The fact that they're anonymously trying to provoke mob justice against someone by definition makes them un-credible, and should lead to everyone's first response being "If you are so credible and have such evidence why are you trying to anonymously provoke mob violence and ostracization instead of actually proving it and putting this person in jail?"
Sexual assault is the big one though, particular for the western world. We live in a world where a rape doesn't even need to exist to stir up an enormous nationwide mob and fill the airwaves with calls for "Something" to be done.
There are multiple victims who have put their names and faces to specific accusations, they might be fake (it happens), but the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of them being mostly legit.
Remember Rolling Stone? Tim Hunt? Emma Sulkowicz (mattress girl)? Duke Lacrosse?
There are a packet of anonymous smears and four other people insisting "oh yeah that's totes legit". The odds of this being nothing more than a manipulative attempt to use the current public tendency towards blind support and witch hunts far outweighs anything else. Everything done here is designed to minimize accountability and maximize sensationalism and public outrage.
I don't know if they're also pursuing criminal charges or not, if they aren't it doesn't mean they're lying. Not everyone who wants to get their story out necessarily wants to go through legal proceedings or have the perpetrator put in prison.
We have a word for this. It's called Libel. We also have a word for when people try to stir up public outrage to cause extra-judicial harm to someone, we call it Lynching.
Here is some evidence: Four witnesses. Not anonymous sources, but actual witnesses with names who have stepped forward
And how many witnesses did they have at salem again? Four people and a very professional yet totally anonymous set of smears. They've got this many people and witnesses and yet no one is pressing charges? They waited for the professional media rollout instead of, yknow, actually doing something? Sounds like they learned from Rolling Stone.
it's no wonder that victims are afraid to step forward
Oh please, it's so much the opposite that people step forward even when no rape ever even happened in the first place. Remember UVA? Mattress Girl? Duke Lacross? It seems like the surest sign a sexual assault case is bullshit is it being picked up as a high profile feminist cause celebre.
Snowden's already been labelled a traitor and everything else under the sun. Assange had to be discredited because he's more dangerous, he runs the actual organization people like snowden go to.
I was mostly pointing out that NRR isn't as simple as knocking that many decibels off what you were hearing. When it comes down to it there's just no real way to be safe from anything over a certain level.
It's also just not how sound pressure works. wearing overlapping 30NRR protection gives you a combined NRR of maybe 35 at most, and an NRR of 35 doesn't just reduce what you're hearing by 35 decibels.
Here's the thing: In that metaphor this time we're the horses. This isn't a shift from one form of unskilled labor to another, it's the obsolescence of it entirely.
Marxism was about the state owning the means of production and the complete abolition of private property. A Universal Basic Income is nothing more than shortcutting complicated welfare schemes by just paying eveyone a minimal survivable wage by default, something which the richest and most powerful nations on earth can easily afford, and which they will inevitably have to do now that there are permanently more people than jobs.
Either you create a permanent underclass of eternally unemployed people, annihilate the middle class and return to the ways of the Gilded Age where workers were paid pennies and lived dozens to a house while still starving, or you finally let go of the sickening darwinian idea that people must toil to earn their right to live even well into the age of automation and artificial intelligence.
That's the universal argument against ever paying people more, and for the last hundred years it hasn't been born out once. Hell minimum wage used to be over $10 an hour in today's money and a middle class life was vastly more affordable than today. It's time that tired old corporate socialist myth was put to bed, it's little more than a scare tactic to convince people to continue socializing corporations' losses and low wages while allowing them to privatize profits.
I literally started this out linking to hard proof that's crap. I've been to cycle friendly cities like Helsinki, they do NOT share space with vehicles.
Governments know they can't ever hope to effectively block all of those things. They also know they can very effectively use them as an excuse to block things that are politically inconvenient.
You guys realise when you keep using the exact same red herring that nobody mentioned, down to the wording, it's a giveaway that you're actually just trying to dissemble in favor of your utterly failed ideology, right?
hat would completely ruin cycling for everyone, from the most minimal commuter, all the way up to pro-level road racers, and everyone in between.
