OPEN BAR: Now endorsed by Foodbabe!

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

NLDM, I get the impression that you just arent thinking enough about The Children (a.k.a. our future btw) and are likely insufficiently committed to sparkle motion as well.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I've learned that tolerating things people didn't actually even do means that my tolerance isn't zero enough.

This is not the first time I've struggled with too high a tolerance.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I just scored my rape apologist badge for calling out a guy in the FB Occupy PDX group who dropped dox he hadn't vetted in any way, or even attempted to understand. He posted dude's entry on the sex offender registry (solicitation of a minor), and then another 68 pages of rap sheet from another state.

Thing is, the 68 page rap sheet included offenses dude somehow committed in North Carolina while simultaneously incarcerated in Florida, including a truancy charge from 2009 (when dude was in his 40's), and indecent liberties with a minor from the 80's (when dude, himself, was a minor). Mixed in among these, were several assault on a woman charges.

At first I was the only one questioning the OP. This illustrated how I was contributing to #RapeCulture, according to him, and was a full-blown rape apologist according to several others. The idea that kept getting pushed on me is that since rapists violate the dignity of their victims (again...solicitation of a minor), being extra careful before dropping dox on someone on the registry is not zero-tolerance enough.

Then other people found the glaring discrepancies above, and when they started getting pointed out, OP's response was "WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING A CHILD FUCKER." And that since he probably fucked other minors than the one he was arrested for soliciting in a chatroom sting, there was no real violation in also exposing the multiple assaults on women (that he hadn't committed).

I...there's a thing here...and it's not a good thing.

You seriously, seriously should read "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) because the authors spend a chapter on the mental set of people who have made false accusations. It quite nicely covers the mental gymnastics that police, prosecutors, judges, and jurors will go through to justify why it's actually OK when someone goes to prison for something that it is later proven they didn't do. I think that this guy is probably a good case study of this effect.

[hooplala]

The human mind can be fucking frightening.

[Doktor Howl]

I just scored my rape apologist badge for calling out a guy in the FB Occupy PDX group who dropped dox he hadn't vetted in any way, or even attempted to understand. He posted dude's entry on the sex offender registry (solicitation of a minor), and then another 68 pages of rap sheet from another state.

Thing is, the 68 page rap sheet included offenses dude somehow committed in North Carolina while simultaneously incarcerated in Florida, including a truancy charge from 2009 (when dude was in his 40's), and indecent liberties with a minor from the 80's (when dude, himself, was a minor). Mixed in among these, were several assault on a woman charges.

At first I was the only one questioning the OP. This illustrated how I was contributing to #RapeCulture, according to him, and was a full-blown rape apologist according to several others. The idea that kept getting pushed on me is that since rapists violate the dignity of their victims (again...solicitation of a minor), being extra careful before dropping dox on someone on the registry is not zero-tolerance enough.

Then other people found the glaring discrepancies above, and when they started getting pointed out, OP's response was "WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING A CHILD FUCKER." And that since he probably fucked other minors than the one he was arrested for soliciting in a chatroom sting, there was no real violation in also exposing the multiple assaults on women (that he hadn't committed).

I...there's a thing here...and it's not a good thing.

You seriously, seriously should read "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) because the authors spend a chapter on the mental set of people who have made false accusations. It quite nicely covers the mental gymnastics that police, prosecutors, judges, and jurors will go through to justify why it's actually OK when someone goes to prison for something that it is later proven they didn't do. I think that this guy is probably a good case study of this effect.

Sounds related to the mentality that says police murdering people is okay because here's a pic of them smoking pot or behaving in similar "thug" fashion. 

[Doktor Howl]

I've learned that tolerating things people didn't actually even do means that my tolerance isn't zero enough.

This is not the first time I've struggled with too high a tolerance.

You can't argue with fanatics.

Do you remember Khara, and her insistence that allowing accused child molestors a jury trial was the same as condoning child rape?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've learned that tolerating things people didn't actually even do means that my tolerance isn't zero enough.

This is not the first time I've struggled with too high a tolerance.

You can't argue with fanatics.

Do you remember Khara, and her insistence that allowing accused child molestors a jury trial was the same as condoning child rape?

I actually forgot about that. Her perspective was that if they're accused, they're guilty, period, and deserved to be executed summarily.

It would be a terrifying world in which accusation alone could result in execution. It would also be a world in which far fewer children who need help would seek it, because for most children having their parent taken away and killed is a far more terrifying and traumatizing prospect than living with being abused.

