum hasn't even bothered to deny any specific allegations, or make any kind of defence really. I'm sorry, but all we can do is evaluate the claims on the evidence we have. Multiple, corroborating stories that can be linked to specific times and places where he made public appearances with the victims.
We can't simply ignore that, all we can do do is remain open minded and willing to examine any and all evidence.
As for slurs, why don't you start by not ever calling anyone an "SJW" again? Take the high ground.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Being a social asshole, no matter how severe, does NOT give you the right to retaliate with FALSE RAPE CHARGES.
Alec Guiness had been blacklisted for almost 20 years from acting thanks to McCarthy's lists. In a show of shrewd capitalist irony, he was the only actor in ANH to have a percentage written into his contract rather than an upfront fee. Those residuals were what he lived off of up until his death 15-20 years later.
Some ironic parallels there in that both he and his character were shut out of the public eye for almost 20 years thanks to authoritarian fascist assholes :)
If they were forcibly raped, not just waking up months later and deciding they didn't like the guy anymore (which happened)...
It's their responsibility to take that seriousness straight to the clinic to collect evidince and make a report.
If you're waiting ages to do that, I have VERY serious news for you.... IT AINT RAPE.
It can be agreed that Jacob Appelbaum has poor etiquette but it is highly doubtful he is a rapist. I have read the statements from the women. This does not seem to be sexual assault, rather confused women who entered dubious situations at worst. They got very close to him, entered a bed with him, got into a bathroom with him, got drunk at an orgy with him. Pretty dubious stuff. Of course the women can also express a firm "no" at any time and leave. Was he coercive, guilty of poor comments, and taking initiative? Probably. But that is not the same as assault. If Appelbaum was guilty of those dodgy things, he will now likely tread very carefully. However, he is not a bad guy, just someone who was used to having his own way or seeing how far he could go in an immature way. Now he will know better.
Nice word twisting.
If he didn't mean to trivialise rape accusations it is not my failing that OP is either functionally illiterate or unable to grasp the logical implications of his statements. I don't believe he is necessarily either ... he meant to write exactly what he wrote.
So basically you're in the crowd that seems to thing a rape allegation is bulletproof and no one should dare question such a horrible thing even though it's been proven and known that a rape allegation is an easy way to get rid of someone and has been used against all kind of people. OP's point was pretty clear and you're basically confirming it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
He was accused of attempting to rape Jill Bahring by Emerson Tan and Meredith Patterson.
Jill then denied the claim, saying it was mutual sex play. He *was* accused of attempted rape, you want to ignore the false claim, but it happened.
"If you knew anything about abuse"... I know when someone is trying to plant the words "victim" and "abuse" into their comment Britz.
So you find no value in protecting your activities online?
Let's see your browsing history, then.
If you've nothing to hide that shouldn't be a problem, right? Hell, let's take it further and just do away with the locks on vehicles and doors. Locks are only for criminals after all! And clothes! Clothes! You can hide sooo many things in clothes, let's just get rid of those, too. To be safe. For the children.
What, you have a problem with that? Well then, you must be a criminal!
Captcha: canker
What is your solution? Don't allow people to make rape allegations? I don't think that is either fair or possible.
Treat it like any other allegation. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I don't recall one of the women saying it didn't happen. I do recall that at least one of them didn't want the case to go forward - and that can have a variety of reasons. (Ranging from "it really didn't happen" to "I don't want this to stay in the news".)
As for how the prosecution acted: yeah, you're right about that - but that doesn't contradict what I've been saying. Of course the US government wants to get a hold of Assange and is using this Swedish case as a pretense. There us ample evidence for that. But that does not mean that the initial charges _have_ to be false, they could just be a welcome opportunity. And even if they are false, the US government didn't have to be involved from the start.
My point is simply: there is not enough evidence either way when it comes to the initial accusations. I think there are four scenarios that are reasonably likely:
1. The allegations are true. The US used them as an opportunity to get a hold of Assange.
2. The women felt violated by Assange, hence reported him, but what actually happened was not illegal, but just shitty behavior. The US used these allegations as an opportunity to get a hold of Assange.
3. The women maliciously accused Assange for whatever reason. The US seized this opportunity.
4. There is indeed a conspiracy and that's how the charges came to be.
And what I have been trying to say is that we really don't know either way - but that it also doesn't matter if you want to defend Assange against the US government. What Sweden is doing is a farce, motivated by purely political reasons, and you can point that out without having to comment on the guilt or innocence of Assange.
Prove it. You can't make ridiculous accusations like this without proof.
Bullshit.
The overwhelming majority of rape accusations are legitimate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
Yes, if you run a tor node and you don't want to keep it up, take it down. You should be removed from the tor network.
The same goes for root DNS server or TLD server operators. If you don't want to keep it up, take it down. It will be removed from the network.
Being a part of something doesn't mean you provide a service and if you're unable or unwilling to do so reliably then you'll be removed. If you thought this was your method of expressing your political thoughts you were wrong.
Jacob Applebaum may have done bad things, but he certainly didn't take down the tor network for a day. These self-absorbed aholes are much much worse than anything he did because they want to impact millions of people in thousands of countries so they can have their sick moment of SJW fantasy.
Sorry. If you can't run a server without wanting to keep it up, you should be removed from the network.
The Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it -- famous saying which applies ever more to this.
E
You're an ignorant moron.
And here we have a fine example of a modern conspiracy theory - the NSA is behind any allegations of sexual impropriety against people you favour, your chosen idols couldnt possibly be guilty of anything as uncouth....
So basically you're in the crowd that seems to thing [sic] a rape allegation is bulletproof ...
Basically ... no.
Nowhere (neither in that comment or elsewhere) did I imply that any allegation is "bulletproof," don't be absurd. You might try to read and base your understanding of my position on what I actually wrote rather than confabulating? To clarify, a rape accusation, as any other witness statement must presumptively be taken to be true, as was explained below:
One starts by presuming the truth of a witness statement and then goes on to challenge the statement either on factual grounds or by impugning the character and reliability of the witness. Just as the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the evidence led to prove that guilt is presumed true until proven false.
To presume that the accusation is false is an error of thought (perhaps one engendered by what must to the untrained appear as doublethink, in the requirement simultaneously to presume the innocence of the accused ... but see the explanation in the quote above). And do note that the idea of a presumption (whether made in the correct or erroneous direction) implies the possibility of rebuttal. Thus my position ... sorry the correct position (I can't claim the authorship of 2000 years of Western thought) necessarily involves the notion that an allegation of rape is not "bulletproof." Up to speed?
But none of this is germane to the point I was making in the comment to which you responded. The point of that was simply that to broadcast the myth that most, or even a substantial number, of reports of rapes by putative victims are false and have as their aim instead the character assassination of the alleged rapist, really is to apologise for rape. Remember that this is a crime that is vastly under-reported and for which it is very difficult to secure a conviction. The women (and sometimes men) who muster the courage to come forward do not deserve this kind of defamation.
OP's point was pretty clear and you're basically confirming it.
OP's point was pretty clear and was pretty clearly wrong minded rape apologism.
That's what they have done. Note that being treated as innocent until proven guilty does not mean no investigation or suspension during the investigation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Isn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? What if you were a juror? Would you suddenly find him guilty due to mere allegations without the evidence? Sexual assault is a serious crime that comes with a heavy stigma just for being accused of doing it. Do you really feel comfortable demonizing someone based on "he said, she said" statements? Everyone involved needs to be looked at with a microscope, not just the person being accused.
It's not tinfoil hattery to think the government will use any means necessary to discredit someone. Does it apply here? Who knows, but it's not that far-fetched of an idea.
Assange committed a "crime" that isn't a crime in the US. He lied to a woman to convince her to have sex with him. Apparently that's "rape" in Sweden, and not in the US. In addition to the non-crime (from an American perspective, assuming you are American), If the US media weren't a bunch of liars, it'd have been called "sexual misconduct" or the like, rather than "rape". It's not rape in any definition I've ever seen. To call it such, even if he's guilty is an insult to women who have been raped.
Learn to love Alaska
> innocent until proven guilty
Well, except for the part where your name and face are published over all forms of media with giant captions like 'RAPIST?'... sorta ruins vast portions of your life if you are innocent. So yeah... innocent, but a pariah to everyone except the greatest of friends and family.
Applebaum was not let go over false rape charges, but over a long history of abuse of multiple people. Rape may or may have been part of his conduct.
> And here we have a fine example of a modern conspiracy theory [...]
Oh, c'mon. Don be disingenuous. It's not as if NSA and GCHQ weren't behaving so as to make such a "conspiracy theory" implausible.
I'ts an ages-old method which works a wonder. Decades ago, the social repercussion of just having an extra-marital affair was enough to switch of someone (cf. Mata Hari for a nice example) -- these days you'd have to construct a case of rape or of child pornography.
Given the disdain secret services show for rule of law, and their very spotty accountability: why the fuck should they renounce to such an effective tool?
That, of course, doesn't mean that the grey men are behind every rape accusation case, but in some cases it'd be foolish to dismiss the possibility. Assange and Appelbaum are definitely two of them.
They might have in the law. but in the media just having rape mentioned in the same sentence of your name is enough. There need to be consequences to that shit. In the same way a lot of companies, individuals whatever refuse to comment of proceeding actions, media should be the same.
I accuse you of murder, people ask where's the body? I accuse you of rape and the lynch mob is ready to go in 5 seconds flat.
Of course if you are accused of something it should be investigated properly by the relevant people just not by the public based on hearsay.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
How about you fuck off and die? I'm getting tired of clueless shitheads that don't know how the world works and sees conspiracies everywhere. You folk shut up quick in the Hans Reiser case when it became obvious that he did murder his wife (except for a few mentally retarded enough to still see a conspiracy against Linux supported by the Russian government and other shadowy groups).
You could read about this case and realize that there are no conspiracy to shut down the TOR project, just a "conspiracy" to remove a person with severe misconduct against others - something that is now well documented. Any reasonable private company would have fired him for much less evidence. For good reasons!
This isn't a jury. This isn't a court of law - we don't need to consider him innocent until a judge rules him guilty. We aren't the government - we can censor whatever we want. FUCKING LEARN HOW THE WORLD WORKS!
is that the TOR network is so badly designed it apparently can be switched off entirely by a central authority.
Your projection is incredible. The only people inventing meaningless slurs are the ones that throw out shit like "neckbeard" or "pissbaby" or "fuckboy", and lynch mobs are not investigations.
