Given the general trends of education these days and the removal of focus on anything related to critical thinking, I'd say it's safe to say that the situation will not improve.
Sad, but true. Critical thinking and situational awareness are both sorely missing from the US education system. is this really true elsewhere in the world, as well?
When they are going around and telling my firends and family members I raped them, that is an accusation. It is not, as you said in your other post, a heated argument. Also, I'm not whining, nor am I talking about men's rights; I'm advocating for equality, even if you might not like all that it entails. Those women are lucky they didn't have libel and slander suits thrown at them from all angles. It wasn't worth my time though; none of them had a pot to piss in so I'd never have seen a penny of awarded damages anyway. They got theirs when I stopped helping them pay their bills.
You ignore the actual rape, though I suppose you'll say it didn't happen because it went unreported. I was 17, I was a dumb kid so, not only was it rape vecause I was drugged, it was statutory rape because she was 18 and I was a minor.
You also ignore the domestic abuse that actually happened. And the harassment accusation that did involve a legal process, as well as the court proceedings relating to the restraining order.
You ignore these things and pick apart the rape accusations because... well, I don't know why. You tell me.
As for the one who backed down when I reminded her she had taken video of our encounter, she actually did go to the police. They reported their visit to my door as a wellfare check so they wouldn't have to arrest her for filing a false report when I informed them of the facts; she wasn't willing to let it go even then, until I reminded her that the video would be shown in court.
The fact is, rape, sexual assault and harassment, domestic violence, and false accusations of any of those are all bad things, regardless who they happen to. And they all happen to both genders. You might not like that fact, and that's something we can actually agree on, even if for different reasons. You don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative; I don't like it because most of those things actually happened to me. Can we just agree to... well... agree?
Ah, finally, a level-headed explanation of why my speaking up does not constitute proof (nor did I ever claim it did), without denying the factual accounts I posted. Thank you, sir.
More common than what? More common than the common reader thinks it is.
Thank you for dragging this on and making me look at it from a few different perspectives in order to answer you. Yes, my one data point does, contrary to my earlier statement, serve as proof that it happens more than the common person thinks it happens. Allow me to explain.
It's a common belief that it doesn't happen at all; it takes only a single data point to disprove that. Therefore, one incident is all it takes to prove it happens more often than you (the collective you, as in the common person, not you specifically; get over yourself) think it does.
Want to keep going so you can look even more foolish? The mistake you (literally you) made in this case was thinking that the "you" referred to in the AC post that sparked all of this was literally you, rather than a reference to the general population. Here's a hint: Slashdot isn't your private forum.
I just went to do your work for you and it appears that older records are no longer available online since Macomb County moved to a new document storage solution. You should still be able to call or write in to get it, though.
No case number because I've moved on, I don't hang on to that shit, it was 13 years ago. It can be found be looking up my last name (look up, just a bit, from here and you'll find it) and hers: Schenburn.
But it's easier to just dismiss people off-hand, isn't it? Again, would you do the same to a woman?
Actually, in the case of my abusive ex, even less valid as there were witnesses. Try actually reading my post, you might learn something. The police report is a matter of public record, along with witness statements; so is the restraining order paperwork. Macomb County, MI. Last name should be obvious if you google around a bit.
I gave you the information required to verify at least a portion of my claims;the rest, of course there is no record as my accusers never actually filed. As for the harassment accusation, if you think you can get a school to release information about an incident involving their (at the time) minor students, I've provided those details elsewhere in the discussion as well. If you actually wish to pursue it, I'll provide them to you directly.
But, again, it's not reported in the news so, to you, it didn't happen. It's not that my claims can't be verified, just that you're afraid to verify them.
I would never wish for anyone to experience the things I talked about in that post; but, if I would, I'd wish it on people like you.
