• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,444
How would the result have been any different had this not happened?

Starting to become clear isnt it?

Had they not said anything and he was confirmed:

"Dems are weak and spineless and don't even TRY to put up a fight. The least they could have done is show a little resistence even if they dont have the numbers. This is all the Dems fault."

or they fight it and:

"Dems and SJW's are at fault for his confirmation."

In exactly zero realities is this the headline however:

"Republicans are responsible for voting in this fucking monster."
 

SaviourMK2

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,711
CT
I don't need to go into a long winded argument or dish out a one liner as to why Bill is Maher is wrong.
Dr. Ford had brought up the sexual assault years before Trump, brought it up months before he was nominated and then he continued to lie to the committee and then proceeded to have a public bitch fit and threaten a political party with revenge killing his credibility as fair and balanced as well as destroying the argument of his temperament. None of this was going to stop those filthy red scum from voting for him because it would've sent a signal to their boss that they're weak and will lose re-election, which is all that matters to politicians (They have no real life skills so they gotta make money somehow).
To say this was a problem because SJW(or the correct term being "Morally upheld citizens")'s fault, is just a fucking excuse.
 

sph3re

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
8,414
Had they not said anything and he was confirmed:

"Dems are weak and spineless and don't even TRY to put up a fight. The least they could have done is show a little resistence even if they dont have the numbers. This is all the Dems fault."
"Dems were asking for it, if they never got into politics, this never would have happened"
 

tlhm94

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,025
User banned (Permanent): offensive and disingenuous comparisons between sexual assault and the paranormal + long history of dismissing and downplaying sexual misconduct
To give an example. If your wife tells you I have been robbed, you would believe her.
If your wife would tell you she has been raped... you would yell innocent until proven guilty at her? Not sure what you would do.

What I'd do is apply reasonable standards to deduce what happened and then draw conclusions, in that order. Go watch any Paranomral _____ show. There are loads of cases where women claim to have been raped by ghosts/demons. Should we take those claims as confirmed 'just because' too? You hurt the progressive aims when you replace reasoned conclusions with assumptions because any time a false positive comes up the other side gets to lean on it as "proof" women routinely make shit up.

You are confusing 'belief' with 'take seriously'. Maher never once suggests we ought not take these claims seriously. He in fact says precisely the polar opposite. We SHOULD take such claims seriously. That does NOT mean we should conclude the claim is true just to fall in line with the political correctness of the day. You can be skeptical about a claim without dismissing it.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
57,060
What I'd do is apply reasonable standards to deduce what happened and then draw conclusions, in that order. Go watch any Paranomral _____ show. There are loads of cases where women claim to have been raped by ghosts/demons. Should we take those claims as confirmed 'just because' too? You hurt the progressive aims when you replace reasoned conclusions with assumptions because any time a false positive comes up the other side gets to lean on it as "proof" women routinely make shit up.

You are confusing 'belief' with 'take seriously'. Maher never once suggests we ought not take these claims seriously. He in fact says precisely the polar opposite. We SHOULD take such claims seriously. That does NOT mean we should conclude the claim is true just to fall in line with the political correctness of the day. You can be skeptical about a claim without dismissing it.

When you have to go to absurd examples to even come close to making a point, you should know you don't really have a point to make

Believe women. Always. Statistics are on their side, too much so to ignore, and you don't have to condem the accused to do this. Also we NEED to push like this to push back against the toxic disbelief and general bullshit women are met with every damn time they come forward.
 
Last edited:

Arkeband

Banned
Nov 8, 2017
7,663
What I'd do is apply reasonable standards to deduce what happened and then draw conclusions, in that order. Go watch any Paranomral _____ show. There are loads of cases where women claim to have been raped by ghosts/demons. Should we take those claims as confirmed 'just because' too? You hurt the progressive aims when you replace reasoned conclusions with assumptions because any time a false positive comes up the other side gets to lean on it as "proof" women routinely make shit up.