Lucky we aren't talking about a lynch mob then. We are talking about people wanting to distance themselves from a disturbed individual. Nothing more, nothing less. That's how the world works.
And how are your slurs relevant here? Never heard pissbaby nor fuckboy before, did you just make them up? Those that spout SJW (which is anybody that thinks women have any right to anything judging the idiots using the word here and elsewhere) and try to portrait men who doesn't like sexual misconduct or even (gasp!) rape as weak, effeminate or "cucks" that are just fishing for pitty-sex. The reality is that mature, confident men with a normal sex-life (whatever their sexuality) doesn't like sexual misconduct nor rape.
But you and your ilk will never be mature, right?
Some years ago I thought the characterization of many men as not only thinking women as weaker, less worth than men but even secretly hating women was bullshit. Thanks to you and your ilk I now realize that this is true and that many in the technical field hold those views.
Face it, rape accusations have become THE form of character assassination. It's the new "witch". There's no evidence, proving your innocence is impossible, and the mere accusation is a death sentence.
No evidence? Several persons, male and female, have described in detail how this individual acts. That's evidence. It would be evidence in a court of law and it is evidence outside it.
It's obvious you and your ilk defines evidence as "anything I agree with" and not as the rest of the world does. And that factor repeats - you and your ilk doesn't know how the world works but don't like anything that goes against your fucked-up concept world.
He was sacked after Emerson Tan made a rape attempt allegation claiming Jacob had attempted to rape Jill. Jill denies the claim, it was mutual she says. Says Emerson was mistaken.
"Rape may or may have been part of his conduct."
And you change Emersons false claim of *attempted* rape into a false claim of *actual* rape.
You're very obvious about it.
Treat it like any other allegation. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Go fuck yourself with a toothpick.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, under which we expect courts to operate. It is not a guiding principle for anyone else. Nor does anyone else need keep themselves to the same standards evidence.
As for slurs, why don't you start by not ever calling anyone an "SJW" again? Take the high ground.
My ears are still open for a more accurate term. I know that one's confusing to people like you who have never been accused of sexism or rape.
No idea if that's what happened here, but what do you call the kind of person who takes somebody else's a false rape accusation and proceeds to defame the person accused all over (social) media? I've seen that enough times IRL.
What about rape cultures? You have no problem with presuming every time an assigned male starts conversation with a womyn-born-womyn that he's trying to rape her? Or if an assigned male living as the female gender is caught in the womyn-born-womyn restroom she must be planning rape? What do you call somebody who thinks those are acceptable attitudes. I don't care if there are bowls of M&Ms or whatever involved in the rationalization.
I doubt you'll give me a satisfactory answer. Just so glad to be gay.
Only advice I can leave for men who are actually in public-ish positions is to simply don't talk to women.
I don't even know why I'm here. This site and the new one have been shit lately.
Bullshit. But you WJS (Warriors against Justice of the Social kind) always try to portrait rape victims as liars. That's the "she dressed wrong", "she shouldn't have walked in that neighborhood", "she secretly wanted it" arguments again.
In the real world a rape accusation is not only thoroughly examined but relatively (compared to other crimes) likely to be thrown out of court. Many never report rapes due to the examination. That's the truth. You and your ilk running around pretending false rape accusations are common are just plain stupid. But don't take my word for it - there's actual research done in the area. But you can't trust the research as it is done by man-hating SJWs right?
Are those stories, on that website, sworn testimonies under oath?
Everyone can write anything on internet.
I accuse of sexually harassing me. You are now guilty in the eyes of the world.
> This isn't a jury. [...] we can censor whatever we want.
And this is *exactly* your weak spot. Why don't you see that?
> It might help your understanding of the situation to understand that the CIA and NSA now use fake rape and sexual assault/harassment claims
Eric Raymond, you finally joined /. directly!!!! Now they're conspiring with the Ada Initiative to entrap the leaders of the open source and free software!!!!
I'm sure they invented the charges against Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas, and Bill Clinton.
And Julian Assange remains a sexual idiot, even if his leaking government conspiracy documents is helpful to the world. "The condom broke so I just kept going" is not an excuse with *3* different women. I'm assuming the clown has at least one permanent STD by now.
You left out chemtrails
How about you fuck off and die? I'm getting tired of clueless shitheads that don't know how the world works
If you really believe clueless shitheads that don't know how the world works should just fuck off and die, then before you take your own advice kindly let us know where to send the funeral cards.
assange is a piece of shit who likely did sexually assault those women....but he's too much of a pussy to come out of the embassy to stand up for himself.
as far as "hacker community" - all of the black hats most of the grey hats, and even a couple of the white hats, are all scum and you don't need to necessarily be THAT skeptical.