Gah... typo... "in face" should be "in fact". Also, I forgot my footnote, so here's that:
[1] Yes, I said "may". Because it's not a given. I've certainly seen it from large corporations I worked for when I was young, dumb, and didn't know how shitty it was to work for a large corporation. And I've seen it in the news regarding smaller companies. But, working for those corporations gave me some insight, which has helped me avoid continuing to work for companies that discriminate; I noted that they'll cut costs anywhere they can and wages are one of the easiest things they think they can cut without any repercussions. The reality is that these companies pay all of the peons at the bottom less than they're worth; and they pay women and minorities even less. I'm not going to deny that, but I will attempt to explain it. No, not explain it away, it's still wrong, but you must understand something before you can change it.
You see, the people making payroll decisions for these companies are driven by inequality. Any difference between you and them is an additional inequality, for which they'll pay you less. Don't run a multi-billion-dollar corporation? Don't deserve the same pay as them. They're male and you're not? Less pay. Different color skin? Less pay. Different-sounding last name? Less pay.
Having this insight, I've been able to avoid working for smaller companies that discriminate like this. It's not hard, really, unless you're hard-up for work, in which case you take what you can get (but you keep looking for something better -- that's the important part). When you go in for your interview, look around. Do you see a decent mix of people?
Is it all white guys? If it's all white guys and you're not a white guy, you're gonna have a bad time. Don't take the job in hopes of "changing the status quo" because you'll just be made an example of; and if you do decide to martyr yourself, don't complain about it. Martyrs don't complain. Also, it's not just white guys, it's any heterogeneous population; white guys are just the go-to example everyone recognizes, a good attention-getter.
Are there a disproportionate number of minorities and/or women? If there are, you're probably interviewing at a place that hires people they think they can pay less. RUN! As with any rule, there are exceptions to this, but it's a good indicator. Again, don't martyr yourself; and if you do, remember, martyrs don't complain.
I could go on, but those are the two biggest indicators I've found. If you note a decent mix of ethnicities and a balance (relative to the population of available workers in the field, not the population as a whole) between genders, you've likely found a place that will pay you based on your qualifications and work output, rather than your gender or skin color. As for how to deal with the abusive companies? Don't. It's that simple. All the best talent is spread across the genders and races, so a company that only (typically) hires one type will miss out on most of it, eventually falling prey to their competitors who've chosen to hire people with actual qualifications. Menawhile, a company that hires only those they think they can get away with paying less might luck into talent form time to time, but they'll lose that talent quickly, eventually falling prey to their competitors who've chosen to pay their talented employees what they're worth. It's literally a system seeking stability; fucking with it only adds to the chaos and prolongs the condition. Plus, do you really want to deal with the racists and sexists at those places? Again, don't be a martyr; not only is it unpleasant for you, it actually perpetuates the problem, rather than helping to solve it. Don't contribute your time and effort to help a shitty company succeed!
Didn't mean for my footnote to become a rant; hopefully someone finds it useful.
Now this is a much more obvious joke than the other "check your privilege" AC above. BRAVO!
Let me springboard from here to point out that, in face, inequality is what drives the world's evil. The same way it is evil that a business owner (more likely an HR department) may[1] pay a woman less than a man for the same work, it is evil that a woman might discount the rape and domestic abuse of a man. Both are examples of inequality and both need to stop happening. Period.
Put another way, when a woman speaks of her rape and a man says it never happened, people scream "he's raping her all over again!" Why is the same not true when it's a man speaking? I mean, no, I don't consider people denying what happened to me to be a continuation of the rape; I've made peace with my past, I did so years ago. I'm not insinuating that anyone should be standing up and screaming that on my behalf; merely pointing out that nobody should be doing it for anyone unless they're literally physically being re-raped at that moment. Hell, even then they shouldn't be screaming about it, they should be stopping the rapist; standing there and watching, not doing so, makes them no better than that rapist. Follow?
I generally agree with that article, except that I would replace "women" with "rape victims" and "men" with "rapists". Either gender can take on either role; except in the few places in the world where the legal definition of rape prohibits it In those places, a woman may sexually assault a man but, in a legal sense, cannot rape.
No you weren't. Someone said it was more common, and you said basically yes it is see it happened to me. In common parlance that is you holding it up as evidence.