You are confusing 'belief' with 'take seriously'. Maher never once suggests we ought not take these claims seriously. He in fact says precisely the polar opposite. We SHOULD take such claims seriously. That does NOT mean we should conclude the claim is true just to fall in line with the political correctness of the day. You can be skeptical about a claim without dismissing it.

Ghosts are the obvious reason why your example wouldn't be believed. Brett Kavanaugh is a real person, not the Loch Ness Monster.
 

Syder

The Moyes are Back in Town
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
12,543
Go watch any Paranomral _____ show. There are loads of cases where women claim to have been raped by ghosts/demons.
image0.gif
 

Jombie

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,392
What I'd do is apply reasonable standards to deduce what happened and then draw conclusions, in that order. Go watch any Paranomral _____ show. There are loads of cases where women claim to have been raped by ghosts/demons. Should we take those claims as confirmed 'just because' too? You hurt the progressive aims when you replace reasoned conclusions with assumptions because any time a false positive comes up the other side gets to lean on it as "proof" women routinely make shit up.

You are confusing 'belief' with 'take seriously'. Maher never once suggests we ought not take these claims seriously. He in fact says precisely the polar opposite. We SHOULD take such claims seriously. That does NOT mean we should conclude the claim is true just to fall in line with the political correctness of the day. You can be skeptical about a claim without dismissing it.

Whew.
 

Deleted member 19813

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,928
When you have to go to absurd examples to even come close to making a point, you should know you don't really have a point to make

Believe women. Always. Statistics are on their side, too much so to ignore, and you don't have to condem the accused to do this. Also we NEED to push like this to push back against the toxic disbelief and general bullshit women are met with every damn time they come forward.

If that was the case, I'd be a sex offender as an innocent man. Girl lied in college to get back at me and the truth came out. If that was the case, many African American males wouldn't be incarcerated and innocent. I believe statistics, but GTFO with that bullshit.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
57,060
If that was the case, I'd be a sex offender as an innocent man. Girl lied in college to get back at me and the truth came out. If that was the case, many African American males wouldn't be incarcerated and innocent. I believe statistics, but GTFO with that bullshit.

No you wouldn't because the truth came out.

It's not bullsht in the slightest, we need to actively believe women to push back against the tide of toxicity they get drowned in when they do come forward.

Doesn't mean condemning the accused.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,018
If that was the case, I'd be a sex offender as an innocent man. Girl lied in college to get back at me and the truth came out. If that was the case, many African American males wouldn't be incarcerated and innocent. I believe statistics, but GTFO with that bullshit.
The truth came out. You proved your innocence. What are you upset about exactly?
 

Deleted member 19813

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,928
No you wouldn't because the truth came out.

It's not bullsht in the slightest, we need to actively believe women to push back against the tide of toxicity they get drowned in when they do come forward.

Doesn't mean condemning the accused.

Truth came out with me losing a year of college credit, humility, anxiety, and the price of a $10,000 lawyer.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
57,060
Truth came out with me losing a year of college credit, humility, anxiety, and the price of a $10,000 lawyer.

Which would have happend either way right? You were accused, believe women or not you would have gone though these specific things you listed.

It's horrible rhat happened to you.
 

tlhm94

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,025
Why the fuck is everybody on the internet so bad at analogies? Christ, this is dumb.

In other words, you aren't comfortable answering the question as it forces you to address the faulty logic in that position.


When you have to go to absurd examples to even come close to making a point, you should know you don't really have a point to make

Believe women. Always. Statistics are on their side, too much so to ignore, and you don't have to condem the accused to do this. Also we NEED to push like this to push back against the toxic disbelief and general bullshit women are met with every damn time they come forward.

Taking arguments to their absurd ends is an important part of analyzing arguments. Toxic disbelief is not fixed by presumptuous belief as the de factor. And 'always' does not belong in the same statement as 'statistics'. Belief is where you get when you arrive at a conclusion, i.e. you END there. Ya don't start from the conclusion. Where did Maher 'condemn' any victim or proclaimed victim? He never has done this. He doesn't like the term 'believe' being co-opted to mean something else because he is sensitive to its actual meaning and where the term sits within epistemology. That doesn't magically mean he is anti-victim or somehow doesn't wanna take them seriously. He does. Explicitly so.