Right, so a randoms word is good enough for you? Because an anonymous source told me you've been a nonstop sexual harasser and have raped a whole bunch of women and a couple kids.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It happened to the poor bastard IMF head who made the VERY stupid mistake of challenging the supremacy of the U.S. Dollar
Calling Strauss-Kahn "the poor bastard IMF head" is fucking hilarious. The guy is a total joke -- "I didn't know all those young women I was butt-fucking were prostitutes, I thought they wanted me for my good looks" -- yeah, right.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
How's that working for you. Looks like you are losing support
Pope is that you
Look, rape is a terrible crime, no doubt about it but you can't let that put it above other crimes. People not reporting it is part of the problem and needs to be addressed some how. I don't know how but that's besides the point. There's very little evidence of it and it can be very hard to prove which I agree is a big part of the problem, but are you trying to deny that fact has been used to peoples advantage? Basically as it stands, if one is so inclined they can get someone accused of rape and it causes a massive problems in a way that accusing them of any other crime doesn't. Even when people are totally exonerated and claims revealed to be false that shit still follows and there are numerous examples of it.
That's the truth. You and your ilk running around claiming we live in a rape culture and no one would ever dare lie about something so serious is what's stupid.
In the end I would say that with rape accusation both parties should be treated equally and fairly until facts have been established and reported. That includes not plastering allegations all over the mainstream media but I guess that's too much to ask?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
My ears are still open for a more accurate term.
That's missing the point. Instead of labelling, respond to the questions put and rebut the arguments made.
What about rape cultures? You have no problem with presuming every time an assigned male starts conversation with a womyn-born-womyn that he's trying to rape her?
That's not what rape culture is. I can explain it if you like, but it's probably easier if you just read the Wikipedia article about. Pay careful attention to the "Effects on Men" section. Rape culture theory holds that all men are NOT rapists, the exact opposite in fact, and that the stereotypes which pressure men to behave like that are part of what is called "toxic masculinity".
It's literally the exact opposite of what you think.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As long as it's fair male/females can be both be falsely accused of rape without any proof then I support this.
Let me be the first to make a charge against Sherri..
Clueless shitheads belive in proof!
Intelligent people believe in whatever they are told!
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.
I have been rather disturbed to see how many people are still defending that creep; but I'm not altogether surprised, having had my own experience with someone like Appelbaum. A lot of people don't understand until they have been on the receiving end of such intricate and well-stragegized abuse. Reading some of the victims' stories was so reminiscent of a particular brand of sociopathic creepiness that I wanted to vomit. Guys like Appelbaum are absolute masters of pushing the envelope right to the razor-thin edge of what you can technically accuse them of, and are even more talented at manipulating people around them; especially when most of those people are adoring fans. It's extremely rare for someone like him to get exposed in this way for those very reasons. Appelbaum found the perfect corner to spin his webs. A place where everyone is rightfully paranoid and it's all-to-easy to frame any attempt to stop him as some kind of conspiracy. So no, Appelbaum did not TECHNICALLY rape anyone (If he had, they would have simply pressed charges against him), but his actions were much more calculated and sinister, and his victims rightfully feel every bit as violated.
People are entitled to face their accuser...
Anonymous Cowards are not to be trusted.
Now who's trivializing rape allegations?
I posted this in another post below, but I just wanted to reiterate it here, for those who might not fully understand the situation.
It might help your understanding of the situation to understand that the CIA and NSA now use fake rape and sexual assault/harassment claims as their preferred method of character assassination (much easier, less messy, and just as effective as actual assassination). It happened to the poor bastard IMF head who made the VERY stupid mistake of challenging the supremacy of the U.S. Dollar.
What would you call someone who repeatedly changes their story, offering details, then recanting them over and over? The "poor bastard IMF head", maybe? He originally said nothing happened and he had never even seen his accuser; then that he may have been in the room while she was cleaning but he doesn't pay attention to housekeeping staff; then that he was naked in the room while she was cleaning; then that they had consensual sex; then that they had "rough" consensual sex during which he tore her rotator cuff. That doesn't sound like someone who is the victim of character assassination - you'd expect that such a victim would be able to maintain a constant story.
It also happened to Julian Assange and others.
Assange who has admitted he had sex with an unconscious woman? If all it takes to be a honeypot is to fall asleep around Assange, then they're not really entrapping him into doing anything he wouldn't do otherwise, are they?
Well, there were two sets of accusations: one was him being a jerk. The other was about him being a rapist. The alleged anonymous "victim" came forth and said there was no rape, the people telling the stories didn't ask her about it and they were full of crap.
So, the facts of the second set of allegations give reason to question the first.
But you can just assume we hate women when you don't even know our genders. Lovely....
Assange committed a "crime" that isn't a crime in the US. He lied to a woman to convince her to have sex with him. Apparently that's "rape" in Sweden, and not in the US.
Nope, that's a lie. He had sex with an unconscious woman, knowing that before she fell asleep, she told him 'no'. And not only is that a crime in Sweden, it's also a crime in the US. And it's also a crime in the UK, where Assange tried exactly the defense you're offering: he said that because she didn't fight him off later, it shouldn't be a crime. The UK High Court, in its opinion upholding extradition, stated:
Our view is, as we have set out, that a jury would be entitled to find that consent to sexual intercourse with a condom is not consent to sexual intercourse without a condom which affords protection. As the conduct set out in the EAW alleges that Mr Assange knew SW would only have sex if a condom was used, the allegation that he had sexual intercourse with her without a condom would amount to an allegation of rape in England and Wales.
As the EAW sets out the circumstance that SW was asleep, s.75 which applies to rape is also material: [quote of statute removed].
As it is alleged SW was asleep, then she is not to be taken not to have consented to sexual intercourse.
Do we really think Jacob was the target and not the Tor project? He is just the vehicle. The target is obviously the project. It is a very effective attack against an otherwise difficult adversary.
Here's some Sun Tzu to think about.
When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.
Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.
What is clear is that Assange being pursued by Swedish authorities is purely political and that hey does have a legitimate fear of his extradition to the US should he face these allegations in Sweden
The giant gaping hole in this conspiracy theory is Assange was in the UK before he fled to the Ecuadoran embassy. The UK being one of the US's closest allies, and who have cooperated many, many, many, many times on clandestine matters and criminal matters.
If the US wanted Assange so badly, the UK would have happily arrested him and sent him to the US with a bow stuck to his head.
The irony of your rant is probably lost on you.
Yeah, what you said. Also, lets bring back the lynch mobs for anyone accused of a crime.
Oh and we have the added benefit of not applying mob justice evenly.
Tor is a gimmick. If you use Tor, you are not anonymous. Imagine it more like painting a huge target on your forehead. If you use Tor, I guarantee you someone out there is monitoring what you are doing. Just use a damn VPN people!
Isn't it hilarious that a far leftist like Assurange was laid low by his own buddies, the Swedish radical feminists? I laughed for days. Moreover, a man who spent his entire life fantasizing about being a personal enemy of the USA and he finally gets his wish. What does he immediately do? He falls for the oldest trick in the book: the honey trap. LOL.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Proof? PROOF asshole?
Lucky we aren't talking about a lynch mob then. We are talking about people wanting to distance themselves from a disturbed individual. Nothing more, nothing less. That's how the world works.
And out comes the dissembly and revisionist history. This wasn't about people wanting to distance themselves from someone, this was about an anonymous mob engaging in mass public character assassination using stories that even the supposed victim publicly called bullshit on. But even with the woman herself saying these stories were almost wholly fabrications and the self-claimed good guys were shitty people who treated her poorly the attempt at character assassination and total social/political/business ostracization was successful.
This isn't about a "disturbed individual", it's about unpersoning someone with anonymous accusations that are an automatic social death sentence regardless of what even the supposed victim herself said.
And how are your slurs relevant here? Never heard pissbaby nor fuckboy before, did you just make them up? Those that spout SJW (which is anybody that thinks women have any right to anything judging the idiots using the word here and elsewhere) and try to portrait men who doesn't like sexual misconduct or even (gasp!) rape as weak, effeminate or "cucks" that are just fishing for pitty-sex. The reality is that mature, confident men with a normal sex-life (whatever their sexuality) doesn't like sexual misconduct nor rape.
So first you accuse a group of people of making up a "slur of the day" because you believe that is relevant, then when I point out that it is in fact your in-group which has a proven record of doing exactly that you claim the opposite, and that you have never heard two incredibly common slurs which you could see used very regularly with a simple google search.
You also just proved my point about witch hunt accusations and character assassination by doing it yourself. Your last sentence is a transparent personal attack (which you will presumably deny with accusations of "defensiveness" or other emotional straw manning) implying anyone who disagrees with you or dares to apply a group name to an organized and violent toxic ideology is not mature, not confident, sexually deviant, and supports rape.
That's literally right out of the playbook of the religious right. You're pulling a voldemort here and making it impossible to even name the ideology and group being disagreed with. It's the exact same as if the GOP were to say that anyone who uses the phrase "neoliberal economics" is a terrorist.
Some years ago I thought the characterization of many men as not only thinking women as weaker, less worth than men but even secretly hating women was bullshit. Thanks to you and your ilk I now realize that this is true and that many in the technical field hold those views.
The only people who hate women and see them as weak and less worthy are the ones whose entire worldview revolves around forcibly keeping women down as weak defenseless non-agent victims in need of perpetual rescue. Nobody hates women more than feminists.
No evidence? Several persons, male and female, have described in detail how this individual acts. That's evidence. It would be evidence in a court of law and it is evidence outside it.
It's obvious you and your ilk defines evidence as "anything I agree with" and not as the rest of the world does. And that factor repeats - you and your ilk doesn't know how the world works but don't like anything that goes against your fucked-up concept world.
Again you are projecting. Anonymous libels are not evidence, it's how lynch mobs work. The victim herself has publicly stepped forward and completely rebuked the entire narrative, and even pointed out the people portrayed as heroes and saviors were treating h
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
What is your solution? Don't allow people to make rape allegations? I don't think that is either fair or possible.
It's telling that you truly can't tell the difference between not completely unpersoning someone because of anonymous smears that even the alleged victim has publicly (and non-anonymously) rebuked as being complete horseshit, with the people portrayed as heroes and saviors actually being pretty shitty to her, and not allowing anyone to make rape allegations.
In situations like this the only way forward is to investigate. Applelbaum hasn't even bothered to deny any specific allegations, or make any kind of defence really. I'm sorry, but all we can do is evaluate the claims on the evidence we have. Multiple, corroborating stories that can be linked to specific times and places where he made public appearances with the victims.
If I made an anonymous webpage accusing you of everything from jaywalking to pedophilia and raised up a lynch mob to ostracize and unperson you would you exhaustively deny and refute everything or simply turn away in utter disgust?
