[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago

Look who’s excited for a center left party!

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago

Glad to see my team (Eagles) improved from middle of the road (14/32) to a top-tier team (4/32) for players

54
submitted 3 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago

I’m going to copy and paste my reply from elsewhere:

Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.

Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?

Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?

[-] [email protected] -2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.

Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?

Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Executive actions and orders are not laws.

And any law is subject to the constitution. If I write a law that says “all Japanese people must be sent to internment camps,” a court should intervene and say “no, that’s not legal.”

[-] [email protected] 14 points 4 hours ago

I doubt many of the employees making these decisions are even Redditors

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

How dare you insult the greatest American tradition?!

[-] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

E day is not Inauguration Day

[-] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago

They’re always so vocal on the posts about Biden not being a perfect saint and weirdly absent on these

[-] [email protected] 17 points 10 hours ago

Just to be clear, I didn’t mean to insinuate that. Posting this more as a “look how shitty our world is” than a “yay, good reforms!” kinda post.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I rely on 30+ sources. I do not work for any of them, although I (edit: pay to) subscribe to 3 or 4 (edit: NyTimes, WaPo, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Wired, if anyone cares). Every weekday, I ensure ProPublica’s work gets posted somewhere on Lemmy, that’s probably the only one I never skip.

I don’t alter site headlines and can’t force any outlet to write a better article. The news here is that Boebert said a racist thing. The low-quality journalism thing where they do the “what does twitter have to say about this?” isn’t really important.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago

You mean like hoods executive order that was blocked by courts? I’m not saying he’s the biggest trans ally but saying he’s done almost nothing is unfair imo

462
submitted 20 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
169
submitted 20 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
158
submitted 21 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
251
submitted 21 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
176
submitted 21 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
144
submitted 21 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
221
submitted 21 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
174
submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
416
submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
248
submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
244
submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
view more: next ›

jeffw

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF