Noteworthy News

[Irreligious Atheist]

Another word wall of endlessly whining by IA. Get over yourself already.

Is there a point to your posts? Isn't this a discussion forum? Isn't endlessly posting memes and five word responses with no real content supposed to be considered spam according to the rules? I post arguments and stick to the rules and behave myself and try to make things easier for the moderators. You show up to troll and meme like this is 4chan. Whenever there is a confrontation with insults and flaming or a thread going off topic, 95 percent of the time it's the other person doing it, not me. I'm a good boy. And I know the mods are going to say, just report it, but I would never do that because those are not my principles, and none of this behaviour bothers me, so don't think I'm turning all pro-censorship all of a sudden. Just pointing out how funny it is that someone thinks I'm the one causing trouble when I actually follow the rules and just get flamed out of the blue 95 percent of the time with no provocation.

And I like how you are defending this particular moderator when they go around calling you a racist for talking about coloured people.

[The Architect Of Fate]

[The Architect Of Fate]

Daylight Bank Robbery in Sannich British Columbia. Two suspects were killed and six officers injured in a shoot-out .

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/2-sus...-1.5966693

Six police officers are in hospital with gunshot wounds and two suspects have been killed following a shooting at a bank in Saanich, B.C., on Tuesday.

Multiple officers from Saanich Police, Victoria Police, and the Greater Victoria Emergency Response Team (GVERT) responded to the report of armed suspects at a bank in the 3600 block of Shelbourne Street around 11 a.m. PDT.
When officers arrived, the two armed suspects began firing at police, according to a joint statement from the Saanich and Victoria police departments.

"Two suspects were shot by police and died at the scene," said police.

Update on this story the two robbers who were shot have been identified as a pair of twin brothers named Matthew and Isaac Auchterlonie. Also, police had to dispose of a number of explosive devices in a vehicle associated with the suspects.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...-1.6508827

[Thumpalumpacus]

Update on this story the two robbers who were shot have been identified as a pair of twin brothers named Matthew and Isaac Auchterlonie. Also, police had to dispose of a number of explosive devices in a vehicle associated with the suspects.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...-1.6508827

[Bolding added -- Thump]

Makes me wonder if they were robbing the bank to finance another attack using those explosives.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Update on this story the two robbers who were shot have been identified as a pair of twin brothers named Matthew and Isaac Auchterlonie. Also, police had to dispose of a number of explosive devices in a vehicle associated with the suspects.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...-1.6508827

[Bolding added -- Thump]

Makes me wonder if they were robbing the bank to finance another attack using those explosives.

Makes sense as these guys don't seem like typical robbers as they were willing to get into a shootout with the cops. They had bigger goals if you ask me.

[Pat Mustard]

Honestly, what I want to know is are Amber’s defenders enough of a majority to constitute a consensus in the mainstream media? I do remember that during the trial, there were quite a few defenders with quite a few dubious arguments and they were mainstream enough that Firefox’ little startup menu with news stories recommended an article from the Cut asking “Why Do So Many People Think Amber Heard is lying?” I went down a rabbit hole of anti-Depp editorials with some dubious claims, things like Jezebel denying that reciprocal abuse is a thing; Vox talking about the misinformation campaign led by the Daily Wire to spread false Anti-Heard content, leading people on Twitter treating the whole movement as just another right-wing disinformation campaign (because it’s totally Benny-Boy’s fault Amber Heard got repeatedly caught in lies); at least one article that denied the validity of Heard’s diagnosis of Histrionic Persoanlity Disorder and went as far as drawing a fake etymological relationship between that and medical term with known misogynistic history hysteria (the origin of “histrionic” lies in the Latin word ‘histrio’ meaning “actor”, not the Greek ‘husterikós’ which means “suffering in the womb”); and several articles that basically amounted to tone policing, which is fair enough given how ghoulish the Pro-Depp faction online could get in turning an understandable backlash against Heard into full-on misogyny, but a bit less so when it talked about how people disbelieving Amber Heard could make women feel less safe about talking about their abuse.