Why, yes, that's evidence. As I said, it 's not proof; a larger study would need to be conducted. But it's certainly evidence that such a study should be done.
If one is going to worry about every misunderstanding, no matter how strange and resistant to further explanation, lest one cause offence, then no-one would say anything.
If you take the time to formulate your thoughts into clear and concise sentences before speaking, you needn't worry about misunderstandings. Will they still happen and will some people still take offense? Yes, some people just can't parse language; that's their problem, not yours. Before you go on to tell me that I'm, clearly, failing to parse your post, finish reading mine.
If you find the statistics that say it isn't in fact common offensive
You posted no statistics, nor facts, only opinion. Facts do not offend, opinions based on nothing, however, do.
To address part of your original comment that appears to show your confusion:
statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people
I never claimed this, but the fact that you're attempting to attack it really makes it sound like, just maybe, you're saying I'm the only man who's had such experiences. Before you imply that I'm just imagining this, consider the example you gave.
Ps if your going to go all grammer nazi you should do it correctly and check you're post for spelling mistakes.
Point one out? Ah... I get it... trolling. Now, was it just that line, or are all of your posts here similar in intent?
Did anyone ask what you think? Well here, I'll ask. If I were a woman would you be discounting my experience just the same? Have you ever been raped or accused of rape? I should assume not or... well, actually, there's no need to type it all out again. This post applies equally to you.
I was presenting mysslf as an example, not a proof. The tone of your comment sounded like you were discounting my experience as irrelevant. Can you not see how your comment may have been highly offensive to someone? I should say it is you, not me, who has the problem. No angry tangent, just stating my view. Oh, and it's "looking forward".
Meh... My regaling wasn't for you in the first place; it was in support of others who've been through shit similar to what I've been through, whether male, female, or other. Believe what you want, I'm not looking for a shoulder to cry on as I've made peace with my past years ago.
Whoop-de-fucking doo. Want references? Look them up.
The police report is a matter of public record, along with witness statements; so is the restraining order paperwork. Macomb County, MI. Last name should be obvious if you google around a bit.
Can't provide anything for the rape accusations, as no charges were ever actually filed. There should be record of the harassment incident, though I'm not sure if Ben Davis HS (Indianapolis, IN) will release information like that about one of their former students who was a minor at the time. If you wish to pursue it, the incident occurred in the 97-98 or 98-99 school year (I don't recall for sure which year, but that should narrow it down enough).
:) It's short for Bronstrup Consulting, the company I ran when I created this account. It has since been renamed, but, alas, Slashdot does not allow for changing usernames and I'd like to keep my excellent karma.
I wasn't sure, which is why I didn't respond. Unless you are that AC, you can't be sure, either; there are people, including on this very site, who would post that in all seriousness. I can only hope it was a joke.
You did, you thought of one that was not relevant to the group of users originally under discussion (defined well before you joined the conversation); likewise (and if you read my entire post you'll see this), I can list several dozen uses for executables, but I didn't list the ones not relevant to the conversation.
Oh, wait... you're implying that you can decompile the binary back to its original source. I see you've never actually used a decompiler, then.
That's not quite how SSL works; and we're talking about, essentially, plain text sent over HTTPS, not an encrypted file sent over HTTP. It was a good try, though, and I applaud your thinking; that idea actually hadn't crossed my mind.
That solution absolutely would work if it were an encrypted file sent via HTTP or some other clear protocol, though. I think it could be doable!
Rerolling... lost a portion of my message to a messed up HTML tag.
You mean my insistense that you keep your word? What you quoted there, by the way, was your own words. Your promise, not my demand. You get that, right?
Let me put it another way: I don't need (and never needed) to prove myself, I've only meant to disprove you. Which I've done.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, on one hand that's good to know... on the other hand... fuck.
Given the general trends of education these days and the removal of focus on anything related to critical thinking, I'd say it's safe to say that the situation will not improve.