What's ruined cycling for everyone in the US is the kamikaze cult that thinks bicycles belong only in ordinary motor vehicle roads and will lie, cheat, and protest to keep it that way. In every location where cycling has a significant modal share it's due to the construction of dedicated cycling facilities. There's a reason the rest of the cycling world looks at the US like a bunch of lunatics.
Actually, what vehicular cyclists really believe in their own words is that cyclists should "take the lane". Start to finish that's their nigh-religious mantra, "take the lane" and all will be solved.
It's not intentionally misleading in the slightest, you're just throwing that out before going off on a red herring. Vehicular cyclists would rather shut down and stonewall the construction of dedicated cycling facilities than see cycling go mainstream instead of staying their little kamikaze cult.
John Forester's cult of Vehicular Cycling. Cycling in the US has been crippled for decades by a delusional group of ideologues who believe bicycles belong in the middle of regular motor vehicle lanes, even on 50mph state highways, and who will actively seek to prevent dedicated bicycle facilities from being built if it means people will ride in ways they disapprove of.
Twitter's hemorrhaging on all counts as they continue to enable and even hire some of the most toxic bigots and abusers on their platform while shadowbanning and harassing those people's victims.
That's astoundingly gentle and well behaved. this is more representative of the level of violence disguised as victimhood you can expect from these people.
This is the only real solution that doesn't wind up with either a future that looks like mad max or involves wiping out a few billion people. Buckminster fuller called it decades ago:
“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”
Eventually automation will reach a point where at minimum a large plurality of society, if not an outright majority, is simply incapable of working to support itself due to the sheer lack of human-employing jobs. We either accept that our technological development has led to a level of production where a basic existence no longer requires toil, or we condemn enormous portions of humanity to a truly unending and inescapable poverty.
Either way we need to fundamentally rethink how we view economics and society, especially given that we're almost certainly not going to meet any reasonably livable target for managing global climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that they're anonymously trying to provoke mob justice against someone by definition makes them un-credible, and should lead to everyone's first response being "If you are so credible and have such evidence why are you trying to anonymously provoke mob violence and ostracization instead of actually proving it and putting this person in jail?"
Sexual assault is the big one though, particular for the western world. We live in a world where a rape doesn't even need to exist to stir up an enormous nationwide mob and fill the airwaves with calls for "Something" to be done.
There are multiple victims who have put their names and faces to specific accusations, they might be fake (it happens), but the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of them being mostly legit.
Remember Rolling Stone? Tim Hunt? Emma Sulkowicz (mattress girl)? Duke Lacrosse?
There are a packet of anonymous smears and four other people insisting "oh yeah that's totes legit". The odds of this being nothing more than a manipulative attempt to use the current public tendency towards blind support and witch hunts far outweighs anything else. Everything done here is designed to minimize accountability and maximize sensationalism and public outrage.
I don't know if they're also pursuing criminal charges or not, if they aren't it doesn't mean they're lying. Not everyone who wants to get their story out necessarily wants to go through legal proceedings or have the perpetrator put in prison.
We have a word for this. It's called Libel. We also have a word for when people try to stir up public outrage to cause extra-judicial harm to someone, we call it Lynching.
Here is some evidence: Four witnesses. Not anonymous sources, but actual witnesses with names who have stepped forward
And how many witnesses did they have at salem again?
Four people and a very professional yet totally anonymous set of smears. They've got this many people and witnesses and yet no one is pressing charges? They waited for the professional media rollout instead of, yknow, actually doing something? Sounds like they learned from Rolling Stone.
it's no wonder that victims are afraid to step forward
Oh please, it's so much the opposite that people step forward even when no rape ever even happened in the first place. Remember UVA? Mattress Girl? Duke Lacross? It seems like the surest sign a sexual assault case is bullshit is it being picked up as a high profile feminist cause celebre.
You mean like how the University of Virginia rape was totally real and verified by the editorial process of an established media source?
Snowden's already been labelled a traitor and everything else under the sun. Assange had to be discredited because he's more dangerous, he runs the actual organization people like snowden go to.
I was mostly pointing out that NRR isn't as simple as knocking that many decibels off what you were hearing. When it comes down to it there's just no real way to be safe from anything over a certain level.