Frankly, what I think is happening is less the mainstream media pushing a narrative and more some feminists pushing a narrative, it’s worth noting that things slowed down quite a bit a few days after the verdict, and the talk about the trial had shifted to being very pro-Depp, with some exceptions. I think that those exceptions were more motivated by what I’d call The Noble Lie. In this case, that women don’t lie about this sort of thing or if they do, it’s at an astronomically small rate. Most women don’t lie about it, for sure, but some do. But to them, acknowledging the small percentage that actually do could put the larger movement in jeopardy. I don’t think it should, of course. Even if the rate of false accusers is as high as 10% (I haven’t found stats about rates of false Domestic Abuse accusations, but if they’re like the stats for sexual assault, it’s probably closer to 5%, and as a certain boy genius once said, 95% is still an A), that still means they’re far more likely to be telling the truth than not), but evidently, an all or nothing approach is common enough that some people still ran defense for Amber Heard even after her story kept falling apart. I agree with the majority of feminist thought I read, but supporting the Noble Lie, even when the woman in question’s story is falling apart, is a line I refuse to cross. Why? Because being accused of something heinous when the evidence suggests you didn’t do it really fucking sucks. It sucks if you’re being accused of falsely accusing a man of heinous shit when you’re not, and it sucks if you’re on the other side of the equation and the evidence suggests you’re innocent.



“No one’s interested in something you didn’t do.”

There were two court cases involving Amber Heard and the wife beater. The one in the UK upheld the rule of law and returned a ruling accordingly. The one in the US upheld the rulr of misogyny and ruled accordingly.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Females taking part in online political discussions are unicorns for the most part. There may not be many active posters either way, but I'd bet the number of people who sign up are over 80 percent men. The viewership on political channels on youtube and most podcasts usually sways about 90 percent male. No matter the number of female or male admins, my position remains that this person being female heavily influenced them getting the position. Females in forums like this are "special". Kind of like male ballet dancers. Being male is going to help hugely if you're a ballet dancer, because there are so few of you. I'm not being sexist here either. I've seen some pretty brilliant posts from women on here, so lets not turn this into a me being sexist thing.

I agree with most of your post, Boru, but I certainly was banned for stating an opinion.

You're still going on about your rape apology claims? Why am I bringing up sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests if I am such a big fan of rape? The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Kobe Bryant was not guilty, and in the absence of evidence, you shouldn't be locking up black men who are overwhelmingly likely to be innocent. There are already far too many of them locked up. By the way, in this post I'm not putting down the accuser at all, so don't ban me again. The accuser is lovely and beautiful and brave.

I was banned 30 days for this post, in which I absolutely did not apologize for any rape. What rape are we talking about first of all? We don't know that any rape happened. Nowhere in that post did I say Kobe should not have been held accountable if the evidence showed he did it. I merely stated I believed he was not guilty, which, hopefully now, you can see is why I was confused about whether or not I was allowed to talk about Amber Heard, because it's the EXACT situation I was banned for. Questioning a victims' story. And for the record, the Kobe Bryant situation that I was banned for talking about is actually far worse of an accusation than the Johnny Depp one, because Kobe could have actually gone to jail for years, while Amber's goal wasn't to have a criminal trial or put Johnny behind bars.

It's not my fault your rules are extremely iffy and grey and hard to understand. Are we allowed to criticize accusers and say we disbelieve them, or are we not? Is your rape apology rule supposed to apply only to victims who we can confirm were raped, or does it apply to all accusers regardless of evidence? If the rule doesn't protect Amber Heard from being criticized, why was I banned for simply saying I don't believe someone? A sarcastic comment about someone being lovely and brave is ban worthy to you? Will I get banned right now if I call Amber Heard brave and lovely? No? Hmmm. Oh well. I've made my point, and your rules are murky as hell and need better defining.

Anyways, I appreciate that you are not backing AWTY by default on her false accusations against me, and you earn respect for that. As you can see, since my posts in the last few pages, she has already threatened me again 3 times with disciplinary action if I carry on with my current conduct, but isn't that funny, because she literally insults me, breaking the forum rules herself over and over, by calling me a twit or a moron every time she responds to me with no provocation from me in advance. I understand though. Rules for thee. Not for me. I would never expect an administrator to be held to account for their forum breaking rules by another administrator, and I'm just happy that AWTY stopped making those SA accusations after she got embarrassed to find out that no one else was going along with her ploy to discredit people she disagrees with politically.

I'm backing awty on one thing - this isn't the proper forum to air your grievances against staff.

Boru

[Irreligious Atheist]

Well, I responded to you here because this is the thread you responded to me in, falsely claiming that I was never banned for merely stating an opinion, and I just wanted to provide evidence to the contrary. And AWTY said I violated the call out rule or something like that, so you two seem to be in disagreement about what the rules actually are on the forum. You told me I broke no rules recently.

