Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,053
555
118
So... pro-canceller now are we?
No not at all.

She can call them out and then we wait for the court cases and proper investigations to be done. That's how this works. We don't know who to investigate if no names are named and the issue is people treat the name coming up as gospel truth to act rather than "Oh they've been accused lets see what proper processes make of it". It's the vigilante justice angle that is the problem with it for the most part.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,053
555
118
So, she should have shared, without provable evidence, claims that certain specific people were sex abusers and/or participated in hostile work environments, just like that time she did so that caused an innocent man to kill himself?

That's your argument?

You know, when I said "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't", it was a criticism of that type of thinking
Yes, these are far more powerful people in the industry supposedly not an indie dev with like 2 credits to his name at the time.
She'd only be damned if she did if it turns out it was false and her claims were deemed to have harmed people in court. If she said the names and pushed for a proper investigation or hell she's powerful enough to probably get some executives to talk to her and hear the claims but no she's posting it on twitter to push the idea that the industry is super dangerous and problematic because her new hotline / anti abuse service needs people to be anxious and afraid and feel the service is needed. Saying the names would show she at least has conviction to her claim and actually does #believewomen. Not saying the names seems hollow and like she doesn't believe the claims enough to risk any repercussions but wants to make claims about the industry just to keep the narrative of "It's time for the games Industry Metoo" and that somehow there's still so much work to do and so much risk.

What are you talking about?
That's from A Night in the Woods correct?
You haven't heard what happened there and the cancellation of the next project / possible sequel?
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
6,137
339
88
Country
Australia
The version I remember being used when I was in high school was a mite more coarse.
No doubt.

It's not like I'm trying to play gatekeeper here, I just find it funny the same way as I'd find an old lady bragging about how she 'owned' everyone at the bingo hilarious. The cognitive disonnance of in-group jargon/identifiers spreading out into the wild.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,238
2,042
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
No not at all.

She can call them out and then we wait for the court cases and proper investigations to be done. That's how this works. We don't know who to investigate if no names are named and the issue is people treat the name coming up as gospel truth to act rather than "Oh they've been accused lets see what proper processes make of it". It's the vigilante justice angle that is the problem with it for the most part.
No it doesn't. No sexual harassment case has ever worked like this. 95% of sexual harassment and rape case never see court. But only 5% are fake rape cases. Thus, 90% rely on the rapist owning up to what they did. This is because it does not matter how much evidence you have, it will not convict anyone. Rape kits are pointless. So is bruises or broken body parts. Most conviction only occur when a witnesssees what happens (or video evidence). Or it happens hundreds of times. It's why gymnastics teachers can get away with molesting 700+. There was never 'enough evidence' until it reaches critical mass. Because physical evidence does not matter in these cases.

As the person who is actually the one of the most cancelled persons in America, Anita already knows this. She knows the utter pointlessness of going to the police. She also knows that even if it leads to a conviction, it definitely won't be for sexual harassment as convicted attackers have all the power in this dymanic. So, either you just suffer in silence or you make other people, mainly women, aware of behavior so they can protect themselves

Now, you said she needed to make her accusations public with the aim in mind of getting a person in jail. This is THE definition of cancelling. Some one does something wrong so you need to publicly out them to shame them into complying, preferably with attached punishment

So, yes you are. What you asked for would lead to vigilante justice. What Anita did would just lead to women talking to each, making sure they keep each other safe from predators.

If you worried about these persons reputations, they were trashed well before Anita said something. Just because you have not been convicted does not mean you didn't do something wrong. See Rittenhouse as a good example of that
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,053
555
118
No it doesn't. No sexual harassment case has ever worked like this. 95% of sexual harassment and rape case never see court. But only 5% are fake rape cases. Thus, 90% rely on the rapist owning up to what they did. This is because it does not matter how much evidence you have, it will not convict anyone. Rape kits are pointless. So is bruises or broken body parts. Most conviction only occur when a witnesssees what happens (or video evidence). Or it happens hundreds of times. It's why gymnastics teachers can get away with molesting 700+. There was never 'enough evidence' until it reaches critical mass. Because physical evidence does not matter in these cases.
No that 95% claim seems to come from certain feminist groups based on accusations vs court rates and the rates courts throw them out. It works on the automatic assumption no claim is fake unless proven in court.

Also yes evidence will convict people. Actually forceful rape does leave evidence and marks and stuff that can be picked up by medical professionals as part of doing a rape kit.