If ya wanna push back against that disbelief, that's great and def the right thing to do. But there are intelligent ways to go about it where ya don't end up alienating demographics in the middle who might otherwise be receptive to your position. You have to be able to counter what the alt-right puts out there and unmask it without pushing everyone else away.

Nothing good happens from boiling away potential support.
 

bigmit37

Member
Oct 27, 2017
393
Florida
Terrible headline. Literally the first sentence in the article is acknowledging him being critical of the republicans. It's Maher critiquing 'social justice warriors' for the 80th time but saying he is "blaming" them for Kavanaugh is nonsense.


I watched the eposide yesterday, while he did metion SJW being a problem, he isn't blaming them for Kavanaugh.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
57,060

Persephone

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,457
What I'd do is apply reasonable standards to deduce what happened and then draw conclusions, in that order. Go watch any Paranomral _____ show. There are loads of cases where women claim to have been raped by ghosts/demons. Should we take those claims as confirmed 'just because' too? You hurt the progressive aims when you replace reasoned conclusions with assumptions because any time a false positive comes up the other side gets to lean on it as "proof" women routinely make shit up.

You are confusing 'belief' with 'take seriously'. Maher never once suggests we ought not take these claims seriously. He in fact says precisely the polar opposite. We SHOULD take such claims seriously. That does NOT mean we should conclude the claim is true just to fall in line with the political correctness of the day. You can be skeptical about a claim without dismissing it.

careful man, if you bend any further backwards you'll break your spine
 

Aselith

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,429
He's not wrong in a way. It seems like there are so many things that conservatives seem to support just to "drink librul tears."

Edit: I also think he's got it right (though he could have worded it better) when he mentions that we should be listening to survivors of alleged sexual assult. I disagree with the notion that everyone is to be automatically believed.

Ok so what would have changed if there wasn't a probe into the rape accusations? Republicans would have just said, "yeah this guy sucks!" unprompted? I'm confused.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 19813

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,928

tlhm94

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,025
OK, so like, this is not a court room. When people say believe women, they're not talking about legal due process.

You get that, right?

Is this the standard now? Let's ignore evidence in favor of presumptuous emotional reactions 'just because'? That is not helpful. We live in the real world and should acknowledge as much by being intellectually honest and that means following the evidence. In the case of sexual assault, many times there is no evidence but we can still try to find the most probable scenario from those on offer. For instance, there is no direct evidence that Dr. Ford's claim is true. There is a tiny amount of circumstantial evidence and when viewed through the lens of probability, that circumstantial evidence becomes somewhat powerful in her favor.

That's why credibility should matter so much here, and there is likewise loads of aspects of her story, the way she told it, the way it got out, the timeline of it coming to light, etc. that all suggests (1) she has absolutely no reason to have made this up; (2) she has every reason to have not made it up; (3) she is making claims that, if politically motivated, require her to know Trump would choose Kavanaugh against all odds and years in advance; (4) and that she would somehow know who was partying with Kavanaugh that night despite having no access to that information herself. All of these things, in addition to the over the top reaction by Kavanaugh and the mounting evidence of the type of guy he was back then adding corroboration to the accusation(s), all of it points to her story being much more likely to be true than his denial. That is a conclusion we can thoughtfully arrive at without assuming much of anything at the outset.

Notice how we can take her claims seriously and view their critically and skeptically without dismissing them. We can probe her account to see if there is political motivation without dismissing said account, and as a result arrive at a reasoned conclusion. We can accept that we don't know for sure if she is telling the truth but still conclude that it is astronomically improbable that she is lying while simultaneously (and separately) conclude that it is rather probable that Kavanaugh is lying. This kinda thoughtful, scientific approach to investigating these claims is what we SHOULD be doing. Not stupid gut reactions and hot takes that we let simmer and overwhelm rational conclusions.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,018
In other words, you aren't comfortable answering the question as it forces you to address the faulty logic in that position.