I understand you don't want to air AWTY out publicly for all to see and embarrass her like that, but I just thought it would help the rest of the forum and myself to be given a clearer definition of the rules, but oh well. I'm not going to go and make another thread on it to get an answer, so we'll just leave it at that and I'll just go on wondering what the heck the rules really are around here. Reading them doesn't do much help, I'm afraid. Anyways, I'll shut up now.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Honestly, what I want to know is are Amber’s defenders enough of a majority to constitute a consensus in the mainstream media? I do remember that during the trial, there were quite a few defenders with quite a few dubious arguments and they were mainstream enough that Firefox’ little startup menu with news stories recommended an article from the Cut asking “Why Do So Many People Think Amber Heard is lying?” I went down a rabbit hole of anti-Depp editorials with some dubious claims, things like Jezebel denying that reciprocal abuse is a thing; Vox talking about the misinformation campaign led by the Daily Wire to spread false Anti-Heard content, leading people on Twitter treating the whole movement as just another right-wing disinformation campaign (because it’s totally Benny-Boy’s fault Amber Heard got repeatedly caught in lies); at least one article that denied the validity of Heard’s diagnosis of Histrionic Persoanlity Disorder and went as far as drawing a fake etymological relationship between that and medical term with known misogynistic history hysteria (the origin of “histrionic” lies in the Latin word ‘histrio’ meaning “actor”, not the Greek ‘husterikós’ which means “suffering in the womb”); and several articles that basically amounted to tone policing, which is fair enough given how ghoulish the Pro-Depp faction online could get in turning an understandable backlash against Heard into full-on misogyny, but a bit less so when it talked about how people disbelieving Amber Heard could make women feel less safe about talking about their abuse.

Frankly, what I think is happening is less the mainstream media pushing a narrative and more some feminists pushing a narrative, it’s worth noting that things slowed down quite a bit a few days after the verdict, and the talk about the trial had shifted to being very pro-Depp, with some exceptions. I think that those exceptions were more motivated by what I’d call The Noble Lie. In this case, that women don’t lie about this sort of thing or if they do, it’s at an astronomically small rate. Most women don’t lie about it, for sure, but some do. But to them, acknowledging the small percentage that actually do could put the larger movement in jeopardy. I don’t think it should, of course. Even if the rate of false accusers is as high as 10% (I haven’t found stats about rates of false Domestic Abuse accusations, but if they’re like the stats for sexual assault, it’s probably closer to 5%, and as a certain boy genius once said, 95% is still an A), that still means they’re far more likely to be telling the truth than not), but evidently, an all or nothing approach is common enough that some people still ran defense for Amber Heard even after her story kept falling apart. I agree with the majority of feminist thought I read, but supporting the Noble Lie, even when the woman in question’s story is falling apart, is a line I refuse to cross. Why? Because being accused of something heinous when the evidence suggests you didn’t do it really fucking sucks. It sucks if you’re being accused of falsely accusing a man of heinous shit when you’re not, and it sucks if you’re on the other side of the equation and the evidence suggests you’re innocent.



“No one’s interested in something you didn’t do.”

There were two court cases involving Amber Heard and the wife beater.  The one in the UK upheld the rule of law and returned a ruling accordingly.  The one in the US upheld the rulr of misogyny and ruled accordingly.

Is it a usual occurrence for men to become wife beaters... but wait until they're in their 40s to do it? Seems a bit odd that he just bottled it up for 40 years and then took it all out on AH. I don't discount the possibility that AH may have been abused in some way, and I don't even need to point out her testimony. People can actually be abused, and then in their testimony they can add in a bunch of extra fake stuff to try to make it all look even more damning. Maybe Amber did this. It's possible. Blaming the verdict on misogyny though, bro? Amber's team literally submitted fabricated evidence, with one picture looking normal, and then an exact replica of that picture, but with the face super reddened by a photo editing program. I certainly wouldn't want you on any jury if you'd just be willing to set aside and excuse things like that coming from AH's team because you think you're being a virtuous night in shining armour for 'believing women'.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, I responded to you here because this is the thread you responded to me in, falsely claiming that I was never banned for merely stating an opinion, and I just wanted to provide evidence to the contrary. And AWTY said I violated the call out rule or something like that, so you two seem to be in disagreement about what the rules actually are on the forum. You told me I broke no rules recently.

I understand you don't want to air AWTY out publicly for all to see and embarrass her like that, but I just thought it would help the rest of the forum and myself to be given a clearer definition of the rules, but oh well. I'm not going to go and make another thread on it to get an answer, so we'll just leave it at that and I'll just go on wondering what the heck the rules really are around here. Reading them doesn't do much help, I'm afraid. Anyways, I'll shut up now.

Same response.

Boru