As the person who is actually the one of the most cancelled persons in America, Anita already knows this. She knows the utter pointlessness of going to the police. She also knows that even if it leads to a conviction, it definitely won't be for sexual harassment as convicted attackers have all the power in this dymanic. So, either you just suffer in silence or you make other people, mainly women, aware of behavior so they can protect themselves
This is literally Suey Park logic, logic she many years ago renounced ever putting out there. Also really Anita one of the most cancelled people in America? Do I get to speak at the UN if that happens to me? Hell I can't wait to see J.K Rowing or Dave Chappelle's UN speech now lol

Also the Whisper network stuff sounds far more like just behind the scenes gossip and trust me not all gossip is worth believing. I mean I doubt a girl at my school was caught fingering herself with Captain Birdseye fish fingers and I know for a fact I never too a piss off the side of the school roof (yes that was a rumour at one point, hilariously the day I'd allegedly done it the school was closed due to snow and ice and I was on crutches having broken my ankle).

Now, you said she needed to make her accusations public with the aim in mind of getting a person in jail. This is THE definition of cancelling. Some one does something wrong so you need to publicly out them to shame them into complying, preferably with attached punishment

So, yes you are. What you asked for would lead to vigilante justice. What Anita did would just lead to women talking to each, making sure they keep each other safe from predators.

If you worried about these persons reputations, they were trashed well before Anita said something. Just because you have not been convicted does not mean you didn't do something wrong. See Rittenhouse as a good example of that
No I'm suggesting the claims need to be out there and be tested. If she truly believes they are valid claims they need to be out there. I'm sure unlike the person she helped do it to before though these guys would be able to take her to court to clear their name or pay for lawyers to defend them and the validity of the claims can play out in court.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
5,668
3,723
118
Country
United States
No I'm suggesting the claims need to be out there and be tested. If she truly believes they are valid claims they need to be out there. I'm sure unlike the person she helped do it to before though these guys would be able to take her to court to clear their name or pay for lawyers to defend them and the validity of the claims can play out in court.
So, yes, you believe whole heartedly in Cancel Culture and that anybody accused of anything unsavory has to prove their innocence in court. If Anita were wrong, you *definitely* wouldn't get mad at her for mentioning specific people
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,271
2,864
118
Country
United Kingdom
That's from A Night in the Woods correct?
You haven't heard what happened there and the cancellation of the next project / possible sequel?
I've just looked it up. I wasn't aware about the Alec Holowka thing at all.

The next project is going ahead, though, isn't it? The Glory Society posted a teaser in June last year.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,238
2,042
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
No I'm suggesting the claims need to be out there and be tested. If she truly believes they are valid claims they need to be out there. I'm sure unlike the person she helped do it to before though these guys would be able to take her to court to clear their name or pay for lawyers to defend them and the validity of the claims can play out in court.
I remember a time when discussing Rowling when you stated 'cancellers' were just making stuff up to hurt her. I provided about 10 videos of different people detailing for many hours why they dont like what Rowling said. You proceeded to say that theh were making stuff up

So, no. I don't think you are interested in testing anything. Just like this is just about you continuing your cancelling crusade against a person who should no longer be important. But you keep bringing her up, so you keep giving her free press.. over something that every women does. Protecting other women from predators
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,297
904
118
Country
United Kingdom
Also yes evidence will convict people. Actually forceful rape does leave evidence and marks and stuff that can be picked up by medical professionals as part of doing a rape kit.
Why the fuck would you do this?

Like, what broken part of your brain comes to a topic like this and thinks you have the slightest, tiniest right to just blurt whatever stupid thought comes into your head?

Any injury that could be sustained during rape could, hypothetically, have been sustained during consensual intercourse as well. You would have to accept that a person consented to having intercourse so forcefully that they would have been in horrendous physical pain, but when it comes to women a court will pretty much always accept that.

I have some personal knowledge as to the kind of injuries a court will accept as having been consensually inflicted during intercourse. It is truly, indescribably horrifying. It includes stuff which goes far beyond needing a rape kit and straight into needing immediate surgery.

I really do try not to get as mad on the internet as I used to. But seriously? This fucking topic? Just why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,053
555
118
So, yes, you believe whole heartedly in Cancel Culture and that anybody accused of anything unsavory has to prove their innocence in court. If Anita were wrong, you *definitely* wouldn't get mad at her for mentioning specific people
Well ideally you'd start by taking it to court and encouraging people to do that but the "Don't' trust the police, the system is biased against you" attitude rather has put pay to people even being willing to try.