[Doktor Howl]

I've learned that tolerating things people didn't actually even do means that my tolerance isn't zero enough.

This is not the first time I've struggled with too high a tolerance.

You can't argue with fanatics.

Do you remember Khara, and her insistence that allowing accused child molestors a jury trial was the same as condoning child rape?

I actually forgot about that. Her perspective was that if they're accused, they're guilty, period, and deserved to be executed summarily.

It would be a terrifying world in which accusation alone could result in execution. It would also be a world in which far fewer children who need help would seek it, because for most children having their parent taken away and killed is a far more terrifying and traumatizing prospect than living with being abused.

Oh. absolutely.  I'm just looking at it from a principle POV.  You're innocent until proven guilty, and an incompetent vigilante is an abomination.

Sort of recent example:  A fucking "investigative" reporter who doesn't understand how reenlistments work.

A less recent example:  My legal issues in 2005, where I actually turned down a jury trial because the evidence was on my side.  My lawyer had counseled a bench trial for that reason, whereas if the evidence points at you, you go for a jury.

We have a legal system for a reason.  Khara and the people NLDM was talking to are not an acceptable substitute even if they're right, no matter how self-righteous they feel.  The more heinous an accusation, the MORE important it is that a fair trial be held, whether it be a bench trial or a jury trial.

[Don Coyote]

Sort of recent example:  A fucking "investigative" reporter who doesn't understand how reenlistments work.

Que?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've learned that tolerating things people didn't actually even do means that my tolerance isn't zero enough.

This is not the first time I've struggled with too high a tolerance.

You can't argue with fanatics.

Do you remember Khara, and her insistence that allowing accused child molestors a jury trial was the same as condoning child rape?

I actually forgot about that. Her perspective was that if they're accused, they're guilty, period, and deserved to be executed summarily.

It would be a terrifying world in which accusation alone could result in execution. It would also be a world in which far fewer children who need help would seek it, because for most children having their parent taken away and killed is a far more terrifying and traumatizing prospect than living with being abused.

Oh. absolutely.  I'm just looking at it from a principle POV.  You're innocent until proven guilty, and an incompetent vigilante is an abomination.

Sort of recent example:  A fucking "investigative" reporter who doesn't understand how reenlistments work.

A less recent example:  My legal issues in 2005, where I actually turned down a jury trial because the evidence was on my side.  My lawyer had counseled a bench trial for that reason, whereas if the evidence points at you, you go for a jury.

We have a legal system for a reason.  Khara and the people NLDM was talking to are not an acceptable substitute even if they're right, no matter how self-righteous they feel.  The more heinous an accusation, the MORE important it is that a fair trial be held, whether it be a bench trial or a jury trial.

Absofuckinglutely.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sort of recent example:  A fucking "investigative" reporter who doesn't understand how reenlistments work.

Que?

Rather painful water under the bridge, involving false accusations against my father regarding his military record.

[Don Coyote]

Sort of recent example:  A fucking "investigative" reporter who doesn't understand how reenlistments work.

Que?

Rather painful water under the bridge, involving false accusations against my father regarding his military record.

Oh. I remember that.

[rong]

Hey, I know it wasnt in this thread, but thanks everybody for all the links on humor analysis.  I look forward to reading them when I go back on midnights.

Also, someone is in jail tonight because of me tonight... Never called the cops on anyone before...

The story - got the kids off the bus.  Bus driver says, 'there's a guy down the road stuck in a snowbank, looks like he needs help.  I think he's drunk'

So I go try to pull him out.

He doesn't want help, but I don't want to be responsible for him freezing to death - its fucking cold and windy.

Neighbor shows up to help. 

Guy pulls knife on neighbor.

We leave.  I call cops.

[Cain]

I've learned that tolerating things people didn't actually even do means that my tolerance isn't zero enough.

This is not the first time I've struggled with too high a tolerance.

You can't argue with fanatics.

Do you remember Khara, and her insistence that allowing accused child molestors a jury trial was the same as condoning child rape?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, I know it wasnt in this thread, but thanks everybody for all the links on humor analysis.  I look forward to reading them when I go back on midnights.

Also, someone is in jail tonight because of me tonight... Never called the cops on anyone before...

The story - got the kids off the bus.  Bus driver says, 'there's a guy down the road stuck in a snowbank, looks like he needs help.  I think he's drunk'

So I go try to pull him out.

He doesn't want help, but I don't want to be responsible for him freezing to death - its fucking cold and windy.

Neighbor shows up to help. 

Guy pulls knife on neighbor.

We leave.  I call cops.

You did the right thing.