Taking arguments to their absurd ends is an important part of analyzing arguments. Toxic disbelief is not fixed by presumptuous belief as the de factor. And 'always' does not belong in the same statement as 'statistics'. Belief is where you get when you arrive at a conclusion, i.e. you END there. Ya don't start from the conclusion. Where did Maher 'condemn' any victim or proclaimed victim? He never has done this. He doesn't like the term 'believe' being co-opted to mean something else because he is sensitive to its actual meaning and where the term sits within epistemology. That doesn't magically mean he is anti-victim or somehow doesn't wanna take them seriously. He does. Explicitly so.

If ya wanna push back against that disbelief, that's great and def the right thing to do. But there are intelligent ways to go about it where ya don't end up alienating demographics in the middle who might otherwise be receptive to your position. You have to be able to counter what the alt-right puts out there and unmask it without pushing everyone else away.

Nothing good happens from boiling away potential support.

You think comparing Brett Kavanaugh to a ghost in your rape accusation analogy was an important and necessary step in your argumentation.

I have to admit, I'm at a loss.
 

Verano

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
975
well he is right for one thing...ruining dinner for conservatives and their families didnt do jack shit other than make the protesters look petty and stupid.
I do appreciate Discord, and ResetEra promoting voter registration cuz ruining peoples dinners isnt going to vote them or the regime out, voting does.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,018
Is this the standard now? Let's ignore evidence in favor of presumptuous emotional reactions 'just because'? That is not helpful. We live in the real world and should acknowledge as much by being intellectually honest and that means following the evidence. In the case of sexual assault, many times there is no evidence but we can still try to find the most probable scenario from those on offer. For instance, there is no direct evidence that Dr. Ford's claim is true. There is a tiny amount of circumstantial evidence and when viewed through the lens of probability, that circumstantial evidence becomes somewhat powerful in her favor.

That's why credibility should matter so much here, and there is likewise loads of aspects of her story, the way she told it, the way it got out, the timeline of it coming to light, etc. that all suggests (1) she has absolutely no reason to have made this up; (2) she has every reason to have not made it up; (3) she is making claims that, if politically motivated, require her to know Trump would choose Kavanaugh against all odds and years in advance; (4) and that she would somehow know who was partying with Kavanaugh that night despite having no access to that information herself. All of these things, in addition to the over the top reaction by Kavanaugh and the mounting evidence of the type of guy he was back then adding corroboration to the accusation(s), all of it points to her story being much more likely to be true than his denial. That is a conclusion we can thoughtfully arrive at without assuming much of anything at the outset.

Notice how we can take her claims seriously and view their critically and skeptically without dismissing them. We can probe her account to see if there is political motivation without dismissing said account, and as a result arrive at a reasoned conclusion. We can accept that we don't know for sure if she is telling the truth but still conclude that it is astronomically improbable that she is lying while simultaneously (and separately) conclude that it is rather probable that Kavanaugh is lying. This kinda thoughtful, scientific approach to investigating these claims is what we SHOULD be doing. Not stupid gut reactions and hot takes that we let simmer and overwhelm rational conclusions.

There is an extremely statistically low probability that an assault victim would be lying and a statistically high probability that they will be publicly demonized for making the claim whether lying or truthful. There is less harm done overall in believing them than not. Evidence is for court proceedings, not job interviews. Brett Kavanaugh was never on trial.
 

BadAss2961

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,069
Like half these Bill Maher threads are taken out of context. People here take the bait, then prove his point about 'snowflake' liberals with their overreaction.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
57,060
Like half these Bill Maher threads are taken out of context. People here take the bait, then prove his point about 'snowflake' liberals with their overreaction.

Except Bill's history is full of relevant examples, so while this may not be a prime example of his bigotry and support of bigotry he is already a piece of shit who is in no way an ally.