I've just looked it up. I wasn't aware about the Alec Holowka thing at all.

The next project is going ahead, though, isn't it? The Glory Society posted a teaser in June last year.
The next project is but not A Night In the Woods 2, and Alec isn't playing any part in The Glory Society for obvious reasons.

I remember a time when discussing Rowling when you stated 'cancellers' were just making stuff up to hurt her. I provided about 10 videos of different people detailing for many hours why they dont like what Rowling said. You proceeded to say that theh were making stuff up

So, no. I don't think you are interested in testing anything. Just like this is just about you continuing your cancelling crusade against a person who should no longer be important. But you keep bringing her up, so you keep giving her free press.. over something that every women does. Protecting other women from predators
Yes because they were making stuff up or hugely misrepresenting what was said. It's the "Jordan Peterson literally advocated for creating a 4th Reich" bullshit all over again.

Also it's the woke world thread. Anita by her own admission was invited to some games industry events and really you think me a mook of this forum is keeping her popular and relevant enough to keep inviting? If that were true Liana K would be hosting E3 by now considering how many times I've reference her or posted her content.

You also assume in an unfortunately display of sexism I might add that the claims are honest and have validity to them and are not for example a person who can be proved to have lied and mislead about their claims accusing another person of abuse because I dunno they were bitter and wanted attention to try and boost their career and distract from a missing game, lack of updates and a missing $80K........
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,053
555
118
Why the fuck would you do this?

Like, what broken part of your brain comes to a topic like this and thinks you have the slightest, tiniest right to just blurt whatever stupid thought comes into your head?
The same right that regularly leads to you doing it.


Any injury that could be sustained during rape could, hypothetically, have been sustained during consensual intercourse as well. You would have to accept that a person consented to having intercourse so forcefully that they would have been in horrendous physical pain, but when it comes to women a court will pretty much always accept that.
Would have to be pretty damn dry and forceful to to cause some of the potential injuries that can be picked up. We're not talking rope marks and shit here or neck marks.

I have some personal knowledge as to the kind of injuries a court will accept as having been consensually inflicted during intercourse. It is truly, indescribably horrifying. It includes stuff which goes far beyond needing a rape kit and straight into needing immediate surgery.

I really do try not to get as mad on the internet as I used to. But seriously? This fucking topic? Just why?
See my point above.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,297
904
118
Country
United Kingdom
Would have to be pretty damn dry and forceful to to cause some of the potential injuries that can be picked up.
Mhhmm.

But it remains hypothetically possible that the injury could be inflicted during consensual intercourse. That is what a defence lawyer will argue, and short of some exceptional evidence to the contrary, that argument will win. There is virtually no physical "evidence" of rape that is ever going to hold up in court.

Again, I am actually personally familiar with one case where this has happened with an injury that was literally life threatening (in fact, an injury that ultimately ended up contributing to the death of the victim in that case). I am also familiar by reputation with at one case in which a person actually died of the injuries they received, and the person responsible escaped conviction by arguing it was consensual.

The degree of improbability that courts will accept in order to find a straight man innocent of rape is truly one of the most horrifying things I have personally ever encountered. The court system in most countries is currently not fit for purpose when it comes to delivering justice to victims of rape. It is a broken institution. There are some good people within the system who want to change things for the better. Currently, there is an ongoing inquiry in the UK examining the degree to which the court system has failed children in cases of abuse. One of my friends has actually given testimony to that inquiry. But frankly, it's been ridiculously slow, and there is still no reason for anyone to trust the system as it stands, because it fails almost everyone who goes through it.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,053
555
118
Mhhmm.

But it remains hypothetically possible that the injury could be inflicted during consensual intercourse. That is what a defence lawyer will argue, and short of some exceptional evidence to the contrary, that argument will win. There is virtually no physical "evidence" of rape that is ever going to hold up in court.
Not unless you're incredibly shit at sex would that argument really hold up.