Sad, but true. Critical thinking and situational awareness are both sorely missing from the US education system. is this really true elsewhere in the world, as well?
When they are going around and telling my firends and family members I raped them, that is an accusation. It is not, as you said in your other post, a heated argument. Also, I'm not whining, nor am I talking about men's rights; I'm advocating for equality, even if you might not like all that it entails. Those women are lucky they didn't have libel and slander suits thrown at them from all angles. It wasn't worth my time though; none of them had a pot to piss in so I'd never have seen a penny of awarded damages anyway. They got theirs when I stopped helping them pay their bills.
You ignore the actual rape, though I suppose you'll say it didn't happen because it went unreported. I was 17, I was a dumb kid so, not only was it rape vecause I was drugged, it was statutory rape because she was 18 and I was a minor.
You also ignore the domestic abuse that actually happened. And the harassment accusation that did involve a legal process, as well as the court proceedings relating to the restraining order.
You ignore these things and pick apart the rape accusations because... well, I don't know why. You tell me.
As for the one who backed down when I reminded her she had taken video of our encounter, she actually did go to the police. They reported their visit to my door as a wellfare check so they wouldn't have to arrest her for filing a false report when I informed them of the facts; she wasn't willing to let it go even then, until I reminded her that the video would be shown in court.
The fact is, rape, sexual assault and harassment, domestic violence, and false accusations of any of those are all bad things, regardless who they happen to. And they all happen to both genders. You might not like that fact, and that's something we can actually agree on, even if for different reasons. You don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative; I don't like it because most of those things actually happened to me. Can we just agree to... well... agree?
Ah, finally, a level-headed explanation of why my speaking up does not constitute proof (nor did I ever claim it did), without denying the factual accounts I posted. Thank you, sir.
More common than what? More common than the common reader thinks it is.
Thank you for dragging this on and making me look at it from a few different perspectives in order to answer you. Yes, my one data point does, contrary to my earlier statement, serve as proof that it happens more than the common person thinks it happens. Allow me to explain.
It's a common belief that it doesn't happen at all; it takes only a single data point to disprove that. Therefore, one incident is all it takes to prove it happens more often than you (the collective you, as in the common person, not you specifically; get over yourself) think it does.
Want to keep going so you can look even more foolish? The mistake you (literally you) made in this case was thinking that the "you" referred to in the AC post that sparked all of this was literally you, rather than a reference to the general population. Here's a hint: Slashdot isn't your private forum.
I just went to do your work for you and it appears that older records are no longer available online since Macomb County moved to a new document storage solution. You should still be able to call or write in to get it, though.
No case number because I've moved on, I don't hang on to that shit, it was 13 years ago. It can be found be looking up my last name (look up, just a bit, from here and you'll find it) and hers: Schenburn.
But it's easier to just dismiss people off-hand, isn't it? Again, would you do the same to a woman?
Actually, in the case of my abusive ex, even less valid as there were witnesses. Try actually reading my post, you might learn something. The police report is a matter of public record, along with witness statements; so is the restraining order paperwork. Macomb County, MI. Last name should be obvious if you google around a bit.
I gave you the information required to verify at least a portion of my claims ;the rest, of course there is no record as my accusers never actually filed. As for the harassment accusation, if you think you can get a school to release information about an incident involving their (at the time) minor students, I've provided those details elsewhere in the discussion as well. If you actually wish to pursue it, I'll provide them to you directly.
But, again, it's not reported in the news so, to you, it didn't happen. It's not that my claims can't be verified, just that you're afraid to verify them.
I would never wish for anyone to experience the things I talked about in that post; but, if I would, I'd wish it on people like you.
Cherry picking one datapoint is not...
... what I was dong. I was stating my experience; trust me, if I were cherry-picking, I wouldn't have picked those experiences.