This isn't evidence. NOTHING about this is evidence. These aren't "multiple corroborating stories", they're anonymous smears with absolutely no evidence that have already been completely rejected by the woman they're about. It's trivially easy to simply make up multiple stories with a handful of real details. If I knew you in real life I could do it in a single afternoon. Would that make it true? No, it wouldn't, EVIDENCE would make it true. Anonymous accusations are not evidence.
Say it with me again: Accusations are not evidence. Accusations NEED evidence.
That's the fundamental problem with your ideology, you treat accusations AS evidence and thus always reach a guilty verdict even when the woman those accusations are made on behalf of personally and publicly rebukes the entire thing as being total horseshit.
Which is, by the way, the only evidence we have so far: The woman who was supposedly the victim in all of this has completely denied the entire thing, told the real story of what happened to her, and even pointed out that the people supposedly "protecting" her were behaving shitty towards her and trying to force her into a role of agency-less victimhood.
As for slurs, why don't you start by not ever calling anyone an "SJW" again? Take the high ground.
First people demanded that nobody refer to that ideology and its adherents as feminists. So the term SJW was invented. Now you demand nobody use the term "SJW" and act as if it were a slur like neckbeard, fuckboy, pissbaby, and all the other identity-based slurs invented by SJWs. If another new term were invented you would demand nobody use that either.
What you're doing is nothing more than attempting to stifle dissent by making it impossible to even name or discuss your ideology and in-group. It's the exact same as if the GOP were to claim everyone using the words "neoliberal economics" or "trickle down economics" were terrorists.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
You're just jelly AF that no one's ever told you they're DTF.
:)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
LOLWUT
Okay, now I'm done.
The problem is that there is "Rape Culture" which is the academic and thoroughly intellectualized concept. And then there is just a handy term that gets used as a bludgeon. The same is true of "Cultural Appropriation". It's a narrow and specific concept but then a bunch of people who took a class once read it and like all things that someone once took a class on without actually thoroughly learning, they start applying it willy nilly until the concept is thoroughly generalized to just mean "bad people doing bad things". It's the Sociological equivalent of the word "disrupt". "Look at this 'Disruptive' hammer I made! It has a rubber grip!"
Alright, so you do believe in hearsay that hasn't been vetted outside a court of law. You do think poorly of people who have mere accusations lobbied against them. You could have said that instead of spewing all of the other bullshit that came flowing from your finger tips.
I suppose if someone made a false claim against you, you may feel differently, and you probably deserve it so you can be forced to open your eyes and think critically instead of thinking emotionally.
He's already been infront of a Swedish court and had the claim thrown out. He's not going back again.
Are you sure you have the right case? You keep referring to "the victim" and "the woman", as if there is only one. Are you actually familiar with the facts of this case?
Allegations are used as evidence in court all the time. The people involved give their accounts of what happened, and those accounts are tested and evaluated, checked against other available evidence and each other for consistency and probability. While it would be nice if every case as decided on hard evidence, it is actually quite unusual for that to happen. Go to your local court and sit in the gallery one day, you will be surprised.
In cases like this, the jury will usually be told, at least in the UK, to decide based on if they think that the multiple witnesses and victims are telling the truth and if what other evidence is available, such as appointment diaries, photographs proving attendance etc, corroborates them. Video of the actual crime is not a requirement for conviction.
you treat accusations AS evidence and thus always reach a guilty verdict
Your unwritten assumption is that evidence is always reliable and proof of guilt. It is not, it must be evaluated, compared with other evidence and built into a case. Evidence is always weighted and challenged, and while accusations and statements may be less compelling that a knife with blood on it, they are none the less considered.
Also note that you have the feminist position wrong, as usual. It's not that all allegations must be believed and anyone accused is automatically guilty. It is simply that when people, men or women, report sexual assault the police or their employer or whoever is responsible for investigating should actually investigate. Too often they are just fobbed off or told they are mistaken. This actually makes false accusations harder to get away with, because if investigated there is a greater chance of being discovered.
First people demanded that nobody refer to that ideology and its adherents as feminists. So the term SJW was invented. Now you demand nobody use the term "SJW" and act as if it were a slur like neckbeard
I didn't "demand" anything, you are projecting again. I said that what people were describing was not mainstream feminist theory. I'm saying that I don't fit this "SJW" concept, someone who demands others are silenced or avoiding debate (here I am arguing that people should be listened to when you want them ignored, and engaging you in debate) and who holds many strange and bizarre beliefs that I completely reject. Look, two paragraphs ago I had to correct you on what you thought my position was.
Feel free to describe me as a feminist, because I am one. Also a humanist, an egalitarian, a socialist, a liberal. "SJW" doesn't seem to describe me and is mostly just an insult when you have no counter-argument, so I humbly suggest you avoid using it if you want to have a reasonable exchange of ideas.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That politically parsed "may or may [not] have" language is exactly why in civilized life there is due process, so intelligence agencies must be staffed with competence people rather than operators who use character assassination.
If you're waiting ages to do that, I have VERY serious news for you.... IT AINT RAPE.
You tell it like it is brother. Like all those idiots complaining about the "abuse" they received at school from the brothers. I can tell you the boys I played with even got stiff, and one or two ejaculated when I penetrated them. Now 30 years after the event they call it child sexual abuse and they call us "peadophile priests." But as you say brother (or are you 'father' too?) if they've been waiting ages to report it ... It ain't sexual abuse!