The degree of improbability that courts will accept in order to find a straight man innocent of rape is truly one of the most horrifying things I have personally ever encountered. The court system in most countries is currently not fit for purpose when it comes to delivering justice to victims of rape. It is a broken institution. There are some good people within the system who want to change things for the better. Currently, there is an ongoing inquiry in the UK examining the degree to which the court system has failed children in cases of abuse. One of my friends has actually given testimony to that inquiry. But frankly, it's been ridiculously slow, and there is still no reason for anyone to trust the system as it stands, because it fails almost everyone who goes through it.
1) The court system is based on reasonable doubt for a reason.
2) I'd wager they're really not doing it to find a straight man innocent
3) Most of the changes I've seen pushed for are horrifying in terms of justice like the whole "You can't know the identity of your accuser until the day of the trial" thing that people were trying to get into law at one point.
4) Wasn't part of the system failings worrying about being accused of racism with certain cases being dropped for more political reasons than lack of evidence.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,912
533
118
Country
United States
I am going to fact-check the statistic that 73% of dictatorships are supported by the US which was made by a progressive org.


1642215385781.png

1642215398327.png

Let's see Russia is somewhere in between a dictatorship, and democracy, but leans more towards dictatorship. They have elections.

Rwanda is not a dictatorship.

Afghanistan pre-Taliban was an incomplete democracy same as Rwanda.

Somalia is not a dictatorship.

Libya's UN-recognized government is not a dictatorship.

Ethiopia is not a dictatorship.

Freedom House is full of it.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,065
5,441
118
Let's see Russia is somewhere in between a dictatorship, and democracy, but leans more towards dictatorship. They have elections.

Rwanda is not a dictatorship.

Afghanistan pre-Taliban was an incomplete democracy same as Rwanda.

Somalia is not a dictatorship.

Libya's UN-recognized government is not a dictatorship.

Ethiopia is not a dictatorship.
These are best borderline democracies, and at worst better characterised as dictatorships.

Holding elections doesn't necessarily mean much. It has long been a tactic of dictators to run hopelessly rigged elections, freqeuently where they are the sole candidate and the results are made up anyway. As you point out, Russia is a de facto dictatorship: but if it is, so is Rwanda. They have democratic frameworks, but elections which are "managed" in such as a way as to almost guarantee an outcome. Banning of opposition parties or the imprisonment / murder of key opposition figures, routine repression, poorly conducted elections.

Something like Ethiopia is more borderline, but it most definitely not a free and fair democracy: the Tigray War is to some degree an attempt at violent repression of the main opposition faction. Libya and pre-Taliban Afghanistan had turnouts too low (~20%) to really mean anything and more realistically could be viewed as rule by whoever has enough strength to rule. Libya, for instance, is a power-sharing between a barely elected faction and an unelected faction. No, it may not be a dictatorship per se, but it's not meaningfully a democracy either. Pre-Taliban Afghanistan was run by who the USA wanted to run it. Somalia's government I know effectively nothing about.

So my conclusion is that whilst these characterisations as dictatorships may not be precise, they are grey area justifiable.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
So my conclusion is that whilst these characterisations as dictatorships may not be precise, they are grey area justifiable.
But like, they kustUganda as a dictatorship in spite of elections, probably because there are reasons to question the validity of the elections that always keep the same guy in power for decades after he had term and age limits removed so he could stay president. Ok. But they have neither Bolivia nor Venezuela in the list, despite all the same logic applying. Being broad in what's considered a dictatorship is ok, but being inconsistent is not.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,065
5,441
118
But like, they kustUganda as a dictatorship in spite of elections, probably because there are reasons to question the validity of the elections that always keep the same guy in power for decades after he had term and age limits removed so he could stay president. Ok. But they have neither Bolivia nor Venezuela in the list, despite all the same logic applying. Being broad in what's considered a dictatorship is ok, but being inconsistent is not.
Bolivia has had elections almost univerally viewed as free and fair (enough) that there are no good grounds to dispute the democratic legitimacy of the president and ruling party. Morales earlier was voted in by clear majorities with a decent standard of electoral process so to make doubting his democratic mandate unreasonable. The closest it has come to dictatorship in the last 10 years was the dubious Jeanine Anez regime following the coup against Morales.

Venezuala is a grey area since the very problematic 2018 election; before then, Chavez and Maduro won free and fair (enough) elections and there is evidence despite all the chaos that Maduro retains substantial popular support. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt until the next election. This is in contrast to the above regimes which either have solid track records going back multiple elections of repression and fraud or, as Libya, are not meaningfully democratically-elected governments.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,484
695
118
Country
USA
This is in contrast to the above regimes which either have solid track records going back multiple elections of repression and fraud or, as Libya, are not meaningfully democratically-elected governments.
Nah, they're all nearly identical.