Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

SomethingBlack

@ SomethingBlack @lemmy.world

Posts
2
Comments
84
Joined
12 mo. ago

  • Removed

    We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.

    Jump

  • It's so crazy to talk about "innocent unless presumed guilty" as a policy that exists in western society, when we are drowning in cases to the contrary.

    That is patently false. This really makes me think that you have absolutely no concept of what you're talking about. The "court of public opinion" often assumes guilt based off of an accusation and that is exactly why "believe women" is so dangerous.

    What sets rape apart from, say, immigration violations or illegal drug use or terrorism charges or subway fare evasion or CEO murdering isn't this sacred commitment to "innocent until proven guilty".

    I agree, and this should stay exactly as it is. It's is one part that is unquestionably beneficial to literally EVERYONE.

    Treat allegations of sexual assault with even a fraction of the seriousness put forward to prosecute minor traffic violations. Maybe we can clear that mountainous backlog of uninvestigated rape claims within the victims' lifetimes.

    I absolutely agree. The lack of investigation is the issue, not the fact that women are implicitly believed when they make an accusation. No one should have that privilege.

  • Removed

    We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.

    Jump

  • Because as far as the law is concerned, they ARE NOT a victim until they are proven to be just as the accused IS NOT a perpetrator until they are proven to be. It has absolutely nothing to do with "trustworthyness", and all to do with due process.

    Destroying this legitimately good and absolutely fundamental part of the deeply flawed legal system will not fix this problem. It will only create more. Rage against the machine all you want, I'm absolutely with you. But do so with some critical thought behind it.

  • Removed

    We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.

    Jump

  • Can you tell me how this is relevant to the point I made? How any of that suggests something other than what I said?

    If you want to have a conversation, let's have a conversation but don't throw data that is irrelevant to the point I made while dodging the point I made.

  • Peru seizes record 4-ton mercury shipment in fight against illegal gold mining

    Jump

  • I think they got the wrong shipment

  • Removed

    We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.

    Jump

  • See, this is the problem. "Believe women" implies that women are telling the truth before an investigation has taken place. If you had read my original comment you'd see that I'm not suggesting women should be treated as they currently are, but that "believe women" specifically is a harmful rhetoric.

    If we both want women's accusations to be taken seriously and investigated as any other potential crime would be, then we're on the same page and want the same thing. The statement "believe women" does not literally or figuratively mean that though, the problem is the wording. Say what you mean instead of this wishy washy language that is detrimental to the cause.

  • It bothers me when cat memes refer to the pictured cat as "he," but I can tell from its coat pattern that it's female. I may know too much about cats.

    Jump

  • Do you want a medal for being a champion cat sexer?

  • Removed

    We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.

    Jump

  • I don't think the current legal systems are perfect, but I do think "believe women" would make them fundamentally worse.

    How do you handle the issue of future false accusations? And don't give me the hand wavy "but there are so few false accusations" because that doesn't matter to the person being accused.

    THE core tenet of most legal systems is effectively "innocent until proven guilty". "Believe women" utterly breaks that, they cannot exist within the same legal framework.

    So, would you rather have the legal system change to better serve women by equally investigating their accusations, or by removing "innocent until proven guilty"?

  • Removed

    We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.

    Jump

  • This is exactly right. The "believe women" stance is so childish and naive. "Take women seriously" would be just as effective, less dangerous and fit into every just legal system on the planet

  • Based on current events

    Jump

  • That sounds like a fun thing to do

    Jump

  • I love this in theory, but I can absolutely promise you, the people who need to attend won't attend

  • UN body says Israeli forces have killed over 1,000 aid-seekers in Gaza since May, as hunger worsens

    Jump

  • I'm just waiting for them to say something dumb like "fewer hungry people means less hunger, you're welcome Gazans"

  • Trump threatens 'far larger' tariffs if EU and Canada unite to do 'economic harm' to the U.S.

    Jump

  • Because it never stops at just stopping the enemy, the allies could have simply contained Nazi Germany but chose to invade. The US could have continued the war in the Pacific but chose to drop 2 atomic bombs.

    Beating the enemy so thoroughly is the only way humans have ever been able to truly end a conflict of that scale, and in that situation if Europe is to beat Russia like that I don't believe they'd hesitate to start launching nukes.

    So we're stuck in a situation where Europe either risk nuclear war, or an extended border skirmish that could last decades. Both would be devastating

  • Trump threatens 'far larger' tariffs if EU and Canada unite to do 'economic harm' to the U.S.

    Jump

  • I see what you're saying, although I think it was a joint effort by the US and the EU. And it was short-sighted on both their parts.

    The EU is feeling the heat that comes from a lapse in personal security and the US will find out that they aren't the power they thought they were without their allies.

    If Trump isn't corrected it could all come crashing down for the US and the EU.

  • Removed

    SimpleX chat remains the best one

    Jump

  • Badumtss

  • Trump threatens 'far larger' tariffs if EU and Canada unite to do 'economic harm' to the U.S.

    Jump

  • Exactly, he doesn't know how to negotiate because a negotiation involves give and take. Trump has only ever known take, take, take

  • Trump threatens 'far larger' tariffs if EU and Canada unite to do 'economic harm' to the U.S.

    Jump

  • This is exactly it. There are plenty of options, removing what is currently the best option just means picking the next best and so on and so on until we reach stability

  • Trump threatens 'far larger' tariffs if EU and Canada unite to do 'economic harm' to the U.S.

    Jump

  • But that only takes into account the time when China started their shift into manufacturing. China has been THE dominant manufacturer for at least 20 years now. So we shouldn't judge by today, but should judge by their rise to dominance.

    Plus having a distribution of countries to use as manufacturers allows for specialists to emerge, likely speeding up their individual adoption of the role they choose.

    And why would China cooperate with their own exclusion from the world market? And even if they chose economic suicide, why would their assistance be required for other countries to become manufacturers?

  • Trump threatens 'far larger' tariffs if EU and Canada unite to do 'economic harm' to the U.S.

    Jump

  • I can see the point your making. I'm not suggesting it'd be easy but if we moving to Russia as the example Russia would be the standin for China, not the wider world.

    Russia's economy is now shit because they got embargoed, as China's would be, it hurt the wider world briefly, but that has mostly passed.

    And I didn't suggest western countries take on the brunt of the manufacturing, I suggested it should be countries that would benefit from the overhaul to their economy

  • Trump threatens 'far larger' tariffs if EU and Canada unite to do 'economic harm' to the U.S.

    Jump

  • I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I don't see any evidence for this vassal worldview (apart from extreme cases like Belarus and Russia). Without that first assumption the whole premise falls apart.

    Even assuming the main characters (MC) and vassals idea is true to reality, the rest of the argument is flimsy at best. Even if a MC loses a vassal through mismanagement or foreign interference, that doesn't automatically mean that the vassal has a new MC overlord. They could be in a limbo state where some of the MCs are vying for control.

    As for Trump, I think it's much less of a stretch to assume that Trump loves the sound of his own voice and what better way to hear his own voice than to create sound bites, hence the 51st state nonsense. If anything Trump's actions say to me that he has NO capacity for the mental mapping required to envision this kind of complex interweaving of interests and angles that is geopolitics. I find it even less likely that this is the one he would subscribe to.