So ultimately we arrive at the same conclusion: fuck Maher!
 

tlhm94

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,025
There is an extremely statistically low probability that an assault victim would be lying and a statistically high probability that they will be publicly demonized for making the claim whether lying or truthful. There is less harm done overall in believing them than not. Evidence is for court proceedings, not job interviews. Brett Kavanaugh was never on trial.

Go read up on Bayesian probability vs. Frequentist probability. For establishing 'what most likely happened' you wanna use the former, not the latter. In other words, ya don't wanna lean on the argument that 'X% of the time women make this stuff up and X is a small number' because there is nothing impossible about it nevertheless being made up. That's a backwards approach where you start by assuming that since it is unlikely at the outset therefore it must be unlikely even in the presence of constructive evidence. That's the same misunderstanding that 'Intelligent' Design advocates fall victim to when telling us how improbable it is that humans could have evolved. Yes...it is incredibly improbable when you apply the wrong form of statistical analysis that can't accommodate how new info changes things. Alas, conditional probability is a thing and as new info comes in you MUST be able to update your probability estimate to account for it. In a scenario where someone did make up claims, you'd have no way of knowing it if you just believed them by default at the outset. That isn't helpful as it exposes the movement to obvious weaknesses that it otherwise would not have, and for no apparent gain.

And we do not need to put anyone on trial to apply rational thinking. If you are passionate enough about a topic to get upset and post here then one imagines you are invested enough to bother getting it right.

Also, my analogy did not compare Kavanaugh to a ghost. It had nothing to do with Brett Kavanaugh, in fact. It was about the assertion that we should believe these claims uncritically and without thought as a matter of course. Applying that standard to the women who have come to sincerely believe demons are raping them as they sleep at night shows that the standard is stupid and would lead to obvious false positives that intelligent analysis would uncover immediately.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
50,111
what if the democrats created a species of brain parasites who take over republicans and all the bad things republicans ever did were done by the democrats using brain parasites
 

Aselith

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,429
I'm not sure which thought you are addressing but you have confused me as well.

The poster and Maher are claiming that "SJWs" caused Republicans to become more ingrained into their position which is obvious bullshit. Republicans were always going to vote this way.

It's a dumb fucking blame game that's the party trying to eat itself.
 

tlhm94

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,025
The poster and Maher are claiming that "SJWs" caused Republicans to become more ingrained into their position which is obvious bullshit. Republicans were always going to vote this way.

It's a dumb fucking blame game that's the party trying to eat itself.

He feels the left has a responsibility to figure out how to win again and SJW's are making that harder to do. The reason winning matters is because he presumes we all agree the GOP is the villain so we don't need to spend much time re-establishing what we already understand to be the case. That is NOT the same thing as blaming the SJW's for what happened.

Saying 'X is responsible for Y' is not the same thing as saying 'X is to blame for Y' or 'Y is the fault of X'. If a toddler knocks over a pricey item at a store and it breaks, that is not the fault of the parents and they ought not be blamed for it. The kid is at fault and deserves the blame as they took the action, even if the kid had good intentions doing whatever they did when the item broke. Nevertheless, as the caretaker of the kid, the parents have the responsibility to pay for the damages.
 
Jan 10, 2018
6,327
A very reasonable Paranormal Activity watcher in here.

Gotta admit, I did not see that one coming. Now excuse me, gotta laugh at the madness displayed.
 

tlhm94

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,025
A very reasonable Paranormal Activity watcher in here.

Gotta admit, I did not see that one coming. Now excuse me, gotta laugh at the madness displayed.

Ha. My gf and I watch some Paranormal ______ show on Netflix when we go to sleep. It's legitimately amusing how dumb ppl on the show are and how poorly produced it is. I can't even recall the full name of the show atm, but it's pretty fun to watch.

EDIT: Just checked and it's called Paranormal Survivor actually.
 