As long as it's fair male/females can be both be falsely accused of rape without any proof then I support this.
Depends where you live and what you consider female.
At common law rape was a non-consensual penetration of the vagina by a penis . (Anal penetration, of either sex, fell into the purview of 'buggery.' In effect rape was originally a form of trespass, the violation of the rights other men have over a woman (the right of the father to marry off his daughter, as a virgin, for gain and of course the conjugal rights of the husband).
In some jurisdictions (eg. UK) it remains the case that only a penis can 'rape' (there are other sexual assault charges that can be brought against either sex). Others have legislated to make rape gender neutral, or, as in my jurisdiction, repealed the crime of 'rape' and replaced it by the gender neutral crime of 'sexual assault'. But there's an important point you need to remember. As a starting point, an allegation of you make of sexual (or indeed other) assault should be taken seriously: just as the accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence, so are you as the accuser entitled to the presumption that your accusation is true. While it is the work of a court to resolve that dilemma definitively, we should form our own, admittedly less rigorous, opinions using just the same set of presumptions. To presume any and all allegations of rape are attempts at character assassination is not sane.
The idea that women regularly make false accusations of rape is a malicious fiction. False rape reports must exist by it is exceedingly rare that rape reports are shown deliberately to be faked. It's delusional thinking to run around in constant fear that half the population is out to get you with a false rape allegation. As can be seen from the negative moderation my comments above received and the positive moderation the "rape is the new witch" and supporting comments received, it's a delusional system that is gaining a lot of traction.
Seriously boys ... just chill and try to like women. Who knows maybe one will like you back when you stop oozing "I'm a woman-hating creep" out of ever pore?
News for nerds, stuff that doesn't matter.
Huh?!
That's literally what lynch mobs and the KKK said.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
That's missing the point. Instead of labelling, respond to the questions put and rebut the arguments made.
Again: All you're doing is trying to stifle all dissent by controlling the very language used to speak. Imagine the same were done with republicans and trickle down economics. Try having an argument about economic policy when you're not even allowed to say "trickle down economics" or name the theory in any way.
That's not what rape culture is. I can explain it if you like, but it's probably easier if you just read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] about. Pay careful attention to the "Effects on Men" section. Rape culture theory holds that all men are NOT rapists, the exact opposite in fact, and that the stereotypes which pressure men to behave like that are part of what is called "toxic masculinity".
It's literally the exact opposite of what you think.
That's literally exactly what rape culture is. It's the theory that all men everywhere support and condone rape as a means to terrorize and oppress women just for being women. Feminism holds that all men are born rapists and need to be constantly told not to rape every minute of every day in the hope that even a few might stop raping women.
Toxic Masculinity is nothing more than a bait-and-switch used either to victim-blame men for things that harm men, which are virtually always directly and explicitly caused or exacerbated by feminists, or to claim that masculinity and men are inherently toxic. See also: "Male Pattern Violence" and "Violence Against Women".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
allegations are used as evidence in court all the time.
That's literally the exact opposite of how trials work. A trial is held to determine if an allegation is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Allegations are not evidence, allegations must be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt BY evidence, and the accused has a right to confront those making the allegations, compell testimony, and be provided with all exculpatory evidence.
By your logic all I need to do is make a website called Amimojoisarapist.com and fill it with anonymous smears against you. Here, I'll start right now: I accuse Amimojo of rape and sexual harassment.
Also note that you have the feminist position wrong, as usual. It's not that all allegations must be believed and anyone accused is automatically guilty. It is simply that when people, men or women, report sexual assault the police or their employer or whoever is responsible for investigating should actually investigate. Too often they are just fobbed off or told they are mistaken. This actually makes false accusations harder to get away with, because if investigated there is a greater chance of being discovered.
And as usual you lie through your teeth to defend feminism even as the entire internet is literally filled with massive screeds that women never lie, there are no such things as false accusations therefore anyone accused MUST be guilty, that we should reverse the burden of proof for rape accusations, and that the concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to lynch mobs.
See: virtually every high media profile rape case in recent years, starting with UVA... which there are STILL an enormous number of people defending.
I didn't "demand" anything, you are projecting again. I said that what people were describing was not mainstream feminist theory. I'm saying that I don't fit this "SJW" concept, someone who demands others are silenced or avoiding debate (here I am arguing that people should be listened to when you want them ignored, and engaging you in debate) and who holds many strange and bizarre beliefs that I completely reject. Look, two paragraphs ago I had to correct you on what you thought my position was.
Mainstream feminism is passing gender jim crow laws like VAWA, shutting down men's shelters, shoving old men off ledges after screaming a false accusation of sexual assault (caught on live video), committing drive by shootings, forcing evacuations with credible bomb threats, and generally ruining people's lives at the drop of a hat. Mainstream feminism is a toxic cult and a hate movement.
Feel free to describe me as a feminist, because I am one. Also a humanist, an egalitarian, a socialist, a liberal. "SJW" doesn't seem to describe me and is mostly just an insult when you have no counter-argument, so I humbly suggest you avoid using it if you want to have a reasonable exchange of ideas.