It's also just not how sound pressure works. wearing overlapping 30NRR protection gives you a combined NRR of maybe 35 at most, and an NRR of 35 doesn't just reduce what you're hearing by 35 decibels.
Get a pair of reusable Surefire's and it'll work even better. They reduce sounds over 80db and mostly pass through things under that.
Here's the thing: In that metaphor this time we're the horses. This isn't a shift from one form of unskilled labor to another, it's the obsolescence of it entirely.
Marxism was about the state owning the means of production and the complete abolition of private property. A Universal Basic Income is nothing more than shortcutting complicated welfare schemes by just paying eveyone a minimal survivable wage by default, something which the richest and most powerful nations on earth can easily afford, and which they will inevitably have to do now that there are permanently more people than jobs.
Either you create a permanent underclass of eternally unemployed people, annihilate the middle class and return to the ways of the Gilded Age where workers were paid pennies and lived dozens to a house while still starving, or you finally let go of the sickening darwinian idea that people must toil to earn their right to live even well into the age of automation and artificial intelligence.
That's the universal argument against ever paying people more, and for the last hundred years it hasn't been born out once. Hell minimum wage used to be over $10 an hour in today's money and a middle class life was vastly more affordable than today. It's time that tired old corporate socialist myth was put to bed, it's little more than a scare tactic to convince people to continue socializing corporations' losses and low wages while allowing them to privatize profits.
I literally started this out linking to hard proof that's crap. I've been to cycle friendly cities like Helsinki, they do NOT share space with vehicles.
Why am I not surprised you're as backwards and ignorant about cycling as you are about social issues.
Governments know they can't ever hope to effectively block all of those things. They also know they can very effectively use them as an excuse to block things that are politically inconvenient.
cyclists should be banned from roads
You guys realise when you keep using the exact same red herring that nobody mentioned, down to the wording, it's a giveaway that you're actually just trying to dissemble in favor of your utterly failed ideology, right?
hat would completely ruin cycling for everyone, from the most minimal commuter, all the way up to pro-level road racers, and everyone in between.
What's ruined cycling for everyone in the US is the kamikaze cult that thinks bicycles belong only in ordinary motor vehicle roads and will lie, cheat, and protest to keep it that way. In every location where cycling has a significant modal share it's due to the construction of dedicated cycling facilities. There's a reason the rest of the cycling world looks at the US like a bunch of lunatics.
Found the vehicular cyclist.
Actually, what vehicular cyclists really believe in their own words is that cyclists should "take the lane". Start to finish that's their nigh-religious mantra, "take the lane" and all will be solved.
It's not intentionally misleading in the slightest, you're just throwing that out before going off on a red herring. Vehicular cyclists would rather shut down and stonewall the construction of dedicated cycling facilities than see cycling go mainstream instead of staying their little kamikaze cult.
John Forester's cult of Vehicular Cycling. Cycling in the US has been crippled for decades by a delusional group of ideologues who believe bicycles belong in the middle of regular motor vehicle lanes, even on 50mph state highways, and who will actively seek to prevent dedicated bicycle facilities from being built if it means people will ride in ways they disapprove of.
We've already got precedent for this with R v Elliot. Disagreeing with someone on the internet is harassment, hate speech, and cyber-violence.
Twitter's hemorrhaging on all counts as they continue to enable and even hire some of the most toxic bigots and abusers on their platform while shadowbanning and harassing those people's victims.
That's astoundingly gentle and well behaved. this is more representative of the level of violence disguised as victimhood you can expect from these people.
Particularly if someone ever gets hypothermia...
This is the only real solution that doesn't wind up with either a future that looks like mad max or involves wiping out a few billion people. Buckminster fuller called it decades ago:
“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”
Eventually automation will reach a point where at minimum a large plurality of society, if not an outright majority, is simply incapable of working to support itself due to the sheer lack of human-employing jobs. We either accept that our technological development has led to a level of production where a basic existence no longer requires toil, or we condemn enormous portions of humanity to a truly unending and inescapable poverty.
Either way we need to fundamentally rethink how we view economics and society, especially given that we're almost certainly not going to meet any reasonably livable target for managing global climate change.