Gah... typo... "in face" should be "in fact". Also, I forgot my footnote, so here's that:
[1] Yes, I said "may". Because it's not a given. I've certainly seen it from large corporations I worked for when I was young, dumb, and didn't know how shitty it was to work for a large corporation. And I've seen it in the news regarding smaller companies. But, working for those corporations gave me some insight, which has helped me avoid continuing to work for companies that discriminate; I noted that they'll cut costs anywhere they can and wages are one of the easiest things they think they can cut without any repercussions. The reality is that these companies pay all of the peons at the bottom less than they're worth; and they pay women and minorities even less. I'm not going to deny that, but I will attempt to explain it. No, not explain it away, it's still wrong, but you must understand something before you can change it.
You see, the people making payroll decisions for these companies are driven by inequality. Any difference between you and them is an additional inequality, for which they'll pay you less. Don't run a multi-billion-dollar corporation? Don't deserve the same pay as them. They're male and you're not? Less pay. Different color skin? Less pay. Different-sounding last name? Less pay.
Having this insight, I've been able to avoid working for smaller companies that discriminate like this. It's not hard, really, unless you're hard-up for work, in which case you take what you can get (but you keep looking for something better -- that's the important part). When you go in for your interview, look around. Do you see a decent mix of people?
Is it all white guys? If it's all white guys and you're not a white guy, you're gonna have a bad time. Don't take the job in hopes of "changing the status quo" because you'll just be made an example of; and if you do decide to martyr yourself, don't complain about it. Martyrs don't complain. Also, it's not just white guys, it's any heterogeneous population; white guys are just the go-to example everyone recognizes, a good attention-getter.
Are there a disproportionate number of minorities and/or women? If there are, you're probably interviewing at a place that hires people they think they can pay less. RUN! As with any rule, there are exceptions to this, but it's a good indicator. Again, don't martyr yourself; and if you do, remember, martyrs don't complain.
I could go on, but those are the two biggest indicators I've found. If you note a decent mix of ethnicities and a balance (relative to the population of available workers in the field, not the population as a whole) between genders, you've likely found a place that will pay you based on your qualifications and work output, rather than your gender or skin color. As for how to deal with the abusive companies? Don't. It's that simple. All the best talent is spread across the genders and races, so a company that only (typically) hires one type will miss out on most of it, eventually falling prey to their competitors who've chosen to hire people with actual qualifications. Menawhile, a company that hires only those they think they can get away with paying less might luck into talent form time to time, but they'll lose that talent quickly, eventually falling prey to their competitors who've chosen to pay their talented employees what they're worth. It's literally a system seeking stability; fucking with it only adds to the chaos and prolongs the condition. Plus, do you really want to deal with the racists and sexists at those places? Again, don't be a martyr; not only is it unpleasant for you, it actually perpetuates the problem, rather than helping to solve it. Don't contribute your time and effort to help a shitty company succeed!
Didn't mean for my footnote to become a rant; hopefully someone finds it useful.
Now this is a much more obvious joke than the other "check your privilege" AC above. BRAVO!
Let me springboard from here to point out that, in face, inequality is what drives the world's evil. The same way it is evil that a business owner (more likely an HR department) may[1] pay a woman less than a man for the same work, it is evil that a woman might discount the rape and domestic abuse of a man. Both are examples of inequality and both need to stop happening. Period.
Put another way, when a woman speaks of her rape and a man says it never happened, people scream "he's raping her all over again!" Why is the same not true when it's a man speaking? I mean, no, I don't consider people denying what happened to me to be a continuation of the rape; I've made peace with my past, I did so years ago. I'm not insinuating that anyone should be standing up and screaming that on my behalf; merely pointing out that nobody should be doing it for anyone unless they're literally physically being re-raped at that moment. Hell, even then they shouldn't be screaming about it, they should be stopping the rapist; standing there and watching, not doing so, makes them no better than that rapist. Follow?
I generally agree with that article, except that I would replace "women" with "rape victims" and "men" with "rapists". Either gender can take on either role; except in the few places in the world where the legal definition of rape prohibits it In those places, a woman may sexually assault a man but, in a legal sense, cannot rape.
No you weren't. Someone said it was more common, and you said basically yes it is see it happened to me. In common parlance that is you holding it up as evidence.