Your positions and politics are illiberal, anti-egalitarian, and collectively form a total rejection of enlightenment and humanist values. If you were egalitarian, humanist, and liberal you would be strongly anti-feminist. You would recognize toxic abusers and their pedophile and criminal friends such as Zoe Quinn for what they are, and oppose feminism's constant attempts to completely destroy the concepts of freedom of speech, burden of proof, innocent until proven guilty, and its universal sexism and nowadays racism.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Ironically you accuse me of trying to redefine language to stifle debate, and then go on to re-define well established terms in feminist theory because you have no counter argument to make against a well referenced and cited Wikipedia article.
All I'm asking is that you provide some sort of evidence that your definition is the accurate one, rather than the one put forward by a vast body of academic writing on the subject. That's not stifling debate, that's asking you to give us something beyond your personal opinion of the meaning to discuss.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Do you understand what testimony is? It is someone alleging that something happened and giving an account of it. Maybe you have seen courts on TV where people give testimony and it is weighed as evidence.
I accuse Amimojo of rape and sexual harassment.
Okay, where is your evidence? If you don't provide any, even just a description of what you claimed happened, all you have done is discredit yourself.
shoving old men off ledges after screaming a false accusation of sexual assault (caught on live video)
This I have to see. You really must provide a link to this video, you can't just let wild accusations like that slide with a flippant "google it".
See Shadow, this is your modus operandi. Post some bullshit, redefine words in your own head, provide zero evidence because apparently you don't even know what evidence is, and then accuse others of doing all those things.
A feminist tells you clearly that they don't believe what you think they believe, and you simply call them a liar and claim they must be the evil horrible people you think they are. What the hell is wrong with you?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A feminist tells you clearly that they don't believe what you think they believe, and you simply call them a liar and claim they must be the evil horrible people you think they are. What the hell is wrong with you?
He's only copying what you did during the GamerGate thing
A GamerGate supporter would post saying how they don't believe in harassment and death threats, but you'll come in and insist that GamerGate is only about those things and claim the supporter isn't REALLY against harassment and death threats (in other words lying), and how GamerGaters are evil horrible people and nobody should associate themselves with that label.
You set a precedent around here that it's ok to tell people what a label really means instead of what its supporters tell you what it means. It's only natural now that other people will tell you what feminist labels really mean.
Except that Julian Assange actually raped two women, and they had nothing to do with the CIA.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You do realize that, just like the internet, TOR was invented by the US government?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
By your logic all I need to do is make a website called Amimojoisarapist.com and fill it with anonymous smears against you. Here, I'll start right now: I accuse Amimojo of rape and sexual harassment.
I too have been raped by AmiMoJo. (in case it isn't obvious /sarcasm).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Basically what you're saying is that, if you're a rapist, you should become an activist hacker. Because if you are guilty of it, it's okay, because you'll have an army of clueless geeks to back you up.
shoving old men off ledges after screaming a false accusation of sexual assault (caught on live video)
This I have to see.
I *think* he was talking about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But it has happened a few times, so I could be wrong.
There are conspiracies everywhere you blind bastard. If you think that there aren't, then you are the dumbest person I have ever interacted with.
I do.
There. We've got two accusations corroborating each other already. We can each make a couple more accounts or post as ACs and there's six to ten.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I'm not redefining anything, I'm describing things based on what they are in the real world. Redefining things to stifle rebate is feminism redefining sexism to exclude its own conduct and declaring "feminism = equality". Observing that in the real world feminism is violent and anti-equality isn't redefining anything.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Do you understand what testimony is? It is someone alleging that something happened and giving an account of it. Maybe you have seen courts on TV where people give testimony and it is weighed as evidence.
Testimony is a material witness saying what they saw with the chance for cross examination and mandatory production of exculpatory evidence, with lots of limitations such as hearsay, as well as the opportunity to counter the testimony or impeach the credibility of the witness or testimony. It's not anonymous allegations which the alleged victim has already completely rejected.
Okay, where is your evidence? If you don't provide any, even just a description of what you claimed happened, all you have done is discredit yourself.
You're supporting rape culture. Believe victims. False rape accusations never happen. etc.
This I have to see. You really must provide a link to this video, you can't just let wild accusations like that slide with a flippant "google it".
Already linked below by ArylAkamov.
See Shadow, this is your modus operandi. Post some bullshit, redefine words in your own head, provide zero evidence because apparently you don't even know what evidence is, and then accuse others of doing all those things.
A feminist tells you clearly that they don't believe what you think they believe, and you simply call them a liar and claim they must be the evil horrible people you think they are. What the hell is wrong with you?
I posted hard facts, like the victim herself explicitly and totally rejecting the claims made by an anonymous third party, and argued against witch hunts and lynch mobs. If you want to look at redefining words in your own head look at feminism's constant motte-and-bailey tactics as well as creative definitions like "power + prejudice".
As for claiming not to believe something... your own posts have constantly and universally proven your actual position on things. Just look at your continued support of literal child predators and abusers like Sarah Nyberg and Zoe Quinn. Your actions belie your claims. You can claim not to believe in witch hunting all you want, but as long as you continue to burn people at the stake for witchcraft your actions reveal the truth.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
...it took him 10 mins to flop his dick out on the bar...
I have seen so many breasts at bars, never a dick. It's about time someone shows what a double standard we live in today.
You still seem to be under the misconception that there is one victim here. You should try to familiarise yourself with the case before commenting on it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You seem to be ignoring that they got caught flat out lying.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!