Krauser Kat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,706
Go read up on Bayesian probability vs. Frequentist probability. For establishing 'what most likely happened' you wanna use the former, not the latter. In other words, ya don't wanna lean on the argument that 'X% of the time women make this stuff up and X is a small number' because there is nothing impossible about it nevertheless being made up. That's a backwards approach where you start by assuming that since it is unlikely at the outset therefore it must be unlikely even in the presence of constructive evidence. That's the same misunderstanding that 'Intelligent' Design advocates fall victim to when telling us how improbable it is that humans could have evolved. Yes...it is incredibly improbable when you apply the wrong form of statistical analysis that can't accommodate how new info changes things. Alas, conditional probability is a thing and as new info comes in you MUST be able to update your probability estimate to account for it. In a scenario where someone did make up claims, you'd have no way of knowing it if you just believed them by default at the outset. That isn't helpful as it exposes the movement to obvious weaknesses that it otherwise would not have, and for no apparent gain.

And we do not need to put anyone on trial to apply rational thinking. If you are passionate enough about a topic to get upset and post here then one imagines you are invested enough to bother getting it right.

Also, my analogy did not compare Kavanaugh to a ghost. It had nothing to do with Brett Kavanaugh, in fact. It was about the assertion that we should believe these claims uncritically and without thought as a matter of course. Applying that standard to the women who have come to sincerely believe demons are raping them as they sleep at night shows that the standard is stupid and would lead to obvious false positives that intelligent analysis would uncover immediately.

Humans are not rational creatures. If there is a 1% chance she could be lying many believe the chance is now 100% the statement is there to push back against this.

There are over 320,000 victims of sexual assault every year and 90% of them are women, only 20-30% of them ever bring their claims to police and 90% of those will never see a courtroom or a jail. Our society forces women to live with their abusers, EVERYDAY.

I dont know about you but that is shitty fucking deal so if "believe women" scares the shit out of men it should because there needs to be some device in our society to even this out and this is at least the first step. We have more stop gaps in our justice system to keep the most of the innocent men from being hurt but nothing for women.
 

flkRaven

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,236
When you have to go to absurd examples to even come close to making a point, you should know you don't really have a point to make

Believe women. Always. Statistics are on their side, too much so to ignore, and you don't have to condem the accused to do this. Also we NEED to push like this to push back against the toxic disbelief and general bullshit women are met with every damn time they come forward.

Listen to women, always.
Take these accusations seriously, always.
Investigate these accounts, always.

The idea that any one group of people is automatically believed regardless is insane.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
57,060
Listen to women, always.
Take these accusations seriously, always.
Investigate these accounts, always.

The idea that any one group of people is automatically believed regardless is insane.

No, as reasoned above you should believe them always.

Stats on their side, too heavily so to ignore.
The toxic shit the have to deal with, tides of it, every time they come forward
The fact you do not have to condemn the accused to do this.
 

Aselith

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,429
He feels the left has a responsibility to figure out how to win again and SJW's are making that harder to do. The reason winning matters is because he presumes we all agree the GOP is the villain so we don't need to spend much time re-establishing what we already understand to be the case. That is NOT the same thing as blaming the SJW's for what happened.

Saying 'X is responsible for Y' is not the same thing as saying 'X is to blame for Y' or 'Y is the fault of X'. If a toddler knocks over a pricey item at a store and it breaks, that is not the fault of the parents and they ought not be blamed for it. The kid is at fault and deserves the blame as they took the action, even if the kid had good intentions doing whatever they did when the item broke. Nevertheless, as the caretaker of the kid, the parents have the responsibility to pay for the damages.

The social justice aspect is the way for the left to win. Thats why the Repubs had to do so much work around social justice here. People do care about this stuff. Mostly what has been holding Democrats back is being too wishy washy around social justice to try to appeal to right leaning voters.

The most popular Democratic candidates are the ones willing to go all in on social justice issues.
 

MrBadger

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,552
It's wonderful what kind of world we live in. Kavanaugh should have failed and the world should have seen an angry privileged male get denied something he wants because of his terrible actions and personality. But instead, he's getting everything he feels he's owed while Americans chug beers in celebration, and he'll be used as an example of "crazy SJWs" every time a woman feels like they can publicly accuse a powerful man who wronged her.