Why, yes, that's evidence. As I said, it 's not proof; a larger study would need to be conducted. But it's certainly evidence that such a study should be done.
If one is going to worry about every misunderstanding, no matter how strange and resistant to further explanation, lest one cause offence, then no-one would say anything.
If you take the time to formulate your thoughts into clear and concise sentences before speaking, you needn't worry about misunderstandings. Will they still happen and will some people still take offense? Yes, some people just can't parse language; that's their problem, not yours. Before you go on to tell me that I'm, clearly, failing to parse your post, finish reading mine.
If you find the statistics that say it isn't in fact common offensive
You posted no statistics, nor facts, only opinion. Facts do not offend, opinions based on nothing, however, do.
To address part of your original comment that appears to show your confusion:
statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people
I never claimed this, but the fact that you're attempting to attack it really makes it sound like, just maybe, you're saying I'm the only man who's had such experiences. Before you imply that I'm just imagining this, consider the example you gave.
Ps if your going to go all grammer nazi you should do it correctly and check you're post for spelling mistakes.
Point one out? Ah... I get it... trolling. Now, was it just that line, or are all of your posts here similar in intent?
Did anyone ask what you think? Well here, I'll ask. If I were a woman would you be discounting my experience just the same? Have you ever been raped or accused of rape? I should assume not or... well, actually, there's no need to type it all out again. This post applies equally to you.
I was presenting mysslf as an example, not a proof. The tone of your comment sounded like you were discounting my experience as irrelevant. Can you not see how your comment may have been highly offensive to someone? I should say it is you, not me, who has the problem. No angry tangent, just stating my view. Oh, and it's "looking forward".
Meh... My regaling wasn't for you in the first place; it was in support of others who've been through shit similar to what I've been through, whether male, female, or other. Believe what you want, I'm not looking for a shoulder to cry on as I've made peace with my past years ago.
The police report is a matter of public record, along with witness statements; so is the restraining order paperwork. Macomb County, MI. Last name should be obvious if you google around a bit.
Can't provide anything for the rape accusations, as no charges were ever actually filed. There should be record of the harassment incident, though I'm not sure if Ben Davis HS (Indianapolis, IN) will release information like that about one of their former students who was a minor at the time. If you wish to pursue it, the incident occurred in the 97-98 or 98-99 school year (I don't recall for sure which year, but that should narrow it down enough).
Happy hunting.
:) It's short for Bronstrup Consulting, the company I ran when I created this account. It has since been renamed, but, alas, Slashdot does not allow for changing usernames and I'd like to keep my excellent karma.
I wasn't sure, which is why I didn't respond. Unless you are that AC, you can't be sure, either; there are people, including on this very site, who would post that in all seriousness. I can only hope it was a joke.
Get fucked.
You did, you thought of one that was not relevant to the group of users originally under discussion (defined well before you joined the conversation); likewise (and if you read my entire post you'll see this), I can list several dozen uses for executables, but I didn't list the ones not relevant to the conversation.
Oh, wait... you're implying that you can decompile the binary back to its original source. I see you've never actually used a decompiler, then.
That's not quite how SSL works; and we're talking about, essentially, plain text sent over HTTPS, not an encrypted file sent over HTTP. It was a good try, though, and I applaud your thinking; that idea actually hadn't crossed my mind.
That solution absolutely would work if it were an encrypted file sent via HTTP or some other clear protocol, though. I think it could be doable!
Rerolling... lost a portion of my message to a messed up HTML tag.
You mean my insistense that you keep your word? What you quoted there, by the way, was your own words. Your promise, not my demand. You get that, right?
Let me put it another way: I don't need (and never needed) to prove myself, I've only meant to disprove you. Which I've done.
Thoroughly.
You mean my insistence that you keep your word? What you quoted there, by the way, was . You get that, right?
Let me put it another way: I don't need (and never needed) to prove myself, I've only meant to disprove you. Which I've done. Thoroughly.